Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Clive Ansell — Sat, 30 May 2026 13:16:52 GMT

[quote userid="13609" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248924#248924"]

Clive Ansell said:
Still strange how these folk with no money, often on benefits, find in excess of £5000 to buy a puppy.

Or can't (or won't) afford diagnostics/ treatments but are happy to cash up for individual cremation. :-/

[/quote]

Each to their own I suppose, I try not to be (too) judgemental, in putting forward the choices and letting the owners decide.

I recently had an annoying one though; a written complaint and a negative bashing on social media over prices because owners couldn't afford investigation and had to put their poor old cat to sleep. The cost of out of hours euthanasia and individual cremation with return of ashes in a silly little casket cost more than the estimate for proposed basic blood work and abdominal ultrasound.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Andreas Ege — Fri, 29 May 2026 17:54:06 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248891#248891"]Still strange how these folk with no money, often on benefits, find in excess of £5000 to buy a puppy.[/quote]

Or can't (or won't) afford diagnostics/ treatments but are happy to cash up for individual cremation. :-/

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Clive Ansell — Tue, 26 May 2026 15:27:29 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248912#248912"]I'm also very supportive of home euthanasia and think its a 'nicer' way of most dogs passing away. If I ran PSS I'd have the ability to do home visits as an absolute requirement and cap it as a certain multiple of the consult fee so people are not unduly priced out of something the profession should offer. [/quote]

It must be that Yorkshire air, that makes you talk about some bygone golden Herriot era.

Just isn't posssible in the modern veterinary world in most cases.

Two of the independents I work for will still do home visits for PTS, and I will happily do them when I am working for them. Because they are both small practices, it is not always possible because of time and staffing constraints, but we will do them for bonded loyal clients when it is time for PTS where we can. Required some notice and planning though.

Most places I work do not offer them or do them at all, they don't have the necessary infrastructure in terms of diary availability, staff, time, vehicle, as well as sometimes concerns over safety. Not sure how this sits with the RCVS, but it is what it is?

AFAIK, none of the local OOH clinics offer or have the ability for OOH home visits either.

Over my 25 years as a locum I have worked for 2 home visiting vets, all of their work is via home visits. They were very popular and in affluent areas where folk were happy to pay a premium for the service. One offered visiting RVN appointments too.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 25 May 2026 23:24:33 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248910#248910"]Taking pride in finding the lowest cost solution to the problem. Steroids. [/quote]

Had a guy in on Saturday morning with seasonal allergies in his Labrador. Two years ago had a cytopoint jab, last year we had no 30mg in stock so had steroids. Said was awful peeing everywhere and dog unhappy so paid more for the cytopoint. I use a lot of steroids, but they are a million miles from a great choice in many animals.

I'm not a fan or referring every case and I see it as a personal deficiency if I can't fix things, that said I do believe that Cytopoint/Apoquel/Librela are basic welfare maintaining drugs.

I'm also very supportive of home euthanasia and think its a 'nicer' way of most dogs passing away. If I ran PSS I'd have the ability to do home visits as an absolute requirement and cap it as a certain multiple of the consult fee so people are not unduly priced out of something the profession should offer.

There are times when I struggle to concept the definition of animals under a practice's care when they are let down when needed.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 25 May 2026 14:01:35 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248910#248910"]

Martin Hamilton said:
No longer in GP, but I remember having so many clients come in who couldn't afford euthanasia or even the £30 consult fee

I wonder what the clients thought the alternative would be to a vet euthanasia they could not afford?

[/quote]

A free one, of course.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 25 May 2026 08:42:50 GMT

[quote userid="16672" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248901#248901"]But then to play devil's advocate, why are we trying to bend over backwards to accommodate these people? [/quote]

Martin Hamilton. Very good question! I would argue that there is no need. The need is to adapt the service to meet the financial ability of the marketplace.

Put it another way. Veterinary profession develops a 5* level of service. Both clinically and in terms of customer care, that's what the profession in this country provides.

