What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Anthony Dennison — Tue, 05 Nov 2024 12:20:44 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245659#245659"]

But .... one of the practices I ocasionally work for has a CT scanner at its main hospital. Cost of GA and up to 3 radiographs costs around £700, more if more are taken. CT is around £1250 including GA and a veterinary radiologist's report, and gives far superior imaging.

With the difference in costs between the 2 seeming to be reducing, at what point would one just perfom a CT scan over and above, and instead conventional radiography in cases such as the one in the ST?

[/quote]

We do a special reduced price for head/neck CTs, as it's so much quicker than taking multiple radiograph views (including intraoral/dental) and gives a better image. Radiographs and all the extra images would be £800-900, do the CT for £1000

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:03:30 GMT

[quote userid="2675" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245660#245660"]I hope you also do an article on the management consultants who, since the 1990’s, have been peddling the ‘put your prices up so you can work less for more money’ bs with all the benchmarking that has meant most independents are also charging specialist prices for sometimes basic to poor service and the clients are caught with no options [/quote]

Richard Carter - hi, was that addressed to me? They're not articles, they're films and the ones in scriptwriting / production are:

intro
difference in mindset
march of science
effect of changing attitudes to risk
feminisation
corporatisation
clinical excellence (aka gold standard)
dog breeds
summary

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:05:06 GMT

[quote userid="12930" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245647#245647"]8 year old pug with unstable mandible after suspected low-speed trauma with car. Unable to eat. Limited budget. If anyone has any comments, please use "tangent" feature to start new thread as has no relevance to a dicsussion on the Sunday Times![/quote]

I'd love to discuss but it might be better if you were to re-post as a new thread, so everyone can see the radiographs.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Richard Carter — Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:21:56 GMT

I hope you also do an article on the management consultants who, since the 1990’s, have been peddling the ‘put your prices up so you can work less for more money’ bs with all the benchmarking that has meant most independents are also charging specialist prices for sometimes basic to poor service and the clients are caught with no options

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Clive Ansell — Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:43:49 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245654#245654"]That doesn't make CT overpriced. But it makes it tragically overused. Same goes for MRI.[/quote]

Inclined to agree.

Whether that is pitched deliberately to push work towards the CT scanner I just don't know?

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Beats — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 23:00:02 GMT

Hi David, I take your points, but perhaps come from a different location where I don't see this problem you describe with inexperienced vets terrified of making recommendations or decisions.

I do think the RCVS does instill fear. Irrational, undoubtedly, but it is there nonetheless. I can sympathise with this to a degree. I stopped doing soft palate resections on the basis of comments made in the report of an RCVS Disciplinary case:

https://www.vetsurgeon.org/b/veterinary-news/posts/30638

I can no longer find the original RCVS findings of fact, and I don't wish to misquote, but I think it is OK to say that my reading of it (whether it was stated literally or my mis-inference from what was written), was that to perform a soft palate resection without 24 hour supervision afterwards would be misconduct in the eyes of the expert witness, and thus it should not be performed in the average GP clinic. As I type this, I will confess that my nervousness regarding doing these surgeries, and what should happen if one died (which is certainly a risk) and a complaint was then made to the RCVS is returning to me even now!

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 22:44:55 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245642#245642"]

The dog didn't need a CT scan.

The dog didn't need a specialist input.

A step wise approach to actually physically assess the injury under sedation and see it was clearly a very cranial fracture that didn't need surgery.

It should have been dealt with in house at a tenth of the 3.5k.

That is the interesting and uncomfortable angle for me.

[/quote]

Exactly my thoughts. I've said a lot of times that maybe 0.1% of animals actually NEED specialist input and 1% may benefit from it. The great majority should be dealt with in general practice.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 22:36:45 GMT

Don’t worry Beats - not easily insulted! Actually, I was half way through reading when it vanished anyway!

But I do think you should post that case as a new thread, if you dont mind.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

David Mills — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 21:54:34 GMT

I wasn't being rude and I'm sorry if it came across like that. It's frustration, and you were the brunt.

The case in the ST article as far as I can see was a cranial mandible fracture that actually didn't need any major intervention.

