is this ethical?

Re: is this ethical?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:07:06 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]Anyway our practice manager has told me[/quote]

Practice manager the problem again.

What does the boss say?

If you weren't insured they would happily accept the "loss" represented by your staff discount. But since you are insured, somebody's seen a way to get a bit more money. Somebody's been reading too many "management" magazines.

I think it's a mean trick, for the reasons Rajat has outlined, but I dunno if it's unethical. Ethics is a meaningless term to dedicated managers.

This is interesting. I have a Petplan claim form in front of me right now . Nowhere on it is any sort of declaration that the fee is the same as it would be for an uninsured client. I wonder if your astute manager has spotted that.

Re: is this ethical?

Rob Loxley — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:59:10 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]Anyway our practice manager has told me that I cannot have staff discount now that I'm claiming on insurance[/quote]

What does your contract or the protocol on staff discounts say?

Re: is this ethical?

Jo Cobbett — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:07:51 GMT

I'm guessing you have a fixed excess with Petplan? If it was a contributory excess the employee is still paying a proportion so the discount will affect them. And depending on the upper limit of your policy and the expense of the treatment required, you would reach the limit quicker and possibly have to pay more, if the treatment was not discounted

Re: is this ethical?

Rajat — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:20:32 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

There is a discount for staff paying their own bills. If someone else is paying I'd say it was understandable not to offer such a discount.

What exactly is the problem?

[/quote]

The problem is that someone else is not paying. The owner is paying the insurance company monthly regardless of illness here. So we have to remember all the money paid by the employee/owner here to the insurance company- this is a significant financial investment.

IMHO the owner(employee) should still be entitled to tghe staff discount - more so than thos ewho haven't insured their pets then expect cheap/free treatment because they work there- a good way to make this fair for people who have their pets insured is to pay their excess. And have a set fixed discount (5-10%??) for those in the practice who for whatever reason do not have their pets insured.

Re: is this ethical?

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:46:22 GMT

Notwithstanding the grey zone over charging different prices for insured or non-insured animals which is hardly your concern and I don't think applies here, I can't see the problem either, the discount is a privilege not a given and the vet is presumably still charging the standard rate for uninsured animals. So if you're getting the fees back from the insurance what is the problem? It is a win-win situation for you and the vet. In this situation I would probably just discount the excess.

Re: is this ethical?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:43:59 GMT

I would say it's unethical , if the discount is for staff members animals-ethical if for staff members Whether it's illegal depends on the exact wording of the insurence form If this says "standard fees " then it's legal If it says "the same fees as would be charged if uninsured" (or words to that effect) it's illegal One of these instances where it depends on the fine print (if the agreement is in writing )

Wynne

Sorry for sitting on the fence

Re: is this ethical?

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:14:29 GMT

There is a discount for staff paying their own bills. If someone else is paying I'd say it was understandable not to offer such a discount.

What exactly is the problem?

Re: is this ethical?

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:06:52 GMT

Having different fees for insured and uninsured patients is illegal, I believe.