Problem is, so many can't afford it (or don't have it as high on their priority list as you would).

So you end up bending over backwards to accommodate people.

If the profession offered a service at a level (and priced at a level) which people COULD more easily afford, or which sat in the right place on their list of priorities, you would not need to accommodate people.

[quote userid="16672" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248901#248901"] No longer in GP, but I remember having so many clients come in who couldn't afford euthanasia or even the £30 consult fee[/quote]

I wonder what the clients thought the alternative would be to a vet euthanasia they could not afford?

[quote userid="16672" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248901#248901"]Interesting concept though Arlo![/quote]

Thank you! Maybe it's more interesting as a discussion topic than as something with any realistic practical value. As a discussion, I think it does raise profound questions about what is being done for the animal and what is being done for the owner.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248902#248902"]What are you solving in the market with this sort of insurance? Is the idea that by limiting the coverage you could offer lower excesses or higher insured sums for the same monthly price (or the same excess and insured sum for a lower price)? That it'll spark a conversation in the consult room? Something else?[/quote]

Ben Walker I think it should be possible to insure against the lower level of clinical care needed to maintain welfare at a lower monthly cost.

I wouldn't like to say it solves anything, only that it would help:

make basic care more accessible to more people (because of more affordable monthly premiums).
relieve some pressure on vets (resentment from people who currently cant afford, or accommodating them) - because they bought the cover, not you.
make lower cost care more societally acceptable.
bring back a greater sense of worth to the profession.

WRT to point 3, I think there's quite a lot of judgement, including self-judgement about the treatment of animals. Anecdotally, I have heard quite a few vets express disgust (too strong a word, but cant think of another at the mo) towards those who don't pay to have the animal treated as they would do. I think clients can also feel 'bad' if they don't pick the clinically best option (I have).

WRT to point 4, I heard a GP at a meeting the other day say something along the lines of: "but how are we supposed to get any job satisfaction if we can't practice the highest standards of care?"

I wanted to bang my head on the wall.

I mean, I TOTALLY understand her point.

But the profession has to find a different way of thinking. Surely having the patient's welfare at the front of mind, rather than what may be the clinically highest standard, could be just as rewarding. Taking pride in finding the lowest cost solution to the problem. Steroids.

Oh, and a bonus point 5. The focus it would bring to welfare / lower cost would, I am quite certain, rebuild trust in the profession and remove those deeply unfair accusations of profiteering out of people's emotional attachment to their dogs.

Yes, Ben, I get that the 'welfare' line is a bit fuzzy and there are things which are a matter of judgement. I think such a policy would have a number of hard rules, and some, such as euthanasia, where there would be exceptions.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Clive Ansell — Sun, 24 May 2026 11:01:15 GMT

[quote userid="9440" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248907#248907"]I have one client who now has 11 cats but all the neutering costs have been subsidised by Cats Protection . She will not be able to pay for any medical treatment for any of them! [/quote]

However well intended, the CP help with neutering costs is not encouraging responsible pet ownership, in fact it is doing the opposite by facilitating someone owning 11 cats when they likely cannot afford to look after them properly.

Why does anyone want 11 cats anyway?

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

janine redman — Sun, 24 May 2026 10:07:49 GMT

Dermatology perhaps but not an RTA , major soft tissue injury , blocked bladder etc . Still love the dermatology as keep seeing my patients but it’s the big single outlay people struggle with . And the perception as well as most people don’t see pets as a luxury . I have one client who now has 11 cats but all the neutering costs have been subsidised by Cats Protection . She will not be able to pay for any medical treatment for any of them!

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Clive Ansell — Sun, 24 May 2026 09:39:10 GMT

[quote userid="9440" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248904#248904"]but £400 per month has been quoted for Cockapoo with allergies and that’s unaffordable for most people [/quote]

Jeepers!

I given someone estimates per month this week for managing (assumed) skin allergies in a 60Kg or so XL Bully. Expensive, yes, but an inevitable consequence of choosing to own a >60Kg dog.

