Not-for-profit vets

Re: Not-for-profit vets

patrick murphy — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:25:14 GMT

did you see the letter in Vet Times querying their coverage of corporates. I guess they must agree editorially that the best model to ensure long term high quality veterinary care is to simply abolish consultation fees. why charge for your knowledge? on another note I did commend my Petplan rep today for helping them out and announcing it.

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:40:51 GMT

[quote user="patrick murphy"] is this hypocritica[/quote]I think hypocritical is a euphemism in this case. I can think of much better words/phrases but they are probably not suitable for posting here!

Re: Not-for-profit vets

patrick murphy — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:00:02 GMT

I went to this thread as what got to me was the abject promotion of this 'system' in what I thought to be a fairly benign, maybe kind to us poor old private guys still out there, but they also publish Veterinary Bus/Economics, which talks about ? business. is this hypocritical?

Re: Not-for-profit vets

patrick murphy — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:59:55 GMT

I went to this thread as what got to me was the abject promotion of this 'system' in what I thought to be a fairly benign, maybe kind to us poor old private guys still out there, but they also publish Veterinary Bus/Ecocomics, which talks about ? business. is this hypocritical?

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Braden Collins — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:23:37 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Braden Collins"]All three of our local opposition clinics don't include pain relief in the price they give people over the phone when people ask for a price on desexing. One even makes people pay extra for heat pads and "superior suture material".[/quote]I don't think this is entirely unreasonable, you may not be fully aware of exactly how the surgery will pan out and whether some additional drugs/materials will be necessary.Inded this is what I do. However, I am competing with a cut price vet who at the last reckoning from evidence from a former employee didn't even pre-med, use IV anaesthetics, intubate, or use monitoring equipment for cat neutering and the patients were left to recover on the floor because he was so busy he didn't have enough recovery cages. How can I compete with that without adding a few extras?

[/quote]

We took a different approach. When we realised that when people rang around we weren't going to give the lowest price we decided to compete on quality. so we made IV fluids standard and really pushed for a high standard on everything. the price went up, but we have had a lot of clients bring their pet to us because of the high standards.

I struggle to see how any vet could do a bitch spay without any analgesia or argue that it's an "optional extra". (I did stupidly point it out on a facebook post once that maybe vets were doing it just to attract clients with a cheap headline price, but that lead to one of our opposition complaining to the Vet Surgeons Board and a slap on the wrist for me)

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Marie Kubiak — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:11:57 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

I don't think this is entirely unreasonable, you may not be fully aware of exactly how the surgery will pan out and whether some additional drugs/materials will be necessary.Inded this is what I do. However, I am competing with a cut price vet who at the last reckoning from evidence from a former employee didn't even pre-med, use IV anaesthetics, intubate, or use monitoring equipment for cat neutering and the patients were left to recover on the floor because he was so busy he didn't have enough recovery cages. How can I compete with that without adding a few extras?

[/quote]

I think a rough estimate that is known by the owner to be fluid is fine for non-routine ops where your time and consumables can alter markedly but honestly how much variation do you get in what you use between cat speys? For anything routine we give the set price and if we use an extra pack of swabs or whatever then so be it but we don't raise the charges. Having said that we don't battle down to the lowest prices and have some profit on non-charity neuters which means small extra costs don't cause a direct loss. If we change plan (generally where we find other problems) then I or a nurse will call the owner to explain the increase usually while the animal is under GA if stable.

Marie

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:59:20 GMT

Wow what did I say that got red star man out of his hole? Maybe the vet I refer to is anonymously on this forum! Hi Daniel.

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Kate Richardson — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:42:57 GMT

I have had a few clients recently who when I have discussed neutering with them, they have admitted they are going to go 'up the road' for it and also for vaccines as well sometimes, but will come to us for any other care. I quite frankly tell them that you get what you pay for. A few have then decided to have their animal speyed by us. Some don't. I don't think clients appreciate that it is quite a serious operation- yes it's routine but its still got significant potential risks especially for an elective procedure. However at the end of the day it is their choice. I guess seeing as we make minimal if any profit from neutering, then if they come back to us for all other treatment then financially it probably makes little difference to the practice. But we endeavour to explain the procedure fully and that sometimes makes them realise that although its 'routine' its not like getting new tyres!

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:28:03 GMT

This thread is very very sad. It beggars belief that veterinary surgeons are prepared to compromise standards and (most importantly) animal welfare, in order to appeal to the worst possible clients.

Wynne

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:18:26 GMT

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Bob Russell — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:17:25 GMT

We had a client come in, full of smugness as she had saved money by using oner of the corporates in town to spay her bitch. Had been quoted something silly (around £80 from memory). The op actually cost double this and was more expensive than our price!

