If one has been asked to provide further submission to CMA from the position of small and independent practice. What bullet points might be concentrated upon?

RE: If one has been asked to provide further submission to CMA from the position of small and independent practice. What bullet points might be concentrated upon?

Beats — Thu, 07 Dec 2023 11:09:21 GMT

agreed, but I would be very happy that a return to a free market, where such products compete on merit, would be the best means of achieving this - I would have thought the CMA would agree on principle? various kaolin etc pastes have achieved excellent market penetration, without even needing a protected marketplace, in spite of a tub of kaolin being pennies so I have no doubt that me-too copycat vet-licensed human meds would continue to flourish, just not to the total exclusion of more affordable options (which already exist, and will continue to exist at cheaper prices, but vets feel unable to prescribe) for those vets who wish to have the ability to prescribe them to those on tighter budgets (I would even happily accept a horribly worded, needlessly bureaucratic and off-putting consent form for this if it got it over the line).

RE: If one has been asked to provide further submission to CMA from the position of small and independent practice. What bullet points might be concentrated upon?

Rob Loxley — Thu, 07 Dec 2023 08:03:22 GMT

[quote userid="12930" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30837/if-one-has-been-asked-to-provide-further-submission-to-cma-from-the-position-of-small-and-independent-practice-what-bullet-points-might-be-concentrated-upon/243119#243119"]My number one remains fair competition on medicines. What I mean by that is that licensed veterinary medicines should have to compete on merit, rather than in a protected market-place. Let's call this the Australian model, or the pre-Steve-Dean-era in the UK. Presently (or at least last time I checked) enalapril at couple of pence competes with various vet-licensed benazepril products priced in the range of £'s.; life long medicines such as thyroid supplement similar - a vet should be able to offer a client generic human levothyroxine tablets at a few pence as an alternative to a dog-flavoured thyroid supplement at a few pounds - there is no reasonable justification for preventing a vet from offering a whole-of-market approach to medicine prescription, and this simple change would make providing cheaper treatments, expected to be as effective as more expensive treatments, an option for vets who continue to try to cater to those who are not affluent and to whom cost of treatment is the most important factor in decision-making. Put simply: licensed veterinary medicines for dogs and cats, where no public health concern is applicable regarding residues in food produce, should lose their protected market status and vets should be able to return to recommending cheaper human alternatives,effective immediately[/quote]

While I agree to an extent, I think you need to differentiate incentivising development of new molecules, from the licensing of old human meds used already for years in pets (lactulose, amlodipine, spironalactone etc) and increasing the price massively for significantly less outlay.

RE: If one has been asked to provide further submission to CMA from the position of small and independent practice. What bullet points might be concentrated upon?

Beats — Wed, 06 Dec 2023 22:00:18 GMT

My number one remains fair competition on medicines. What I mean by that is that licensed veterinary medicines should have to compete on merit, rather than in a protected market-place. Let's call this the Australian model, or the pre-Steve-Dean-era in the UK. Presently (or at least last time I checked) enalapril at couple of pence competes with various vet-licensed benazepril products priced in the range of £'s.; life long medicines such as thyroid supplement similar - a vet should be able to offer a client generic human levothyroxine tablets at a few pence as an alternative to a dog-flavoured thyroid supplement at a few pounds - there is no reasonable justification for preventing a vet from offering a whole-of-market approach to medicine prescription, and this simple change would make providing cheaper treatments, expected to be as effective as more expensive treatments, an option for vets who continue to try to cater to those who are not affluent and to whom cost of treatment is the most important factor in decision-making. Put simply: licensed veterinary medicines for dogs and cats, where no public health concern is applicable regarding residues in food produce, should lose their protected market status and vets should be able to return to recommending cheaper human alternatives,effective immediately.

Number two is regulation. Simply put, less regulation tends to lead to lower costs. Vets wishing to offer a basic level of service should be allowed to do so - I am quite happy for them to be required to label their level of care as "basic" or any other such label to distinguish them from those who fulfill more regulations and spend a higher percentage of their time on record-keeping and complying with unhelpful regulatory requirements. The more time spent not doing useful clinjical things, the more the cost of those useful clinical things (which is what the clients want) is. I would be delighted if clients could choose to subscribe to a basic level of care which did not necessitate record keeping beyond what was acceptable in the 1990s, and be charged less for the lesser time and effort on the more frivolous parts of helping them and their pets..

I didn't get time to fill out the CMA thing - thank you for doing so.