Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

RE: Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

Judith Joyce — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:26:58 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247658#247658"]

you seem to be saying that 'ordering diagnostic tests provides a better level of care than history / clinical exam'

[/quote]

Think my sentence got a bit over complicated - that's the myth - that you always get a better level of care with diagnostic tests

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247658#247658"]They are just to confirm the conclusions of the clinical exam? [/quote]

Yes, but the better the history and the clinical exam and the no of cases seen previously by the clinician, the less often they are needed - it is a myth is that they are always needed. And yes, I'm afraid sometimes I think diagnostic tests are used instead of good history taking and expert clinical exam.

RE: Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:51:13 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247652#247652"]Will a dental x-ray or local block genuinely improve outcomes or make the procedure so expensive it doesn't happen?[/quote]

Dental Xray will either improve outcome, or be quite likely to improve outcome so that that on balance it should be done even if in the end it makes no difference.

Local nerve blocks may not improve final outcome but they will probably make life better for the patient at the time of treatment.

But then neither should make the procedure much more expensive. Xray, 70 pounds or maybe 100? Local block, cost of a vial of lidocaine, and if you really wish maybe a tenner for your skill in doing it.

RE: Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:37:48 GMT

[quote userid="13891" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247656#247656"] I reacted negatively to the bit about the train driver comparison. Could alienate clients who identify/affiliate more with train drivers than vets maybe?? [/quote]

Well, another person has made the same point on Facebook. It was a light-hearted remark, but making the serious point that at a time when everyone thinks vets are raking it in, they are typically earning less than a train driver. I can of course see that a train driver might not like the gag, but on the scale of things, it's a pretty minor bit of joshing.

On the flip side, the film seems to be performing very well!

[quote userid="13891" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247657#247657"]whilst advanced DI and lab tests can be useful aids to diagnosis in selected cases, ordering diagnostic tests in almost every case driven by protocols provides a better ('gold standard') level of care than carefully taking a history and performing a clinical examination backed up by huge case numbers of clinical experience[/quote]

I'm a bit confused, you seem to be saying that 'ordering diagnostic tests provides a better level of care than history / clinical exam'

I dont think that's what you mean.

Also, you seem to be suggesting a binary choice between diagnostic tests and history taking / clinical exam, when surely history taking and clinical exam are part of every consultation regardless of whether diagnostic tests are used. They are just to confirm the conclusions of the clinical exam?

(I'm not stating that as fact, just what I understand).

RE: Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

Judith Joyce — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 06:43:50 GMT

I think I've chipped in most of my myths in the other thread but how about the myth that, whilst advanced DI and lab tests can be useful aids to diagnosis in selected cases, ordering diagnostic tests in almost every case driven by protocols provides a better ('gold standard') level of care than carefully taking a history and performing a clinical examination backed up by huge case numbers of clinical experience

RE: Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

Judith Joyce — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 06:35:29 GMT

I like most of the video. As Michael says you explain the concept well and in pictures. I reacted negatively to the bit about the train driver comparison. Could alienate clients who identify/affiliate more with train drivers than vets maybe??

RE: Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:23:12 GMT

OK, so from a client's point of view. Where can I direct my frustration with vets fees?

No, honestly. I work both in Spain and here, and the difference is abysmal, but most of the equipment is the same. One key difference is that in Spain you do not sell drugs, it is not part of your profit. You send your client to the pharmacy to do this.

Many of the costs nowadays come from our suppliers (not just locum!) and many of these have rocketed (again, not locum) - so obviously the practice, corporate or whoever passes that cost to the client.

So when the suppliers are the ones rocketing prices, how do you control them or what can I pet owner do to 'help' their vet practice to keep those costs cheap? Or is that not in the interest of anyone?

RE: Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 19 Aug 2025 09:18:23 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247652#247652"]Greedy corporatisation? You have promised me, many times, its coming.....[/quote]

I have done no such thing! I said I would make a film about corporatisation, and I still plan to. I just don't think it is as clear cut as you portray it, and I just dont think there is evidence to support a film which concludes corp = greedy.

I think the whole corporatisation argument is far more nuanced than that. For example, perhaps people who work in a corporate environment are likely to get caught up in corp-thinking and corp-attitudes to risk etc, which may be more conservative than a swashbuckling indie like yourself (!)

and ...

