Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 21 Dec 2022 09:44:44 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240292#240292"][unsure under Arlo Guthrie zero tolerance views if I'm allowed to say this, but not directed at a single person, so I think I'm ok][/quote]

Yes, you’re fine! I’m not policing people’s opinions, or how you refer to a group of people. Zero tolerance is for manners towards individuals using this site.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:50:32 GMT

[quote userid="16672" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240296#240296"]To throw a slightly off-topic spanner in the works, what are your thoughts on vets having a legal right to rest periods following on-call, much like lorry drivers, in order to improve the working conditions for in-house on-call?[/quote]

Yes and no. If actually in work and seeing animals then I have no problem with the idea, if sleeping soundly in bed with no calls, then no. Having children (my choice) is vastly more disruptive to my sleep than OOH work and as an employer that's not my concern. If one of our assistants had literally been up all night working, then I would happily send them home. I worked Friday night on call as the vet on the rota was feeling unwell. Having done a single call in the night, I don't think justifies extra time off, or seen a couple of animals early evening after closing. Isn't the point of uni to learn that you can be in a nightclub with sticky floors at 3am and in a lecture at 9am?!

[quote userid="16672" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240296#240296"]When you're swimming in £50k of student debt[/quote]

Is not real debt, though. You only pay back when you earn money.

[quote userid="16672" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240296#240296"]Sadly many of the "snowflake" new graduates, as you call them, are entering a workforce where many employers (not yourself, judging by your recent and previous posts) are looking to capitalise on their naivite to fill their pockets whilst leaving them feeling helpless/unsupported doing sole charge and/or OoH[/quote]

No real element of capitalisation (I have figure to back that up!), but the fact you are by yourself makes you better. Yes there has to be back up, but you also have to grow some balls and push yourself and get better. I have junior doctor friends where they are months qualified OOH and looking after multiple wards of sick patients and shit scared of ringing their seniors. Not just a vet issue. Always happy going in to help if stuck or needing interventions you can't do - but not there to pat backs or hold hands.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Martin Hamilton — Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:32:12 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240295#240295"]

The oath we all took (as MRCVS) that ABOVE ALL, my constant endeavour will be to ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to my care, isn't best served when charging exorbitant sums of money for veterinary care to the sick and needy. Discussions over PTS versus doing a bitch caeser where people are ringing relatives to borrow money or taking emergency loans upset me. I'd rather do the caeser out of my own pocket than put the bitch to sleep, even if I have to wait until puppies are sold for payment. I didn't become a vet to be rich. A ceaser isn't a 4 figure operation. My practice makes money, I pay staff and tax and have a decent standard of living.

Honestly if I was sufficiently wealthy I could do the job for fun, I would. Maybe only 3 days and 1 night a week though......

[/quote]

It sounds like your issues are with the businesses themselves and not the vet assistants as the latter aren't the ones setting the fees. I believe you are in a fortunate position, due to you and your wife's hard work, to be able to make those choices, such as charging whatever you deem reasonable for a caesar. On the flip side, perhaps someone down the street still think you charge an exorbitant fee of say £700, while they're willing to do it for £350, and that you're not abiding by that oath. It's a very grey area.

Sadly many of the "snowflake" new graduates, as you call them, are entering a workforce where many employers (not yourself, judging by your recent and previous posts) are looking to capitalise on their naivite to fill their pockets whilst leaving them feeling helpless/unsupported doing sole charge and/or OoH, and with low overall job satisfaction. When you're swimming in £50k of student debt, usually single and renting somewhere that is not building you any equity, and with the cost of living crisis, I cannot blame new graduates for opting out of OoH to retain some sanity, especially if they are being paid better in jobs with no OoH vs those where it is required.

There are great practices out there that operate honorably (many members of this forum seem to own some of them) and operate their OoH fairly and equitably, however there are private and corporate practices out there who couldn't care less out their staff nor the pets under their care.

