<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.vetsurgeon.org/utility/feedstylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Joint venture partners seek transparency on costs</title><link>https://www.vetsurgeon.org/f/non-clinical-questions/28410/joint-venture-partners-seek-transparency-on-costs</link><description> Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but there was an interesting article in Vet Times: 
 www.vettimes.co.uk/.../joint-venture-partners-in-1m-medivet-fee-challenge 
 An acquaintance says costs at their branch increased 25% from the previous</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Community 10</generator><item><title>RE: Joint venture partners seek transparency on costs</title><link>https://www.vetsurgeon.org/thread/214095?ContentTypeID=1</link><pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2019 10:35:11 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">146601cc-3922-4be7-9974-7e1d4e45a66b:8c05eec1-c012-40d7-b12a-06dc4c23f118</guid><dc:creator>Bob Russell</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I would have suspected there would have to be a loophole in the contract to allow any unexpected fees. Strange that the reply from the company was on the lines of how much they had invested in practices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Good for the joint venture partners that they are challenging the change.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At the same time the Veterinary Record has a warning for independent vets slagging off corporate employed vets. I have to say I have seen very little of this and none here. Plenty of slagging off the corporates perhaps but they should be well equipped to cope with that!!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>