So I would heavily question why the hell it was deemed appropriate to send an inexperienced owner for that scourge of the profession, CT, when it could have been reasonably diagnosed by sedated exam +/- x-rays. Such I agree comes from experience - that dirty word in EBVM era - sedate and palpate carefully all along both sides of the mandible and you will invariably know where the fracture is.

We have a lot of inexperienced animals owners using the profession at the moment. We have a lot of inexperienced vets terrified to make a decision or even an educated guess. So what happens is that owners feel they should, on frankly shit advice, go for more expensive options.

That doesn't make CT overpriced. But it makes it tragically overused. Same goes for MRI.

Experienced vets on here crying about the RCVS code are the victims of selection bias. What ever happened to that more legally binding concept of informed consent? Christ do people 30y qualified actually think that they are simply a substitute AI that has to give every option? Do they offer PTS for a vaccine reaction? Of course not. They are merely shifting the blame and reverse justifying their own failings through the Code. There is NO RCVS precedent for the fear they irrationally state. What the hell ever happened to professional and animal-centred responsibility?

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Beats — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 21:29:37 GMT

SOrry, David. I have re-read my post and agree it is a pile of nonsense! (And possibly insulting to Arlo - apologies Arlo!)

A poor attempt at humour, hammered out at speed, and was only attempting to insert a clinical case with details slightly changed of a jaw fracture (in no way related to RCVS one being discussed which I have not read about beyond skimming this thread) I recently saw - not the right thread for this and I should have starte a new thread instead.

I did not mean to pass comment on the RCVS case, but by posting in this thread I guess I should have realised that would be implied.

If anyone wants to tangent it to a different thread and offer their thoughts, I'd be genuinely interested - but agree not the right place to post it in this thread. Is an actual case I'm presently faced with and I didn't change very many details. I groaned when my receptionist said this was on its way, as I suspect most of us would. And while I'm not a total novice, I'm certianly not an expert and am much happier in general being presented with a broken cat jaw than a broken dog jaw (actually broken and non-functional ones like this one, not dogs that are able to eat with no intervention) - I'm really not sure what the best approach to this one should have been and genuinely interested in insights and suggestions (particularly as I would say is 50:50 whether I will need to revise my own meagre efforts in the near future...)

I'll update my pile of nonsense to a one sentence summary sufficient to get any input anyone has!

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

David Mills — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 21:06:22 GMT

Beats I can't say this much clearer but what a pile of nonsense your post is. I get the impression you're not an inexperienced vet. So why are you reverting to the inexperienced mantra of oh well it could be (insert most complicated things ever) condition?

We know it wasn't. It didn't need fixation. So your post is about as relevant as a nun in a brothel.

When oh when is the profession going to have a grown up conversation about the lack of the bar majority of first opinion vets to make a sensible decision rather than just subcontracting out anything but a vaccine? And stop smoking excuses about the sodding regulator who have never to my knowledge ever dragged a vet over the coals for doing what they thought best.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 19:25:13 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245645#245645"]

Clive Ansell said:
I think the way forward is to try and be open and honest about pricing. "we can do 1, 2 or 3, and it will cost roughly A, B or C"

I think A B and C needed to be in price order. Cheapest first. I really do. And anything over a certain amount should be in D (annex1)!

[/quote]

No, I think they should be offered in the order of what is considerered best clinical practice. That is not the same as the most expensive offering all possible investigations. I tend to advise a step by step approach and very rarely jump in with loads of investigations.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245645#245645"]

Clive Ansell said:
as an aside; the highest veterinary bill I have very seen was £42k.

WOAH!

Is it actually right to put an animal through all that work?

[/quote]

No, to my mind it isn't. That said, if there were a possibility of high success, with a return to normal life and function - maybe?

The case in question was a French Bulldog born with multiple spinal and sketetal deformities. it underwent several major procedures, endured mutiple complications, was hospitalised for weeks, and finished up being put to sleep. Difficult and Idiotic owners with more money than functional brain cells between them.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 19:13:46 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245645#245645"]This is illogical to me. When I walk into a Ford garage, I don't expect to be sold a Bentley![/quote]

But if you took your Ford into a main dealer for investigation and repair, they would offer text book or so called gold standard work, which maybe many times more expensive than a local independent garage would charge for other and cheaper options.

