More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Mon, 07 Jul 2025 18:16:39 GMT

Many of the people I chat to about vet fees have experienced one situation where they have sought vet care and have taken vet advice which has tacked up a large bill, often in the thousands . They have been willing to take advice and they have paid but they feel they have had their fingers burned. Consequently they have considered and decided that they are not going to agree to go down that route again.
Quite sensibly in some cases they have decided that their aging animal will have pain relief and then euthanasia though they do recount difficult conversations where a vet is suggesting what sounds to me to be a pragmatic approach but because they have paid a big bill previously they have declined.
My friend who is a vet of a similar vintage has also said she is finding that people are not calling vets out for euthanasia but ringing up after their animals have died at home. I think that is a sad situation where dying animals are not eased out if final suffering with pentobarb on their own hearth rug . I know I’m an old gimmer but this seemed such a kindness back in the day .
hopefully it will all settle down to a sensible level with practices providing the service clients want which in my case is a vet practice where I know some or all of the vets and nurses and contextualised pragmatic care where I don’t feel I’m being milked like a friesan to satisfy the desires of my vet’s aspirations and the practice finances rather than my own wishes for my pet . I’d be happy to pay a retainer or membership fee for a practice like this . Maybe that’s the way ahead . Who knows , I’m just an animal owner now, and it’s not always about price but being listened to by people who care and respect me and my animals . It’s not beyond reach , must be possible and would enhance the job satisfaction of vets and nurses too,

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Clive Ansell — Sat, 05 Jul 2025 17:30:03 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247398#247398"]

You really could. SPVS have done fee surveys since before I graduated. Can we have a thread where we anonymously price up maybe 5or6 procedures and identify ourselves by region and independent or corporate?

30kg clinically well pyometra operation in 10 year old lab

15kg ESS presents weak and pale. Splenectomy performed. 1 night hopsitalisation, no blood products given. O declines histology

20kg dog with fractured canine tooth, cost to remove that, scale and assess other teeth, no further work required

"treat' an aural haematoma in a 15kg dog by your preferred method. Include any follow-up costs

"routine' caesarean section operation in a 10kg French bulldog at lunchtime on a weekday

Remove an eye from a child's pet rabbit

[/quote]

This would be almost impossible to do. There is no standardisation across the profession, so you, I and other vets approach to any of the above may be entirely different from each other. Not a case of right or wrong, just different.

Take the first case, 30Kg clinically well 10 year old lab with a pyometra. I would get on and do the surgery as soon as I could, probably give IVFT support peri and post op, no blood tests, minimal hospitalisation and home with Metacam or Pardale-V the same day. No antibiotics. Where I currently work it would be between £600 and £700. Another practice I know it would be £2000 - £2500

Others would insist on blood tests, blood gases, ultrasound scan, intravenous antibiotics, overnight hospitalisation; and one could put forward good arguments to justify any of these.

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Clive Ansell — Sat, 05 Jul 2025 17:15:56 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247398#247398"]As I said, I believe its a myth that corporate ownership = higher standards or better equipment. Lots of bought out practices plodding along with no significant investment in equipment. [/quote]

I would agree.

7 independent practices that I used to do regular locums for were taken over by corporates, and in my opinion none have improved the standard of clinical care or invested in better equipment despite promising to do so. The one exception is installing the latest idexx blood machines. If anything standards of care have declined, and it is a struggle to get broken or faulty equipment repaired or replaced.

[quote userid="13891" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247399#247399"]Agree, it's also a myth that they provide better employee benefits.[/quote]

I've received mixed feedback.

Some vets who were employed at these practices before corporate takeover say they are much worse to work for; targets, higher workloads, lack of management support. Many have left.

Others have said that working conditions are better with the corporates; better pay, more paid holiday, 4 day working week, no weekend work, better CPD allowance, no OOH and get to finish on time.

Really is a very mixed bag.

