Fluffy and Jane

RE: Fluffy and Jane

Jill Butterworth — Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:54:26 GMT

I remember some practices used to run their own 'insurance' schemes like this, but I've not heard of it recently and it wouldn't be possible to cover referral fees. The other similar thing was the old PetAid scheme, where an experienced vet could treat the animals and make a small profit but a 'test happy' new graduate could blow the lot pretty quickly.

RE: Fluffy and Jane

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 13:32:23 GMT

[quote user="vs0u "]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]How do you square this circle?[/quote]

Healthy pet club?

[/quote]

I don't know who 'Disagree' with you but I was thinking exactly on those terms. A fee being paid that cover most things would be a way towards a steady income growth while not denying pets their best options.

But I don't think people in general would be happy paying a larger fee that covers tests, etc not knowing if they'd ever use it. Insurance is part of this of course, but insurance premiums, percentages etc are becoming as difficult as not having any.

RE: Fluffy and Jane

vs0u — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 12:36:56 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]How do you square this circle?[/quote]

Healthy pet club?

RE: Fluffy and Jane

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 12:00:45 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Maybe I should clarify that Jane is an employee.[/quote]Maybe I was being a bit thick or maybe that would have been a good idea to start with! Is she a vet or a nurse? - it makes a world of difference. Nonetheless, your Jane is in effect you - you will all benefit (or not) from the profitability of your practice. May I suggest that if she's not being paid a living wage you (or your joint employer) are /is: a) a tight git, b) Jane should have realised the veterinary profession is poorly paid and found another job. Those of us who became vets/veterinary nurses primarily to care for animals and satisfy our love of science, as opposed to those who saw it as a way to make a fortune, will never be rich.

My Jane is probably more valid in the balance between what we charge and what she can afford.

RE: Fluffy and Jane

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 11:37:52 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

There are two types of Jane: one who has money but doesn't prioritise that on treating her pet and the Jane who can't/has no intention of paying even though she has the latest smart phone and spends her money on scratch cards and fags, and if she could be bothered there is usually a charitable body to help her out. There are some Janes who are genuinely in need and we will go the extra mile to help them but how far do we go without getting a reputation for being a soft touch?

[/quote]

Maybe I should clarify that Jane is an employee.(OP edited)

RE: Fluffy and Jane

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 10:11:09 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]How do you square this circle?[/quote][quote user="Francisco Gomez"]How do you square this circle?[/quote]I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of regulars on this forum have squared that circle. I doubt that many profit only motivated vets come on here or stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap vets (usually the two are mutually compatible) - they're too busy seeing 100 cut price vaccinations and neuterings a day to find the time! Every day is a compromise between treating Fluffy to the highest possible standard at a fee Jane can afford and sometimes we need to rob Peter to pay Paul.

[quote user="Julie Innes"]I couldn't in all honesty turn away a 5 year old dog with a straightforward pyo just because of lack of funds.[/quote]I does depend on the circumstances I've highlighted above. I euthanased a pyo which had been seen a couple of months previously and given a shot of Alizin because of lack of funds but the owner didn't come back for the second injection as instructed. When he came back in the bitch was pouring pus, totally emaciated and not far from dying. He still could not afford the surgery so I euthansed her. The £120 he paid for that and cremation would probably have covered my costs for the surgery and I felt guilty but my nurse assuaged my guilt by pointing out that he stunk of booze and had had plenty of time to save something for surgery but had chosen to spend it on his habit and probably wouldn't pay any more attention to aftercare so the bitch (the Fluffy in this case) was best in doggy heaven. Maybe he was an alcoholic with a genuine psychiatric problem and the dog was his only companion but as nursey pointed out, its not our job to be a social worker.

[quote user="Julie Innes"]In some ways the veterinary business is a great business to have[/quote]Despite the trials and tribulations I would say virtually every way.

RE: Fluffy and Jane

Julie Innes — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 08:55:31 GMT

I do often find it isn't easy trying to find a balance between profitable practice and, for me, ethical practice.

It's easy to say everyone who has a pet should be insured or have plenty money to cover veterinary treatment, but real life is messy. I try to be reasonable- I'm not cheap, but I do try to tailor treatment to the animal and client. I couldn't in all honesty turn away a 5 year old dog with a straightforward pyo just because of lack of funds. I am, in all honesty, not a great businesswoman in terms of big profits, but we are busy, we make enough, and we have a good reputation.

In some ways the veterinary business is a great business to have- payment on treatment, paying for drugs etc the next month, so there should be good cash flow. Many costs are fairly fixed (wages, rent, electricity), so those are predictable, no nasty surprises. There are other ways to make extra- eg waiting room and food sales- if you can be bothered (I can't!), so all in all not a terrible business to be in!

RE: Fluffy and Jane

David Mills — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:02:45 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

There's something inherently counterproductive in the way many of our veterinary business models operate. Or is it any model?

As it is expected in a free market dominated society like ours; very often, class polarises, cash is less evenly distributed and social mobility is reduced.

Our target is to meet prediction, and this could be done in two ways:

We can employ high quality medicine and increase the price of the services we offer to make it only affordable for the few. But we must understand that this opens up a dilemma: our clients (fewer now) need to seek attention would make a very variable income, while a very large percentage (and the biggest bulk is salaries) of our costs are fixed. In other words, Fluffy might never need to see us again other than for 'his jabs', while Jane needs to be paying her mortgage every single month. No exception.

This approach allows better standard of care: As there are fewer patients, we can investigate and invest more time in our clients, who in turn are paying a higher bill to cover those who see us as no longer affordable.

But here's the catch: As stated earlier, fewer patients means higher variation in income because less of them are predicted to be in the need of us at any single time. Thus a very good month this year (which would mean a higher prediction the next) might be a very poor one next time around. Jane is still in debt with the bank, but we are expected to improve, regardless.

Alternatively we can make life easier for ourselves by reducing the variation between days, months and years. In other words, if we had 20 Fluffys, there would be a higher chance that one of them will need us, hence the likelihood of Jane defaulting a month payment and have her property repossessed automatically reduces.

To do this we simply need to have a more affordable pricing so that the number of patients through the door increases. But at the same time, we would need to be processing them faster because space, instruments and manpower are limited tools. This second option therefore expects an increase of empiric choice and second guessing our patients illnesses; and relies less on the sort of advanced and tailored approach that most clinicians would like to employ.

I'm sure most of us would like to serve Fluffy as best of our abilities but Jane can't go homeless either.

How do you square this circle?

[/quote]

It's called conservative capitalism, and it allows you and others to sleep in a warm bed at night and enjoy a good standard of living.

Oh, and it's the most successful movement ever seen in human history.

RE: Fluffy and Jane

Rob Loxley — Tue, 04 Sep 2018 20:36:21 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]This second option therefore expects an increase of empiric choice and second guessing our patients illnesses; and relies less on the sort of advanced and tailored approach that most clinicians would like to employ. [/quote][quote user="Francisco Gomez"]How do you square this circle?[/quote]

Isn't this the compromise we make everyday, tailoring what we can do to the clients (we don't have fixed protocols that we can't deviate from) and the animals as individuals? Sometimes you can do everything, other times you do the best with the client's resources (and desires)

RE: Fluffy and Jane

Beats — Tue, 04 Sep 2018 20:35:08 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]How do you square this circle?[/quote]

Tip 1: Avoid pointless bureaucracy

The higher the percentage of your working time that you spend on chargeable work, the less you need to charge to have the same profit