If they didn't offer the best possible, and thinks went wrong, you might be banging on their door shouting negligence and wanting your money back - same with us

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 19:09:36 GMT

[quote userid="27499" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245644#245644"]How is it possible that a doggy day care facility has no insurance for these sort of accidents? I would have thought it should be part of their licence to operate.[/quote]

I don't know if it is a legal requirement or not, but it would be crazy to run that sort of business without adequate insurance. A civil claim for negligence could run in to 10's of £1000's.

[quote userid="27499" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245644#245644"]We had an incident when 3 dogs happily playing at a daycare facility , suddenly became an attack on one dog resulting in head trauma, eyeball perforation and requiring enucleation. I believe the daycare facility paid the bill(i don't know if they claimed through their insurance or not )[/quote]

So they should, it happened under their watch

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Beats — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 18:21:03 GMT

8 year old pug with unstable mandible after suspected low-speed trauma with car. Unable to eat. Limited budget. If anyone has any comments, please use "tangent" feature to start new thread as has no relevance to a dicsussion on the Sunday Times!

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 17:46:48 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245640#245640"]But we are told by our professional body and the overlords, that we must discuss all treatment options available, from a basic suck it and see approach through to 22nd century space age medicine. [/quote]

This is illogical to me. When I walk into a Ford garage, I don't expect to be sold a Bentley!

As science marches forward and treatments become ever more rarified and expensive, it surely must be time for the professional body to stop suggesting it is a good idea to discuss all the treatment options.

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245640#245640"]There have been huge advances in what is medically and surgically possible, but I am afraid that comes with a fairly hefty price tag sometimes[/quote]

Quite!

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245640#245640"]I think the way forward is to try and be open and honest about pricing. "we can do 1, 2 or 3, and it will cost roughly A, B or C"[/quote]

I think A B and C needed to be in price order. Cheapest first. I really do. And anything over a certain amount should be in D (annex1)!

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245640#245640"]as an aside; the highest veterinary bill I have very seen was £42k.[/quote]

WOAH!

Is it actually right to put an animal through all that work?

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Helena Rymaszewska — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 17:40:48 GMT

How is it possible that a doggy day care facility has no insurance for these sort of accidents? I would have thought it should be part of their licence to operate.

Maybe the local council should be taking action as they are normally responsible for licensing.

We had an incident when 3 dogs happily playing at a daycare facility , suddenly became an attack on one dog resulting in head trauma, eyeball perforation and requiring enucleation. I believe the daycare facility paid the bill(i don't know if they claimed through their insurance or not )

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 16:38:12 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245642#245642"]

The dog didn't need a CT scan.

The dog didn't need a specialist input.

A step wise approach to actually physically assess the injury under sedation and see it was clearly a very cranial fracture that didn't need surgery.

It should have been dealt with in house at a tenth of the 3.5k.

[/quote]

Difficult to be sure unless actually seen the case and have all the details, but yes, that would have been my approach.

Where I am working a consultation, sedation or GA, radiographs and some analgesia would be c£600-£700.

Referral and CT scan would almost never be an option where I am anyway, most folk here have no money or insurance.

I still think the fees charged for the work actually carried out are reasonable, whether or not all of that work was necessary is another matter of course ?

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

David Mills — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 16:08:28 GMT

I've re read the article about the costs area and if we take it at face value it may serve as an example of subcontracting sensible decision making.

The dog didn't need a CT scan.

The dog didn't need a specialist input.

A step wise approach to actually physically assess the injury under sedation and see it was clearly a very cranial fracture that didn't need surgery.

It should have been dealt with in house at a tenth of the 3.5k.

That is the interesting and uncomfortable angle for me.