Of course every practice has to adjust their pricing structure in response to competition. What counts is how much owners are being mislead.

The corporate high street opticians are just as clever/misleading. The recent WHICH? report put them all below the independents for price, service and value for money.

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Braden Collins — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 00:20:25 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]

[quote user="Andrew Henfrey"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]they are charging higher fees for non-headline procedures to compensate for low up-front fees[/quote]

Just like some corporates!

[/quote]

Are you saying that non-corporates don't reduce the price of their ring around procedures in order to compete?

[/quote]

All three of our local opposition clinics don't include pain relief in the price they give people over the phone when people ask for a price on desexing. One even makes people pay extra for heat pads and "superior suture material". Gets me pretty wound up as they always give lower prices over the phone than we do but charge more once everything is included. It often backfires as it gets clients pretty upset when they get a price then are told they need to pay extra to avoid their pet being in pain.

It's definitely not just the corporates that can misbehave with prices.

Re: Not-for-profit vets

rjhvet — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:24:33 GMT

We don't, loss leaders may be appropriate in supermarkets but IMHO not in medical professions.

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Andrew Henfrey — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:18:00 GMT

More saying that some corporates seem to create bigger headlines with major loss-leaders, especially when opening new branches.

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Alex Gough — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 17:10:10 GMT

[quote user="Andrew Henfrey"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]they are charging higher fees for non-headline procedures to compensate for low up-front fees[/quote]

Just like some corporates!

[/quote]

Are you saying that non-corporates don't reduce the price of their ring around procedures in order to compete?

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Martin Atkinson — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:11:19 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]Has anyone got a picture for 'can of worms'[/quote] Missed this first time but here you are:

But this may be more appropriate!

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Martin Atkinson — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:04:48 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Are they still associated with the wonderfully named Owen Monie?[/quote]Indeed they are!

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Niall Taylor — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 21:52:23 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]Ah, I see; there's nothing under the sun that hasn't already been covered on vet surgeon.org! You can tell I'm new to it can't you?[/quote]

No worries, I've been wondering how this shower were getting on for a while - thanks for re-opening the subject.

Are they still associated with the wonderfully named Owen Monie?

This operation is the epitome of cynicism IMHO.

Niall

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Andrew Henfrey — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:09:19 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]they are charging higher fees for non-headline procedures to compensate for low up-front fees[/quote]

Just like some corporates!

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:37:27 GMT

Correction very very large private income - or an illegal printing press in the garden shed !

Wynne

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:34:16 GMT

Absolutely. What really pisses me off is not so much someone trying to bullshit gullible clients into thinking they're doing this for some philanthropic ideal, that's bad enough, but if you've thought of cunning business plan to make shed loads of money surreptitiously then don't try and bullshit the veterinary profession with a pathetic article in a veterinary journal. No doubt they are smirking to themselves all the way to the bank and thinking our reaction is sour grapes because we didn't think of it first. I don't mind someone running a successful business I may even be slightly jealous if they did it openly, I object to them taking us as fools.

It is obvious even to a blind man there are only 3 ways this model can survive: the owner has a large private income and is genuinely philanthropic; they are charging higher fees for non-headline procedures to compensate for low up-front fees; they are building up an empire at a loss which they then intend to sell on at a huge profit. Perhaps they may be honest and tell us which it is or more likely porcine aviation may commence.

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Bob Russell — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:51:37 GMT

[quote user="Chris Allen"]

Is it just me or with the name do you also think of the animal health trust? I originally thought it was AHT when I first read about it!

[/quote]

All dealt with in the original thread! .org addresses are usually associated in peoples minds with non-businesses, charities and official bodies. The name was also clearly chosen to give the required image.

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Chris Allen — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:53:40 GMT

Is it just me or with the name do you also think of the animal health trust? I originally thought it was AHT when I first read about it!

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:36:49 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]Unfortunately their fees for the required procedures were comparable to ours.........so no benefit to referral. [/quote] I am already aware of this from other sources, as if its not bleedin' obvious!!! This is what we need them to admit to rather than pretending they are entirely philanthropic. Anyone else fancy writing to VT as well?

Re: Not-for-profit vets

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:44:20 GMT

hahaha - just read the article. Now that the red mist has disappeared.....

We are certainly one of the practices who have looked into sending cases to them when owners cannot afford surgery etc with us.. - we always strive to do the best by the owners no matter what my personal feelings are. I also suspect they are nice lads who do a good job with their patients, albeit that I dislike the way they do business.

Unfortunately their fees for the required procedures were comparable to ours.........so no benefit to referral.