To throw a slightly off-topic spanner in the works, what are your thoughts on vets having a legal right to rest periods following on-call, much like lorry drivers, in order to improve the working conditions for in-house on-call?

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:02:42 GMT

[quote userid="16672" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240293#240293"]I graduated had a few more vets (6FTE), only 4 of which (newer grads, surprisingly, and not the partners) were on the OOH on call/weekends rota.[/quote]

My wife and I own the practice. Until we had children we each did our full share of OOH, now we have kids she is part time and I am fully on the rota as myself and 2nd on call to junior vets. I work somewhere between 50-75% of nights either 1st or 2nd on call for 16 years now (this will be my 17th Christmas day on duty), I'm speaking from a place of doing the work. I think partners should do as much or more, not less. Happy assistants putting off anything that sounds like it can reasonably wait, but will offer to see most things.

[quote userid="16672" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240293#240293"]I find it surprising that as someone who seems very "conservative minded/right leaning/pro-Brexit" that you seem to be against "the market" determining the price of out of hours services etc, which is a pillar upon which Thatcherite conservatism and economics is built upon?[/quote]

The 'problem' is this OOH system with Vets Now and others that has been a product of its own creation. If they didn't exist then I suspect we would be doing our own OOH or sharing with a neighbour or two like we did forever. They came along and erroneously claimed some kind of emergency specialism and people signed up in droves to have their nights and weekends back. I don't entirely blame them, but without other routine income the business is very expensive at the point of use and I don't think that is ok.

Honestly if I was sufficiently wealthy I could do the job for fun, I would. Maybe only 3 days and 1 night a week though......

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 21 Dec 2022 01:02:22 GMT

[quote userid="16672" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240293#240293"](newer grads, surprisingly, and not the partners) were on the OOH on call/weekends rota[/quote]

There's one of the problems

[quote userid="16672" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240293#240293"] the mundane ear infections that clients blew out of proportion and the partners expected us to see[/quote]

There's another of the problems. Not that the owners phone but that the partners expected you to see them.

[quote userid="16672" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240293#240293"]And then another full day 8am - 7pm the next day, [/quote]

And there's another of the problems. 8-7 is too long a working day anyway, and nobody should be expected to do a full such day after such a night.

De we see a pattern developing here? And could we pinpoint the cause?

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Martin Hamilton — Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:38:38 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240292#240292"] Can go many nights and even a full weekend without a single call (4.5 vet FTE)[/quote]

For your practice, perhaps Michael, but the more urban practice I was at when I graduated had a few more vets (6FTE), only 4 of which (newer grads, surprisingly, and not the partners) were on the OOH on call/weekends rota. It was incredibly busy - working 8am - 7pm, then a night "on call" which was essentially staying most of the night at the practice because we had 5+ calls/night ranging from pyos, haemo-abs, fractures, dog bites, to the mundane ear infections that clients blew out of proportion and the partners expected us to see. And then another full day 8am - 7pm the next day, running on fumes (caffeine) after 3-5 hours of broken sleep. It was not an environment condusive to the wellbeing of the vets nor the animals we were treating, and it truly marred my opinion of jobs in which I'd be required to perform OoH.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240292#240292"]Should it, according to whom?[/quote]

I find it surprising that as someone who seems very "conservative minded/right leaning/pro-Brexit" that you seem to be against "the market" determining the price of out of hours services etc, which is a pillar upon which Thatcherite conservatism and economics is built upon?

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:42:11 GMT

[quote userid="9179" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240289#240289"]so should be at a significant premium[/quote]

Should it, according to whom?

I suspect if you asked 100 pet owners if they would rather go to their usual practice, see the usual team and pay significantly less money virtually 100% of them would say yes - versus a dedicated OOH service at, in your words, a significant premium.

Is working sole OOH desirable for many vets - no. Therefore a large premium has to be paid to the staff and to run the business

Is covering your own OOH especially onerous - also no. Can go many nights and even a full weekend without a single call (4.5 vet FTE).