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247652#247652"]Whether we have garnished the offering with a heap of unnecessary expenses that we are now awkwardly trying to justify.[/quote]

which I dont think is necessarily driven by:

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247652#247652"]Make a nice return for the venture capitalists and shareholders?[/quote]

Also, my thinking is that it would be better to focus on veterinary myths, because films about myths are helpful (or should be), and I think they could be a source of revenue for VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk, which is needed!

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247653#247653"]I quite like the video and think you explain the concept well, just not for me. Therefore, I won't be sharing. Production and explanation are spot on. [/quote]

I just don't understand this! If you agree the point I am making, you quite like the video, and the production / explanation are good, I don't understand why it is not for you and you wont be sharing.

Surely whether it is for you or not is slightly incidental. There is only one question, which is: "Could this film help people understand the truth that vets are not money-grabbing." If yes, then share. If no, then don't. Surely?

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they/247652#247652"]How many of the idiopathic epilepsy dogs I have seen would have benefitted from an MRI scan and CSF tap? Do we really need to mask and gown for a cat spay? Will a dental x-ray or local block genuinely improve outcomes or make the procedure so expensive it doesn't happen? Can we ever just ignore a murmur and see what happens? Fairly confident that I can diagnose a lipoma based on exam, history and signalment with pretty high levels of accuracy, is that still ok? Again, we force people to do ear cytology before treating. Radiographs before Librela?[/quote]

I think there is something in these sorts of things for further myth films.

RE: Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 23:52:36 GMT

I quite like the video and think you explain the concept well, just not for me. Therefore, I won't be sharing. Production and explanation are spot on.

RE: Vets are just in it for the money, aren't they?

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 23:48:05 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31228/vets-are-just-in-it-for-the-money-aren-t-they"]Finally, if you have any suggestions for the myth you would most like debunked next (ie the one that would make your life so much easier if we could educate people with the truth), then fire away. [/quote]

Greedy corporatisation? You have promised me, many times, its coming.....

Today (monday, it's strictly after midnight), I saw a 2nd opinion. I'll try to be vauge ish, but this is under my own name so kind of identifiable. Dog with orthopaedic problem, gone to a local practice where one of the owners worked for a number of years. They claim to have spent over £10K on this orthopaedic problem. They had 2 radigraphs taken last week and were charged over £900. They say the only option they were given was a 3rd attempt at fix and they have just bought a house and simply cannot afford that. Discussed 4 options: GP have another go (me or other practice), specialist have a go, amputation, PTS. They chose amputation. Less than 45 mins in theatre, 2 packs of suture material and a pack of extra swabs was the only cost to me over a bitch spay. Very happy with a similar fee to what they were charged for 2 radiographs, elsewhere. Easy money, happy new client.

Maybe a better analysis would be WHY is a veterinary practice so expensive to run? Staff (said I run well staffed to allow cover for holiday, sick, emergencies, but then locums for a fraction of the year would cost more). Pretty annoyed by recent PSS inspection - so many things that were ok before, seemingly not ok now. My dangerous drugs cabinet that has passed 1xVMD and 2xPSS, no good. I'll tot up a final bill, but I bet it costs me thousands to keep doing pretty much the same thing - I understand why it may cost £500 on the inspection year, but why in the years in-between?!

At the end of the day, it doesn't much matter how much profit we make, or what vets earn (remember SPVS figures are package not salary), it's whether the care we provide is affordable. Whether we have garnished the offering with a heap of unnecessary expenses that we are now awkwardly trying to justify. Make a nice return for the venture capitalists and shareholders? Pay for the optional PSS? Why is a Labrador on a drip pump? Can we ever justify pre-op bloods in a young healthy animal? How many of the idiopathic epilepsy dogs I have seen would have benefitted from an MRI scan and CSF tap? Do we really need to mask and gown for a cat spay? Will a dental x-ray or local block genuinely improve outcomes or make the procedure so expensive it doesn't happen? Can we ever just ignore a murmur and see what happens? Fairly confident that I can diagnose a lipoma based on exam, history and signalment with pretty high levels of accuracy, is that still ok? Again, we force people to do ear cytology before treating. Radiographs before Librela? I see vets referring skin cases before they have ruled out basics like parasites and done biopsies - why?! Genuinely interested in what percentage of 1st opinion practices will fix a simple fracture? Ignoring any debate over superiority, but how many people even offer lateral sutures for cruciates (as we supposedly discuss ALL options)? Do owners really want 15/20 min appointments?