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Rob Loxley — Sat, 05 Jul 2025 12:53:50 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247400#247400"]OK - to my way of thinking, a corporate is not in and of itself a driver of price inflation[/quote]

I'd suggest private equity buying vets, is seeing an opportunity to reduce costs (not necessarily pass these savings to customers), increase revenue (prices - as said, most corporates buying an indie will align the prices with their other practices, and never seems to be a reduction), and maximise profits.
I suspect there were lots of ways indies were more agile and money saving than the corporates, and the 'economies of scale' the corporates have maybe isn't reflected in prices?

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 05 Jul 2025 07:51:51 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247398#247398"]I do understand that with so much of the profession owned by corporates, and your shrinking audience, you are maybe frightened of talking too much about this.[/quote]

Michael Woodhouse You could not be more wrong about that. I'm not frightened to talk about anything. Maybe that's partly a consequence of getting older (older people aren't frightened to say or do anything, which is why nudist beaches are populated almost entirely by old men). But also, I haven't got anything to lose!

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247398#247398"]I thought you were coming at this in terms of owners getting value for money from their vets, not over treating animals and starting by offering more affordable care, compared to 'gold standard' embellishment with bells and whistles?[/quote]

Yes, I am. In think this is the single biggest factor in terms of veterinary inflation. And even if you don't agree with me on that, it is for sure the biggest cause of headlines (which vets get beaten around the head with).

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247398#247398"]Do you suddenly feel better paying a lot of money for your dog's surgery if you only knew the vet making that recommendation gets enhanced maternity benefits and access to a gym as part of their salary (and, technically, your fee)? What you can't do is offer lots of enhanced benefits and then not charge everyone more to pay for them, that is correct. Has your view changed and owners should be paying more, and be grateful?[/quote]

You're missing my point (sorry). I am not arguing that owners will feel better knowing the vet has enhanced maternity benefits, or that owners should be paying more and be grateful.

I am only making the point that these inflationary factors exist, and they affect corporates too. And I strongly believe that they are the main issue here, not corporatisation per se.

I am not saying that corporatisation is not or has not been inflationary. All the indications are that it has been, and there is certainly no indication of it acting as a downward pressure on prices.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247398#247398"]You really could. SPVS have done fee surveys since before I graduated. Can we have a thread where we anonymously price up maybe 5or6 procedures and identify ourselves by region and independent or corporate? [/quote]

This seems to contradict the CMA idea that vets should offer transparent standardised prices. Very difficult to be sure you are comparing like with like.

I would also be concerned that if you do an anon survey like that, everyone would be underestimating what they charge. And when word got out, you'd probably get people trying to manipulate the result.

I do like the idea, because I'd be really curious to find out the answer (I suspect the difference may be less than you think, because other practices in a given area may have already raised their prices in line with the first movers).

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247398#247398"] As I said, I believe its a myth that corporate ownership = higher standards or better equipment. Lots of bought out practices plodding along with no significant investment in equipment. [/quote]

Yeah, possibly at an individual practice level. But are you thinking big picture? Corporate groups have spent vast amounts of money on referral centres, for example, with their MRIs and linear accelerators and ultrasound and stuff.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247398#247398"]I am 100% convinced they are the main driver of fee inflation.[/quote]

OK - to my way of thinking, a corporate is not in and of itself a driver of price inflation (apart from anything else, in other spheres corporates drive prices down). A inflationary driver has to be a factor which has cost attached.

Now my assumption is that you would argue that corporates have to make a shareholder or VC a return on their investment (a bigger one than indies have to make for their owners), and THAT would be the driver. You might also argue that corporates paid silly money to buy up practices, money which needs to be earned back, and THAT TOO would be a driver. What else? Well, you might also argue that corporates have an additional layer of management, and THAT TOO would be a driver.

But lets not forget that there ARE deflationary drivers attached to the corporates too, like buying power.

What I am saying is that other drivers:

1. increased employment costs (because people want better work life balance and a nice coffee machine and a gym)

2. increased employment costs because of feminisation of the profession

3. Increased regulatory burden

4. March of science

5 Drug costs

and so on and so forth, affect indies and corporates alike.