Are vets deskilling as not doing OOH and not developing as quickly - I believe yes.

Has the horse already bolted and there is no going back - clearly.

The current system is crap, for the vets working it, for the animals and the owners. Increased travel, vastly more expensive (how many animals that should be seen, aren't?). I'm sure it's great for the grads in the last 10 years working 4 day weeks and having never done a night on call, but that's not what I signed up for. I think it's pathetic, and I even want to bring out the (festive) term snowflake. If we all do our little bit it's ultimately for the best.

[unsure under Arlo Guthrie zero tolerance views if I'm allowed to say this, but not directed at a single person, so I think I'm ok]

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Chris Milligan — Mon, 19 Dec 2022 20:25:14 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240284#240284"]I saw a bill from a popular OOH provider that did a few sutures in a dog and charged 5X what I would have, and it included a specific fee for the capnograph and a fee for surgical gloves more than 10x retail cost for a premium brand[/quote]

ok, but a 24hour OOH service requires 2.5-3x the number of staff and about 2x the utility costs of a general practice to keep its doors open and lights on, the work is done overnight usually so should be at a significant premium, not to mention finding staff to work such shifts requires often substantial incentives and rewards. People should expect to pay a lot more for dedicated overnight services. There's a world of difference economically between a facility dedicated to 24 hour or overnight emergency and critical care versus the traditional British veterinary practice seeing their own cases back ad hoc out of hours. I know some OOH providers in the UK work out of existing clinics, but the staffing issues remain the same.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Michael Woodhouse — Sun, 18 Dec 2022 01:02:30 GMT

[quote userid="6765" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240283#240283"]does anyone seriously offer higher cost ones [/quote]

Certainly when I was a vet student 15-20 years ago (ugh) I saw a number of times vets charging extra for this new fangled propofol that was much safer than the standard thio - with an uplift in fee

[quote userid="6765" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240283#240283"]and even more for switching on a capnograph![/quote]

I saw a bill from a popular OOH provider that did a few sutures in a dog and charged 5X what I would have, and it included a specific fee for the capnograph and a fee for surgical gloves more than 10x retail cost for a premium brand........

[quote userid="2122" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240282#240282"]therefore pre-op profiles were offered prior to GA or admittance to “give the client some peace of mind” on the basis that a completely normal result is the very best to hear about. [/quote]

And vets were frauds for offering such reassurance from the test. The evidence to support that is old now. I'm also relatively unconvinced that creating an animals centric baseline has any evidence - many of these machines are operated with very infrequent QC and are at best ballpark number generators (and whilst that may be enough clinically it doesn't justify the recommendation of pre-anaesthetic bloods in healthy animals).

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Alistair Graham-Evans — Sun, 18 Dec 2022 00:40:57 GMT

[quote userid="12930" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240281#240281"]e I currently charge for my rough and ready non-pre-GA-blooded anesthetics.[/quote]

We rarely do pre-op blood work on young healthy animals and pre op bloodwork on older or sick ones is more to do with diagnosis and picking up impending problems than anaesthetic safety.

I disagree with different classes of anaesthetic - does anyone seriously offer higher cost ones for actually monitoring the animal and even more for switching on a capnograph! I think most clients would assume the anaesthetic is as safe as possible. And don’t get me started on options for analgesia! ( You can pay for pain relief or we’ll just play loud music outside our budget tented premises to drown out the screaming)

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

George Cooper — Sun, 18 Dec 2022 00:05:53 GMT

Vid a vid pre op bloods. Mention that a much loved pet requires a GA the first, perhaps irrational though a client has is that the pet will die, often due to hearing stories of others.

therefore pre-op profiles were offered prior to GA or admittance to “give the client some peace of mind” on the basis that a completely normal result is the very best to hear about.

we used to do this years ago and found that a good proportion of clients took us up on them. They were done at a reduced price - and were also marked for the owner as a baseline in a younger dog/cat should it require nloods when older.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Beats — Sat, 17 Dec 2022 22:49:20 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240274#240274"]skeptvet.com/.../[/quote]

Make sure you read the comments to the end :-)

Here's another classic from the archives that I'm sure has been discussed here before too, but can't be recycled often enough:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5258720_Is_good_medicine_defined_by_profit_structure

Can't find a freely accessible link, but perhaps the author would let Arlo use it for a discussion thread if he asked nicely?