Apoquel treatment of choice, working very well and skin under perfect control with it.

Apoquel from us: £220.

Apoquel Owner sourced on line: £150 including £25 prescription fee.

Preds from us: £42.

Cytopoint: £265, including £25 injection fee.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

David Scarff — Sun, 24 May 2026 07:59:17 GMT

TBH I'd be happy to investigate and manage a cockerpoo with allergies for £400 a month.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

janine redman — Sun, 24 May 2026 00:03:17 GMT

Agreed, or opt for a less expensive policy and find &2000 cover will not fund investigations into elbow dysplasia or hip surgery or even TPLO .
but £400 per month has been quoted for Cockapoo with allergies and that’s unaffordable for most people

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

David Scarff — Sat, 23 May 2026 11:11:24 GMT

One of the other problems with insurance is that the premiums often start low and increase with claims, age etc, sometimes exponentially. By the time owners realise they can't afford this, they can't change provider or onto the sort of insurance you are suggesting due to the pre-existing condition rules.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Ben Walker — Sat, 23 May 2026 08:59:56 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248900#248900"]I think there is a danger of thinking that it's just really poor people who are not buying insurance. I don't think it is. I think there are plenty of average earners who now think insurance is too expensive. [/quote]

I completely agree. I think plenty of people aren't seeing it as good value. But this isn't necessary a problem. If your goal is to see market pressure on vet practices to find business models where they offer more basic levels of care, then people spending their own money might achieve that anyway.

While it may be an ok thought experiment, I'm not convinced an insurance product where "welfare" is the basis for accepting or rejecting claims is viable.

What are you solving in the market with this sort of insurance? Is the idea that by limiting the coverage you could offer lower excesses or higher insured sums for the same monthly price (or the same excess and insured sum for a lower price)? That it'll spark a conversation in the consult room? Something else?

As others have pointed out, clients often don't fully understand the products they are paying for. Excess and insured sum are often the most they'll have to hand in the consult room. I'd rather just have a lower insured sum to work with than pull someone into debt because they thought they had a larger sum available.

Then there are the practical issues.

A good case study is home euthanasia, as you have been conflicted on this matter. You have said:

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248879#248879"]possibly home euthanasia contribution[/quote]

and

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248887#248887"]I think if a policy considers only the welfare of the dog, it would not cover [home euthanasia]. [/quote]

I think it depends.

Elderly dog in gradual decline who is happy with travel and the vets. The home visit is preferable to the client, but isn't a welfare-based decision.

Middle-aged Rottweiler with an osteosarcoma who has fallen, unable to stand, and screaming in pain whenever the owners try to move him. The home visit is clearly the better option for welfare.

But the dilemma comes with the many cases that sit between these extremes. What level of pain is acceptable? Is fear and distress relevant? Is risk of deterioration (eg. in respiratory or CHF cases) relevant? What about timing decisions if a home visit would be noticeably quicker?

I don't need you to answer these. The point is these judgements will always exist.

And this means that the same billable item could be accepted or rejected based on a hard-to-define concept. Assessing claims will become more arduous and contestable. So far, in the home visit space, insurers have passed this judgement to the vet filling out the form. Understandable as they aren't big sums in the scheme of things. That probably won't be viable if the whole product is based on these judgements.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Martin Hamilton — Fri, 22 May 2026 11:10:58 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248900#248900"]If someone puts their holiday ahead of spending on the dog, that's their lookout.[/quote]

But then to play devil's advocate, why are we trying to bend over backwards to accommodate these people? Doesn't this enable people to be less financially responsible in some ways? I don't think a travel agent would be bending over backwards to get someone off to Magaluf at half the price because they decided to prioritise their dog.

Overall, I agree that there should be some form of very basic insurance that covers emergency euthanasia etc. We all have our cars insured, would it be awful to have a very basic pet insurance that's required that covers the very bare essential euthanasia and the consult cost associated? No longer in GP, but I remember having so many clients come in who couldn't afford euthanasia or even the £30 consult fee, so it ended up being forked out of the practice bottom line.