I think the article is ok generally but the title and last bit does add to the usual lazy stereotype. However there is a more interesting aspect that hasn't been probed. Vet care will always be expensive compared to what people experience with own healthcare. The question is how expensive it should be. A simple cranial mandible fracture should not cost 3.5k. But that is what you get in a culture of fear and inexperience.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 14:48:07 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245638#245638"]How can it possibly be right to spend that sort of money on a dog, unless you are a billionaire?[/quote]

To me it isn't, and I wouldn't.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245638#245638"]I don't think it's about whether it is an estimate or a quote, or how accurate or not it is. [/quote]

We have to think about this all the time. It is very common to give an estimate for a procedure or a drug, then if the bill is more folk kick off and say they were quoted £XYZ and we area accused of trying to fleece them.

I had one yesterday; large dog for a mis-mating injection (akin to the morning after pill for dogs) with an estimate over the telephone based on the last recorded weight of the dog. When the dog arrived it was much heavier than its last weighing meaning that 2 bottles of the drug were needed instead of one. It's £173 a bottle. Owners flipped and and stormed off to go elsewhere accusing us of being a criminal cartel.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245638#245638"]I do not know what the average salary of a pet owner is, but if in line with the national average of 28K take home, then yes, I think it brings the profession into disrepute to - however you put it - 'sell' them treatment equal to 2/3rds of their annual salary ... on a dog.[/quote]

But we are told by our professional body and the overlords, that we must discuss all treatment options available, from a basic suck it and see approach through to 22nd century space age medicine. we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

There have been huge advances in what is medically and surgically possible, but I am afraid that comes with a fairly hefty price tag sometimes

I tend to discuss what is possible and available, and lean towards the most pragmatic and sensible solution (In my view).

It is not my role to assess what people earn or what they are able or willing to afford, but I tend to advise what I feel to be best practice (That is not the same as most expensive!) and work from there

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245638#245638"]In other words, it brings the profession into disrepute.[/quote]

I think the way forward is to try and be open and honest about pricing. "we can do 1, 2 or 3, and it will cost roughly A, B or C"

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245638#245638"]I mean, dont you think most normal people would read that story and go 'Sheesh. Really? 20 grand? What is the world coming to?'[/quote]

Yes, I agree, I certainly do.

as an aside; the highest veterinary bill I have very seen was £42k. massive amounts of spinal and orthopaedic work, endless complications, repeat CT and MRI scans. Admittedly, a large portion of this was going to be refunded or written off, but there was at one point a running total of £42! . More than the cost of my first house!

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 12:42:58 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245637#245637"] I have seen bills for referral cases in excess of £20k, so estimating a worse case scenario of £8k - £20k, again to me, is not unreasonable at all. If the dog had needed extensive reconstructive surgery and days or weeks of hospital care, could easily hit £20k. One also has to bear in mind the possibility of ongoing complications and their attendant costs. [/quote]

Wish I had a slack jaw emoticon! How can it possibly be right to spend that sort of money on a dog, unless you are a billionaire?

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245637#245637"]If the initial vet had estimated £10k, and the final bill was £20k, would that not bring the profession into disrepute too? for us it is a heads I win, tails you lose situation - we can't win whatever we do. [/quote]

I don't think it's about whether it is an estimate or a quote, or how accurate or not it is.

I do not know what the average salary of a pet owner is, but if in line with the national average of 28K take home, then yes, I think it brings the profession into disrepute to - however you put it - 'sell' them treatment equal to 2/3rds of their annual salary ... on a dog.

It gives the profession a bad name. I mean, dont you think most normal people would read that story and go 'Sheesh. Really? 20 grand? What is the world coming to?'

It plays to the narrative that vets are ripping people off.

In other words, it brings the profession into disrepute.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 11:51:09 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245635#245635"]

How you can call the Times article 'vet-bashing' is beyond me. I think it is perhaps the most balanced and well-researched article I have ever read about the issue, one in which vets are given a substantial share of the voice to explain some of the issues.

I suppose you think its vet-bashing because of the fact that it questions prices, when you think they're reasonable.

[/quote]

Maybe I am over sensitive because I am exposed to this on a daily basis? It is one of the better written articles I have a read, but it did come over to me as a bit of a dig at vet prices, and wow! shock" horror! aren't they expensive. But, that's just me.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245635#245635"]

You're seeing £3546 and thinking: perfectly fair for the time, effort, etc that was involved (and from that perspective, you are right).