On the recent topics discussed in our thread here, I would add my own comment as follows:

I would draw a clear distinction between profiteering and excessive testing (both subjective, of course, but distinct in my mind).

I rarely do pre-GA bloods, but I do note that the more anti-pre-GA bloods a vet is, then the more pro-pre-GA physical exam they tend to be; I don't find this logical as I consider a physical exam in an outwardly healthy appearing patient to also have a low beneficial yield regarding GA safety.

I don't consider pre-GA bloods to be profiteering however. If folks can and will pay £35 more for an anesthetic, and I want to make £35 more per anesthetic, then I put up the price by £35. If I want to continue to offer cheaper anesthetics for those who can't afford more, while charging more to those like Arlo who can afford to do so, then I may choose to offer an optional extra. This optional extra could be pre-GA bloods (the origin of the trend?), but that costs me something - far more efficient, if profiteering (/doing a Robin Hood), to make this something that costs me nothing and I won't miss not having on my other GA's, say "pulse oximetry" or "canine pre-GA mindfullness" or "GA-platinum-checklisting" or "enhanced GA monitoring" [translated a GA chart is completed by the nurse, or completed at shorter time intervals than would normally be done].

A lab company rep has tried to tell me before that I would make more money if I bought their analyser and ran more pre-GA bloods. No. I would spend more money that way. I would make more money if I put up the price I currently charge for my rough and ready non-pre-GA-blooded anesthetics.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Alasdair Hotston Moore — Sat, 17 Dec 2022 21:29:35 GMT

I think somewhere we’re we can easily go wrong is by not understanding the value of a test we offer. We can measure value as the ratio of the financial cost to the clinical benefit. Cost is easy, clinical return is not because for so many things we do (therapeutics or diagnostics) it has not been measured (or it has but we do not know the result of that measurement).

one example is the value of pre anaesthetic blood tests in clinically normal (on the basis of physical examination and history) animals. These tests are often recommended to owners, even though studies have shown the clinical is small. Why are these tests offered to owners? I do not think it is to increase profit, although it certainly increases cost to owners. Either clinicians do not know that studies showing that a clinical benefit exist, or they do but nonetheless run the tests (presumebly as part of f defensive medicine, or because of the power of anecdote)

a different example is thoracic X-rays to screen for mets in known or suspected neoplasia of different types. Fo example, we recommend these at tehe time of mastectomy but can we quantify the clinical benefit? How many patients with malignant mammary masses have detectable mets? Does detecting them alter the prognosis (MST with or without mastectomy).
these are key questions but we generally can’t answer them. In human healthcare in the uk, clinicians are provided with guidelines from NICE that look exactly at these issues: what tests to run when to get the best ‘bang for the buck’. Sadly, in vet care we don’t have this. And during teaching and learning, neither side places any importance on it

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 16 Dec 2022 12:24:44 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240271#240271"]Can you point to them? Or one of them? [/quote]

skeptvet.com/.../

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 16 Dec 2022 11:29:14 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240261#240261"]In numerous studies pre-op bloods for routine surgery have shown to have no effect on anaesthetic or patient management. They may alter prognosis but the question begs why they are required pre-op rather than due to any clinical indication for them otherwise.[/quote]

This is exactly the point Alasdair Hotston Moore was making to me the other day, except he was talking about the paucity of evidence for a lot of diagnostics, and here you are talking about an area where studies have been done. Can you point to them? Or one of them?