Do you agree with that point. And if you do, do you agree that it is hard to say with any real certainty that corporatisation is the cause of inflation. If points 1-5 are more significant, then corporatisation itself wasnt the cause,

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Judith Joyce — Sat, 05 Jul 2025 06:09:50 GMT

Agree, it's also a myth that they provide better employee benefits. The difference is that the LVGs are big enough to use PR companies and ex veterinary political mouthpieces effectively, whereas BSAVA then RCVS practice standards (must have been around for nearly 30 years now) weren't able to publicise effectively just how good a lot of Indies are, not just clinically but as communicators and employers.

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 05 Jul 2025 00:04:48 GMT

Arlo GuthrieI'm so confused by your reply. I think this is my 3rd attempt at a reply.

I thought you were coming at this in terms of owners getting value for money from their vets, not over treating animals and starting by offering more affordable care, compared to 'gold standard' embellishment with bells and whistles? Do you suddenly feel better paying a lot of money for your dog's surgery if you only knew the vet making that recommendation gets enhanced maternity benefits and access to a gym as part of their salary (and, technically, your fee)? What you can't do is offer lots of enhanced benefits and then not charge everyone more to pay for them, that is correct. Has your view changed and owners should be paying more, and be grateful?

We do have good coffee (Nespresso). A gym can be seen from both sites, but you can pay to go yourself. Statutory maternity and sickness.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247374#247374"]Also, I dont think you can compare corp and indie prices that easily.[/quote]

30kg clinically well pyometra operation in 10 year old lab

15kg ESS presents weak and pale. Splenectomy performed. 1 night hopsitalisation, no blood products given. O declines histology

20kg dog with fractured canine tooth, cost to remove that, scale and assess other teeth, no further work required

"treat' an aural haematoma in a 15kg dog by your preferred method. Include any follow-up costs

"routine' caesarean section operation in a 10kg French bulldog at lunchtime on a weekday

Remove an eye from a child's pet rabbit

I'm also very happy for anyone to come along and tell me how a corporate took over and reduced the cost of services. As I said, I believe its a myth that corporate ownership = higher standards or better equipment. Lots of bought out practices plodding along with no significant investment in equipment.

I think the corporates may have a "training centre" but that should reduce the cost of providing CPD to staff, in the same way the practice has to use the company owned consumable supplier, wholesaler, crematorium. Keeps the money going around.

I'm absolutely sure there are examples of independent practices that are more expensive than corporates, but, on average, I am 100% convinced they are the main driver of fee inflation. Practice very close used to charge similar to us - we now come in 30-50% cheaper on many things, it's great for my business (and I've had to increase my fees more than I'd like to cover many of the increasing costs to run a business).

I do understand that with so much of the profession owned by corporates, and your shrinking audience, you are maybe frightened of talking too much about this. I still look forward to the video you promised. I hope making money for the shareholders and middle managers and being forced to refer in group and buy from the same company is made very clear. I'm itching to share it with my clients.

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:30:50 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247363#247363"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
"The BBC has spoken to 25 veterinary surgeons, nurses and industry insiders working for a range of companies and the majority blamed higher vet bills on big companies buying up practices."

... which I still think is wrong.

[/quote]

Michael Woodhouse I think there are a couple of things about this ...

Firstly, a strong likelihood of confirmation bias. People like to cast corporates as the bogeyman and so are very much more likely to observe and remember when a corporate increases its prices, than if an indie does it.

Second, when we talk about corporates putting prices up, there's not really any discussion about why. Perhaps because its an assumption that it's all for shareholder (or VC company) benefit.