Interesting concept though Arlo!

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 22 May 2026 09:23:54 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248891#248891"]Most live hand to mouth, can barely put food on the table for the kids, and just crash from one crisis to the next. They don't have the mental agility or the ability to plan ahead and foresee, so would be very unlikely to consider pet insurance of any sort when they don't know how they will pay for their next meal. [/quote]

I think there is a danger of thinking that it's just really poor people who are not buying insurance. I don't think it is. I think there are plenty of average earners who now think insurance is too expensive.

Or pay for a summer holiday or a new TV, or whatever it is. But money is rarely a black and white question of how much someone has. It's the much more nuanced question of priorities. So of course when someone with no money buys a puppy, it may be high up their list for its awwww factor, probably for the kids, and they might borrow to get it. But then it gets ill and the priority has changed to the summer holiday that year, or any one of a number of other things.

It's almost impossible not to be slightly judgemental about someone else's priorities. I try not to be, because as covid taught me, we all have a unique relationship with risk, and it's the same with financial priorities. If someone puts their holiday ahead of spending on the dog, that's their lookout.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 20 May 2026 11:13:25 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248884#248884"]yeah, but such a high percentage of people evidently cannot now afford the high ticket items OR the insurance to cover them. [/quote][quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248884#248884"]The other option is welfare insurance which costs less and limits care to just those things which keep your pet free of pain or suffering."[/quote]

Many of the people I meet day to day cannot afford low ticket items either.

Most live hand to mouth, can barely put food on the table for the kids, and just crash from one crisis to the next. They don't have the mental agility or the ability to plan ahead and foresee, so would be very unlikely to consider pet insurance of any sort when they don't know how they will pay for their next meal.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248884#248884"]Or people will keep buying them, but they will stop visiting the vet. [/quote]

More likely, then expect someone else to sort it out when things go t*ts up.

Still strange how these folk with no money, often on benefits, find in excess of £5000 to buy a puppy.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Clive Ansell — Tue, 19 May 2026 13:02:02 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248884#248884"]

Michael Woodhouse said:
I would personally consider drugs like Apoquel, Cytopoint, Librela as drugs really important for maintaining welfare.

Going above my pay grade, but I think charities would argue that steroids are really effective for maintaining welfare too!

[/quote]

Agree.

If one is counting the pennies, corticosteroids will work in most cases, so could easily manage without Cytopoint or Apoquel. Librela is I think a very good drug, albeit expensive, for mananging arthritic pain so maybe could make a case for that.

I've seen a handful of second opinions lately, where PDSA clients with pets on corticosteroids for allergic skin disease have been advised to go to a private vets for Apoquel or Cytopoint because it is better and is not offered at the PDSA. Most will, however, decline it based on cost.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 19 May 2026 08:53:03 GMT

Dinu Catilina ... yeah, it raises big questions, doesn't it!

[quote userid="9239" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248886#248886"]Palliative care - should we do any? [/quote][quote userid="9239" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248886#248886"]Home euthanasia - is it necessary or a luxury? Does the animal really care or are we projecting and anthropomorphising? [/quote]

I think if a policy considers only the welfare of the dog, it would not cover either of these things.

[quote userid="9239" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248886#248886"]The above are just a few example for which we can debate until the end of time and not reach a consensus. [/quote]

But that probably doesn't matter, I think. After all, one can say 'the policy excludes home euthanasia' and if that is what everyone actually wanted, they wont buy the policy. Same goes for all the rest.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Dinu Catilina — Tue, 19 May 2026 08:41:48 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248883#248883"]Perhaps restrict the treatment to primary care only, no referral whatsoever. Might push some people to upskill as they used to. I could do a lot in terms of orthopaedics for £2000, that vanishes quickly as soon as sent away.[/quote]

I thought that at some point the insurance companies will surely cap prices for a particular procedure. When the preferred referral network arrived 10-12 years ago I thought this might happen but it did not. Some of the preferred referrals more more expensive than those not on the list.