But from the client's point of view, it was an unexpected bill for something she didnt want.

[/quote]

That's true. I always try and consider what an expected bill an impact may have on a client, but at the end of the day we charge for the work that we do.

There is always the unexpected in any walks of life; central heating boiler blowing up, car breaking down, roof leaking etc. (we had a large tree fall down in the gales back in April, cost me £2800 which I could have done without)

In this case this owner could have been better prepared by having insurance, but chose not to (or just forgot to renew it)

But I do agree, it could come as a shock.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245635#245635"]She was first quoted £8-£20K[/quote]

She would have been estimated (not quoted) £8k - £20k, based on the presenting signs at the time, and a worst case scenario. It is not until radiographs and a CT scan are carried out and reviewed by a specialist that a more accurate diagnosis, treatment plan, and prognosis can be given. In this case it turned out that what was advised might have been needed, was not.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245635#245635"]WTF - anyone who quotes 20K to a client for a one-off procedure is in my view guilty of bringing the profession into disrepute, because suggesting that level of care on a dog to anyone other than a billionaire is irresponsible[/quote]

No.

Not altogether unreasonable. I have seen bills for referral cases in excess of £20k, so estimating a worse case scenario of £8k - £20k, again to me, is not unreasonable at all. If the dog had needed extensive reconstructive surgery and days or weeks of hospital care, could easily hit £20k. One also has to bear in mind the possibility of ongoing complications and their attendant costs.

If the initial vet had estimated £10k, and the final bill was £20k, would that not bring the profession into disrepute too? for us it is a heads I win, tails you lose situation - we can't win whatever we do.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245635#245635"]

And it was a rescue dog, so she had paid nothing for it in the first place.

And the bill is 354 times her initial investment (assuming it cost her a tenner in fuel to collect the dog).

And she had only had it a month.

It's a very different perspective - from which £3546 doesnt look inexpensive!

[/quote]

I understand it may come as a shock, and I have empathy for that, but those factors don't alter the cost of the work caried out though; whether it's a £10 rescue mutt or a £4000 pedigree genetic aberration.

Maybe the article should have also focused on the commitment and responsibility of making the lifestyle choice to own an animal, and the inevitable consequence that will be veterinary fees incurred.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:36:58 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245625#245625"]As others have already said, there is nothing new here, just the usual vet bashing and how awfully expensive we are.[/quote]

I read this comment the other day and thought 'are we talking about the same article', so I just re-read it in case I was missing something.

I suppose you think its vet-bashing because of the fact that it questions prices, when you think they're reasonable.

I think the thing is that you're only seeing it from your perspective, not through the eyes of the client.

You're seeing £3546 and thinking: perfectly fair for the time, effort, etc that was involved (and from that perspective, you are right).

But from the client's point of view, it was an unexpected bill for something she didnt want.

She was first quoted £8-£20K (WTF - anyone who quotes 20K to a client for a one-off procedure is in my view guilty of bringing the profession into disrepute, because suggesting that level of care on a dog to anyone other than a billionaire is irresponsible).

And it was a rescue dog, so she had paid nothing for it in the first place.

And the bill is 354 times her initial investment (assuming it cost her a tenner in fuel to collect the dog).

And she had only had it a month.

It's a very different perspective - from which £3546 doesnt look inexpensive!

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245631#245631"]I hope you have one planned about corporatisation......[/quote]

Yes, I have written three more scripts - at least three more to do, of which that is one.

It's a tricky one, though, because as Clive pointed out, there are examples of independents charging more than corporates, and it is difficulty to say with any certainty that universally corporates = increased prices. I am not aware of any data showing that to be true.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 06:06:48 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31049/what-do-you-think-of-the-vet-bill-feature-in-sunday-times/245631#245631"]I hope you have one planned about corporatisation.......[/quote]

The corporates have not and are not helping, but they cannot be blamed entirely.

As a locum of 23 years, the two worst practices I have worked in for profiteering by far, have both been large independents.

RE: What do you think of the vet bill feature in Sunday Times?

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:17:50 GMT

I hope you have one planned about corporatisation.......