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240261#240261"]Injection fees. Around £30 per injection. Pure profiteering (syringe - 5-20p, medicine 0.05p - £1/ml, time to draw up and give <£1)[/quote]

Interesting one. Can these things be looked at in isolation (except the point above)? Isn't an injection fee a bit like the mark up on flea treatments, which practices used to rely so heavily on until online retailers came along? In other words, does it not come back to not charging enough for your skills and experience, and deflecting the costs onto something else, and in the overall scheme of things its the overall price that matters more than how you split the bill?

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240261#240261"]Things cost more due to an active deskilling of 1st opinion practice via fear, defensive medicine, higher education, propagation of gold standard. One illuminating paper is by Meeson et al on pelvic fractures in cats. No significant difference between conservative vs surgical. We are fast funnelling everything to the £4k level.[/quote]

Yeah, really what I've been banging on about all of this thread, and I have this feeling that quite a few people seem to think that I am wrong and this problem doesn't exist, or that it doesn't affect them (I would argue that if the problem exists, then it affects everyone in the profession), or that they'd rather not acknowledge it.

The problem is that all of this:

... is being translated into: "Vets are out to get as much money as they can" by journalists who simply don't have the time (or inclination) to understand the issues.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Bob Russell — Fri, 16 Dec 2022 10:14:43 GMT

Sorry! Since when has a mammary strip returned to being gold standard?

Davina Anderson did a cpd talk a few years ago, presenting the most up to date data that clearly indicates lumpectomies are every bit as effective and generally far less traumatic!

Correct me if i am wrong!!

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Neil Wheadon — Fri, 16 Dec 2022 08:34:03 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240261#240261"]yes the art of true first opinion pragmatic medicine and surgery is fast declining and will be lost (except probably in charities or low cost clinics) in the next 10-15 years as the do-it-all-have-a-go generation slowly retire or slip away.[/quote]

I feel quite old now

I was talking about this with an experienced vet the other day, neither of us could come up with an answer to how to halt this. What I am seeing is animals being refered after a single CHEM17 blood sample and haematology failing to reveal an answer or a corneal ulcer that doesn't heal with a week.

I practice pragmatic veterinary medicine and it works for me and I get a great deal of satisfaction from it. What I do though is select the cases especially in older dogs where you can make a difference rather than putting them through something where really no-one wins. I also see cases where things haven't been done because it may not be the right thing to do. A good example is a 14 year old bitch next week which has a large mammary mass, well pedunculated that will ulcerate. It hasn't been removed because there is a small mass in another gland, so a strip is the 'gold standard'. I'm operating next week (has had bloods David , but I reserve this for specific cases)

I work regularily with two wonderful graduates of 9 years who have a similar approach, so hopefully there will be a few vets about in 30 years to carry the torch

Neil

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Alistair Graham-Evans — Fri, 16 Dec 2022 07:36:46 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240261#240261"] yes vet employers profiteer;[/quote]

Not all !

Please don’t lump everyone in the same basket.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

David Mills — Thu, 15 Dec 2022 23:37:12 GMT

Profiteering does occur; it is the nature of private sector work. Of course much of this is passive, where the vast majority of vets can only or just follow the pricing as set by the employer. I've read this thread since its inception and there are numerous examples of deflection and buck-passing.

There is a difference between making profit and profiteering, and the lines between the two are naturally blurred. Making a profit is a necessity to continue to provide a service, profiteering is the exploitation of something to make a profit beyond the item/service 'worth'. Employers of vets do profiteer.

Some observations:

In numerous studies pre-op bloods for routine surgery have shown to have no effect on anaesthetic or patient management. They may alter prognosis but the question begs why they are required pre-op rather than due to any clinical indication for them otherwise.
Injection fees. Around £30 per injection. Pure profiteering (syringe - 5-20p, medicine 0.05p - £1/ml, time to draw up and give <£1).
Referral fees generally now around £4k for surgery, upto £8k for more complex. Similar for MRI, CT, there appears to be a near monopolisation on cost and little to differentiate any centre from another.
Things cost more due to an active deskilling of 1st opinion practice via fear, defensive medicine, higher education, propagation of gold standard. One illuminating paper is by Meeson et al on pelvic fractures in cats. No significant difference between conservative vs surgical. We are fast funnelling everything to the £4k level.