But of course the corporates are as affected by all the inflationary factors I have made films about, just as much (if not more), than an indie, such as:

a) Desire to offer the best (and be equipped to do so)

b) Changing attitudes to risk

c) Increasing regulatory burden

d) Employee expectation of better work-life balance, benefits etc etc

e) feminisation of the profession

and so on and so on.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247363#247363"]if you like your surveys, this would be an easy one to gather some good data, and show where the majority of the fee inflation has come from (corporates charging a lot more for the same procedure, using the same staff and same equipment). [/quote]

But if the root causes are as I have suggested, then really it makes little difference whether the corporates or the indie prices have gone up fastest. Also, I dont think you can compare corp and indie prices that easily. What benefits is the corp offering its staff? Does it have a cappuccino machine? Pilates sessions? A gym? What is the CPD allowance? Does it have its own training centre?

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247363#247363"]Now, I'm sure, if you are the only independent practice in town, and all the surrounding corporates charge £1500 for a caeser you probably will too.[/quote]

I dont know about the costs of caesers, but yes, I would agree there is likely this inflationary effect. But if the corp was raising its prices to cover the costs of the issues I have raised, surely that is perfectly understandable.

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Rob Loxley — Sat, 28 Jun 2025 17:58:48 GMT

[quote userid="13891" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247367#247367"]I don't think vets themselves can make decisions on the hoof in a LVG[/quote]

sticking my head above the parapet, it's not the case (certainly here)

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

David Mills — Sat, 28 Jun 2025 10:07:19 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247363#247363"].Now, I'm sure, if you are the only independent practice in town, and all the surrounding corporates charge £1500 for a caeser you probably will too[/quote]

Why?

It seems a little too easy on the indies this - "not my fault mate, everyone charges this".

I'm not a vet practice owner but surely a golden opportunity to advertise how you're cheaper (and independent).

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247363#247363"]£1000 to debride and suture a cat is daylight robbery. Over on a FB group someone wanted £600 to take an eye out of a rabbit/guinea pig - can we not still show any kindness to kids pets?[/quote]

As per above, ifeveryone is charging it I don't think you can solely blame the corps?

[quote userid="13891" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247367#247367"]Few worked out how many at what cost generated a profit stream from the ultrasound, orthopedic kit, MRI,CT etc etc. Corporates are doing that and look what's happening now there is talk of targets.[/quote]

Again, this is not exclusive in any way to corporates though (alhough it may be more widespread admittedly). One of the low cost clinic chains (now taken over by a corp) had some of the most aggressive targets - mad scramble for the rpt px books each day.

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Judith Joyce — Sat, 28 Jun 2025 09:58:40 GMT

We haveLVGs who run businesses on proper business terms and monitor profitability in various ways, along with an extra tier of management. It has to incur higher costs or they can't defend themselves to their shareholders. Economy of scale seems to be outdone by the reduced efficiency and lost agility of large size companies

Privately owned practices (sorry, generalisation ) were criticised for years for not paying attention to business principles, as they were much more interested in fixing pets, whilst making profit was a secondary concern (it usually happened ok) and a necessary by-product.

Specifically, poor return on investment - e.g. owning buildings and not charging market value rents for their use by the business. A lot of equipment was bought for personal job satisfaction, better treatment of animals and affordability from the practice profits as a whole was used to justify expenditure. . Few worked out how many at what cost generated a profit stream from the ultrasound, orthopedic kit, MRI,CT etc etc. Corporates are doing that and look what's happening now there is talk of targets. We were also 'guilty' of running informal discount and pro bono schemes for those we considered could not afford fees. Apart from well advertised formal schemes, I don't think vets themselves can make decisions on the hoof in a LVG.

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 27 Jun 2025 23:51:06 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told"]

"The BBC has spoken to 25 veterinary surgeons, nurses and industry insiders working for a range of companies and the majority blamed higher vet bills on big companies buying up practices."

... which I still think is wrong.

