View all veterinary jobs
The documents, provided to VetSurgeon by a whistleblower from within IVC, reveal the company's plans to stop issuing prescriptions and replace them with a new Pre-Scription service.
IVC Pre-Scriptions will include:
VetSurgeon understands that Pre-Scriptions will be charged at £85.68
The whistleblower also shared a draft public price list which the company is said to be preparing in anticipation of the CMA’s proposed requirement for practices to publish pricing information online.
The leaked price list includes entries for first consultations, repeat consultations, out-of-hours consultations, nurse consultations, nail clipping, anal gland expression, microchipping, animal health certificates, primary and booster vaccinations, kennel cough vaccination, pet care plans, prescription and dispensing fees, dental work, neutering procedures, physiotherapy, laser therapy, diagnostic imaging, blood tests, euthanasia and cremation.
At first glance, many of the prices shown in the draft appear surprisingly low.
Among the figures listed are:
First consultation: £5
Repeat consultation: £4
Nurse consultation: £3
Nail clipping: £1
Anal gland expression: £2
Microchipping: £2
Booster vaccination: £2
MRI scan (per body part): £7
CT scan (per body part): £6
VetSurgeon contacted Intrepid Veterinary Care for comment.
Company spokesperson Dr Flora Olip MRCVS said the group was “committed to embracing the spirit of transparency while continuing to innovate in client experience”.
She said: “The proposed CMA remedies create an important opportunity for veterinary businesses to present pricing clearly and consistently. We believe pet owners deserve not only transparent pricing, but also choice.
“The Pre-Scription offer is not a prescription fee.
"It is a wider premium service built around documentation, presentation and client convenience, within which a prescription may be provided.”
The leaked document also included indicative pricing for procedures not listed on the CMA-mandated price list, including TPLO surgery, which is listed at 'fixed cost price' of £4,475,000.26.
The worrying aspect; if it were to be true it would not be a total surprise.
I was taken in initially, very good Arlo.
I am getting old. I was completely taken in. And yes, I do have a copy of "The Diseases of Brunus Edwardii ”. If I could only remember where I put it.
Anyway, don't worry. I won't be reading anymore of your work now that I know it's ill informed. Emma Creasey Ouch. Charming. I do not have to have euthanised a dog on cost grounds to know that it happens or to empathise with vets that have to do it. I doubt many of the journalists in any of the veterinary media have direct personal experience of that. I suspect you are paid by a corporate firm which is why you trying to defend them. Enough of the ad hominem if you don't mind! For the record, I am not paid and nor do I receive money from a corporate veterinary group. Drug companies and veterinary suppliers advertise with us, so yes, we do receive money from them.
Unless you have worked as a front line vet for at least 6 months, dealt with distressed pet owners, had to euthanise pets because their owners could not afford the treatment then you cannot fully understand the pressures of the job. I'm saying this because when I was a student I thought I knew what was coming but it wasn't until I was 6 months into working as a full time vet that I fully appreciated all the pressures. This explains why your articles are rather superficial - you don't have the personal experience.
Many journalists write inaccurate info and often sensationalise things, so I don't think that's a good argument.
I agree the regulator has sat back and allowed many of these things to happen. But no one can deny the corporate groups have led the way on these changes. The rapid price rises coincide with the corporate take over of the profession.
You have ignored my points about the CMA report for a second time. I take this to mean you don't have an answer, because there isn't one! The corporates cannot give a good reason for price rises because they just want to line their pockets! If it was due to increased quality of care, as you suggest, then the profits would not be as large as they are.
In my experience, the quality of care is going down while prices rise. It's happening in many professions/ industries unfortunately. If you had worked as a vet you would have some experience of this. Your articles reveal that you have a comfortable job, far from the front lines. I suspect you are paid by a corporate firm which is why you trying to defend them.
Anyway, don't worry. I won't be reading anymore of your work now that I know it's ill informed.
Emma Creasey Oh honestly ... I am not a vet so how can I write articles about it? Would you argue that any BBC journalist writing about Hezbollah needs to have spent some time working as a terrorist? Surely not. I have been working on the periphery of the profession most of my working life and publishing these sites for over 20 years, so for a layman I probably have a more informed opinion than most!No I didnt say that prices have not gone up as much as corporates, just that they were found to be 15% more. Yes, I agree with you, a corporate increasing prices in an area may indeed cause others to follow suit. This is not about the public blaming vets for care they cannot afford. It's about corporate groups encouraging overtreatment of pets and using this as an excuse to drive up prices....to which you could add to the end of your sentence, ... leading the public to blame vets for care they cannot afford. So the difference between us is that I don't think it is specifically about corporate groups encouraging overtreatment. I think the regulator encourages over treatment, the universities encourage over treatment, the public encourages over treatment, insurance encourages over treatment, our increasingly risk-averse society encourages over treatment. I suspect we may agree about more than we disagree!
That explains a lot. You are not a vet, so you don't understand the pressure the corporates are putting on vets to make money for their shareholders. Why are you writing articles about a profession when you haven't even worked in it?! May I suggest you refrain from making jokes about topics which some vets and pet owners find rather painful.
Yes prices at independents have gone up, but as you say not as much as corporates. No doubt some of them have been encouraged as they see the corporates getting away with it. I never said it was only happening in corporates, but they own 60% of vet clinics in the UK so they will set the standard.
Vets are trying to be too clever now. We don't need a lot of the fancy equipment and tests. Most clients I dealt with did not want their pet to go through extensive tests. BUT the corporate managers were encouraging the vets to offer these services, even if the pet did not need it. This is my point about overtreatment. This is why tighter regulations are needed.
This is not about the public blaming vets for care they cannot afford. It's about corporate groups encouraging overtreatment of pets and using this as an excuse to drive up prices.
You ignored my points on your other article about the corporate groups failing to provide justified reasons to the CMA for the price rises. The CMA has seen internal documents showing that the corporates increase prices just because they think the public won't complain. It has nothing to do with increasing quality of care. They are exploiting pet owners. And it needs to stop.
I find it depressing that this has been allowed to happen in the vet profession. I know James Herriot is sometimes criticised for being outdated but at least he seemed to genuinely care about the animals and certainly wouldn't encourage overtreatment. I think vets these days should take a leaf out of his book. The profession is an embarrassment now.
Hi again Emma Creasey Ironically, the reason why I think the CMA is doing something wrong is because it is adding extra cost which will be felt most by small indies and pet owners, and I don't believe that a price comparison site will make a blind bit of difference. You say that the corporates have eroded public trust due to rapidly increasing prices, as though prices at the indies haven't gone up too. I think by as much as anyone else, although to be fair, I think the CMA found prices at corps were 15%-odd higher than at indies.You've also ignored my point about how the rising cost of veterinary care is influenced by so many other factors which affect corporates and indies alike. I was at a meeting last week where a vet stood up and asked how the job be made more satisfying if vets cannot practice the highest standards any longer. Another related how vet students at university all wanted to be Specialists so that they could practice the highest standards. Do you see the problem here? Most pet owners cant afford the highest standards, or even the insurance these days. Or they think it's crazy to spend thousands and thousands on a dog. In short, the public is blaming vets for offering a level of care they cannot afford, and the solution is for 'good enough' to be the new 'excellent'. Seriously. PS I am not a vet myself, so my ride was vastly different to anyone else's.