Yes, vets and their employers are responsible for this perception. Vet bills are like garage bills in that they can be unexpected, unwelcome, and high. But that isn't to say they should be excessively so. They should be good value, regardless of their amount, and this should be demonstrated. However I look around at the stuff we receive and more often than not I shake my head sadly at what a) people are doing or considering 'necessary'; b) the cost of these.

So in answer to the original yes vet employers profiteer; yes a lot overcharge compared to the true cost of care; yes the art of true first opinion pragmatic medicine and surgery is fast declining and will be lost (except probably in charities or low cost clinics) in the next 10-15 years as the do-it-all-have-a-go generation slowly retire or slip away.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Thu, 15 Dec 2022 23:34:01 GMT

Well Arlo it’s a bit like saying cars are extortionately expensive , is that a Lamborghini or a Ford Fiesta ?

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 15 Dec 2022 17:33:41 GMT

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240254#240254"]Well, no, not really. Considering how many pets and consults/surgeries are done in the UK every day those few articles are insignificant.[/quote]

Dinu Catilina OK, so if you say they are not indicative of anything, do you know of any figures which show how the cost of veterinary care has changed (if it has), relative to average earnings?

I mean, you surely cant just dismiss something without having some evidence to the contrary? ie that the cost of veterinary care have remained in line with inflation / earnings.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Dinu Catilina — Thu, 15 Dec 2022 17:28:07 GMT

Well, no, not really. Considering how many pets and consults/surgeries are done in the UK every day those few articles are insignificant. I'm afraid they might receive just a tad more importance than they actually have.

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 15 Dec 2022 17:13:36 GMT

[quote userid="8958" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240250#240250"]

Vet 'We could amputate the leg, but I wouldn't recommend that'

Client 'That sounds marvelous, can you arrange that?

[/quote]

'That sounds marvelous' are perhaps not quite the words I would expect to follow 'we could chop off a leg' - but I take your point.

The thing is that, of course, it all comes down to communication. How the vet says it. What the client actually hears. What the client decides to hear to fit their agenda.

[quote userid="8958" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240250#240250"] That's the difference between being the other side of that consult table and arm chair journalism[/quote]

Sure, but don't you think the frequency with which pretty eye-watering bills are being reported deserves to be debated?

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Silvia Maldonado — Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:20:41 GMT

Sensationalist news are searched for and published because they sell newspapers, because people wants to read them. The latest, sadly, www.sunherald.com/.../article269991917.html

RE: Daily Mail accuses vets of profiteering

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 15 Dec 2022 14:01:19 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30501/daily-mail-accuses-vets-of-profiteering/240235#240235"]If you agree that the big bills still tarnish the wider profession, then I guess it comes down to which has the bigger impact on the profession, the media scare stories (although I am not sure I would call them that, because it suggests something hyped for dramatic effect, when by all accounts, an £8K bill is not that rare), or the beneficial effect of appearing good value when clients get a bill lower than £8K![/quote]

Vet 'I'm afraid your 13 year old rottweiler has a tumour'

Client 'He belonged to my husband who passed away last year, can't you do something?'

Vet 'We could amputate the leg, but I wouldn't recommend that'

Client 'That sounds marvelous, can you arrange that?'

Vet 'Are you sure? the evidence suggests that they may not do well after this is done'

Client' He's insured/I have pots of cash, I insist'

So there you go. At the end of the day, vets get into more trouble for not offering what could be done, but should still offer advise in light of experience.

However in a small number of cases, clients will insist, and in a small percentage of cases won't have the finances in place, or more likely have not grasped the finances verse expectation equation.

That's the difference between being the other side of that consult table and arm chair journalism

Neil