[/quote]

No, it's absolutely true. I know a hell of a lot of people, in the last 10-15 years, where the practices were bought up by corporates. Every single person talks of significant fee increases in the space of the first 12 months (numerous examples of things more than doubling in a year).Now, I'm sure, if you are the only independent practice in town, and all the surrounding corporates charge £1500 for a caeser you probably will too. I don't think you'd be paying anything like that had things muddled on in the same way. Equally, those same vets who were taken over, many are bobbing along on the same equipment they had (maybe a fresh blood analyser of the correct brand) - the vets I know haven't seen that huge investment in equipment that seems to be implied, after a takeover.

Arlo Guthrie - if you like your surveys, this would be an easy one to gather some good data, and show where the majority of the fee inflation has come from (corporates charging a lot more for the same procedure, using the same staff and same equipment).

Other than a few headline loss-leaders - does anyone have examples of corporate takeover and significant price cuts, across the board? When you see the benefits of buying power etc filter down to the pensioners?

£1000 to debride and suture a cat is daylight robbery. Over on a FB group someone wanted £600 to take an eye out of a rabbit/guinea pig - can we not still show any kindness to kids pets?

I don't think the owner or the dog really cares whether you split the rotten tooth with a hacksaw blade, air driven drill, place sutures or take an x-ray or not. I think a new grad wouldn't have a clue where to start with the hacksaw blade if the drill broke.......

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:31:20 GMT

Just in, Daniella dos Santos interviewed on Radio 5 Live about this yesterday, making the case for IVC. Link here - scroll to 1:28 for the start of her segment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002dz6t

I thought she handled the interview brilliantly.

Still, I disagree with the idea that increasing costs are driven by owners wanting higher standards of care for their pet. I don't think owners had any idea what the cost of providing higher standards would be. In other words, we may all want a Rolls Royce, but when shown the price tag in the showroom, most of us will walk away.

So you can only truly argue that pet owners wanted higher standards if they knew what it would cost.

Now owners have woken up to what it costs to have MRIs, RVN monitored anaesthesia, linear accelerators etc etc, we are seeing that they don't want it as much as they said when they didnt know the price!

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

David Mills — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 13:34:00 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247337#247337"]But surely they have a point re confidentiality?[/quote]

I imagine so - though a 'public interest' angle is arguable I suspect to correct misinformation, or of course they could have just generalised with something "in complex wounds suchs as Elvis, we would ordinarily do x which would take y time and cost £z" thereby avoiding any confidentiality issues whilst also correcting the narrative.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247337#247337"]I thought that statement was a bit loaded, actually. Unprofessional to compare the treatment, whilst at the same time implying, strongly, that their standard was higher than the other practice! [/quote]

And therein lies one of the main problems in the profession - everyone thinks they are doing (or trying to do the best thing) but someone forgot to ask clients if that's what they wanted.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told"]

This has (wrongly) conflated the corporate with the type of treatment / standard of care.

Notwithstanding the fact that the wound in this case was worse when it went for secondary treatment, and therefore presumably more expensive to fix, I think it's wrong to equate unaffordably high standards of care / treatment with corporates. It's a profession-wide issue, surely?

[/quote]

It is - independents are in the main the same price as corporates

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 13:01:46 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247336#247336"]A spokesperson said:[/quote]

Ah, yes!

But surely they have a point re confidentiality? (Not that I happen to agree that confidentiality is important in the treatment of companion animals).

I thought that statement was a bit loaded, actually. Unprofessional to compare the treatment, whilst at the same time implying, strongly, that their standard was higher than the other practice!

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

David Mills — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:14:30 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247335#247335"]Maybe they did. Journalist writes the article and decides what to include/exclude. [/quote]

A spokesperson said: "It would be incorrect for us to comment publicly on an individual case as we are bound by confidentiality rules. It would also be unprofessional for us to compare the high-quality treatment we offer with another member of the veterinary profession, particularly if the level of surgical intervention is very different." (this is about the cat)

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 11:33:08 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247334#247334"]I don't understand why the profession / companies involved don't comment more though[/quote]

Maybe they did. Journalist writes the article and decides what to include/exclude.

