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.
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!
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.