... and it is hard to imagine a profession more at risk from confirmation bias and cherry-picking than journalism. ie you have your headline; what will sell papers, now you need to find stuff to support the headline. In this case, you are less likely to share info that justifies the bill charged by the demon of the story.

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

David Mills — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 11:10:31 GMT

Odd piece really.

Quite a lot of caveat emptor I suspect.

I don't understand why the profession / companies involved don't comment more though - if they think the price is justified for the stitch up why not go into detail as to why? Rebut the narrative effectively.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247332#247332"]heir only source for the claim is the opinion of a 2024 RVC graduate (an RVN since 2017).[/quote]

Yes I saw this. I worked alongside him when he was a nurse, he was an interesting character. Of course what someone a year qualified is doing locuming is one of the issues in the profession currently - the irony of a locum moaning about costs that are in part high because of the lack of permanent staff is preety breathtaking.

Similarly,the Blue Cross vet (I've also worked with him, see above - one of his first acts at the BC was o raise neuterig prices to around £3-400 for a dog (previously free) and increase the OOH prices for clients - again the breathtaking irony) - why not put some numbers on this? Are more pets actually being euthanased? Impressions can be misleading - for example the "Christmas clear out" when I looked at our figures a couple of years ago - absolutely no difference in euthanasia rates in December vs any other month.

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Ben Walker — Tue, 24 Jun 2025 22:03:32 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told/247330#247330"]More information is needed to be able to form an objective opinion here.[/quote]

Quite.

I’m also not sure what point the article is making. It’s meant to be about rising costs leading to euthanasia, but none of the three cases discussed had euthanasia due to cost issues.

Dougie is deaf but otherwise not known to be unwell; Ozzie was buried instead of cremated; and Elvis had his revision surgery. There’s also no commentary on the fact that Elvis’ initial surgery of nominally £400, though cheaper, was unsuccessful.

The article presents reasonable data suggesting clients are holding off on seeking care due to cost, but that doesn’t guarantee earlier euthanasia.

Their only source for the claim is the opinion of a 2024 RVC graduate (an RVN since 2017).

RE: More pets being put down due to rising vet bills, BBC told

Clive Ansell — Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:36:38 GMT

I've been a vet for 29 years, 24 of those as a locum working across a range of practices in a range of areas of client affordability.

It is true that we sometimes put animals to sleep because clients cannot (or prefer not too) afford treatment, but I would not agree there has been a massive increase as implied in the article.

This I struggle to believe:

"Caroline also got in touch after paying more than £4,500 to treat her 19-year-old cat Ozzie when she was diagnosed with a brain tumour.

The bill was so high she could not afford to cremate Ozzie after the cat died - so instead she brought her home and buried her in the back garden."

What on earth would anyone do with a 19 year old cat with a brain tumour, that would cost £4500, and in any event what would be the point?

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31200/more-pets-being-put-down-due-to-rising-vet-bills-bbc-told"]

The BBC then highlights a case:

Dr Ladell said he treated a friend's cat, called Elvis, who suffered a wound to his leg in May.

He sedated the cat, cleaned out the wound and stitched it up at a cost of £93.19. This didn't include his clinical time, which he estimated would have added £300 to the bill.

The cat later opened up the wound – making it larger - and this time, Dr Ladell took him to the practice at which Elvis was registered, which is owned by the corporate chain CVS.

The case notes and final bill, which have been seen by the BBC, showed vets treated the cat under full anaesthetic, removed tissue, reopened the wound, flushed it out, put a drain in and stitched it up. The bill came to £1,074.54.

[/quote]

More information is needed to be able to form an objective opinion here.

If it were a simple wound involving only skin, that needed simple debridement and suturing, then it would be a blatent ripoff. But, if it were a very deep and complex wound involving multiple tissue layers, was infected, had dead and necrotic tissue that needed debriding, or needed skin grafting, and then any form of dressing, then £1074 would not be unreasonable. If it was presented out of hours that would immediately add on £300-£350 for an OOH consultation