If prices were capped than surely we would not see as many TPLOs over 5000 pounds.

In my opinion welfare based insurance makes sense if you cap what you can spend for one condition rather than what conditions to cover.

IMPA - a bit expensive to diagnose but super cheap to treat.

Cruciate - cheap to diagnose but medium to expensive to treat

Palliative care - should we do any?

Home euthanasia - is it necessary or a luxury? Does the animal really care or are we projecting and anthropomorphising?

The above are just a few example for which we can debate until the end of time and not reach a consensus.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 19 May 2026 08:11:52 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248880#248880"]Most folk I come across want or need insurance to cover the high ticket items; specialist referral, advanced imaging. OOH care and the like.[/quote]

Clive Ansell yeah, but such a high percentage of people evidently cannot now afford the high ticket items OR the insurance to cover them.

People in the profession keep saying: "People's expectations have risen". Of course they have, because the profession itself has taught them to have higher expectations. It could, I think, equally teach them lower ones. Or put it another way, it could better manage people's expectations.

One way would be to say: "More complex veterinary care is now expensive. The other option is welfare insurance which costs less and limits care to just those things which keep your pet free of pain or suffering."

[quote userid="5012" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248880#248880"]Also, it would need to be very clearly explained to folk.[/quote]

For sure, but wasn't it ever thus!

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248883#248883"]I would personally consider drugs like Apoquel, Cytopoint, Librela as drugs really important for maintaining welfare. [/quote]

Going above my pay grade, but I think charities would argue that steroids are really effective for maintaining welfare too!

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248883#248883"]I also think that there can be many situations where a one off sizable bill, may overall save a lot of money. [/quote]

I am sure that's right, and there would have to be a calculation which considers the cost-effectiveness of surgery to maintain welfare.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248883#248883"]It's really a return to what most of us used to do, and a few of us still do. I'm not sure you will have too many vets on board. [/quote]

Michael Woodhouse LOL, I am sure you are right that I would struggle to get vets to sign up to this.

But I really do think the bottom line is that the profession has developed a level of service / clinical care that most cannot afford or do not want.

Unless it reviews and adapts the services it offers to meet the needs of its clients, there are only two options.

Either you price yourself out of the market, which is to say that most people will eventually stop buying pets and they will become the plaything of the rich.

Or people will keep buying them, but they will stop visiting the vet.

Perhaps option a is fine. I think it would be sad if poorer people were denied companion animals which they possibly benefit more from than the rich. But perhaps it would be better all round if dogs were only owned by people who could afford the very highest standards of care, which veterinary professionals could be paid properly for providing.

Once the market has adjusted to the idea of pets being only for the rich (a process which seems to have started already), all will be well. Getting there will be difficult, though.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 18 May 2026 23:09:23 GMT

Maybe a year ago I put a 14 year old farm collie to sleep. Our entire clinical record for the animal comprised of its primary vaccination course and then 14 years later, euthanasia. The dog had gone for a relatively long life not needing a vet in between. Does anyone have any good statistics for how many animals need to see a vet each year, and then figures of how many of them need referral and specialist input? I'm not entirely sure why, but statistically you get some clients who have had referrals for more than one of their animals, and many others who you see once a year for a booster.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248879#248879"]Nobody else got any thoughts on welfare insurance? [/quote]

Not sure about the name, but there could be something in this - IF THE OWNER UNDERSTANDS THE LIMITATIONS, and I see disparity between the cover they thought they had and the cover they may suddenly need. The profession for 25 years or more has steered owners away from cheaper policies and towards lifetime cover and ever-increasing cover limits. There is little fun in finding an insured animal and then a spanner ends up in the works when they find they are not covered, for whatever reason.

I would personally consider drugs like Apoquel, Cytopoint, Librela as drugs really important for maintaining welfare.

I also think that there can be many situations where a one off sizable bill, may overall save a lot of money. TECA, lateral wall (I know out of favour but simple and can really help), my old friend the lateral suture, amputate the damage tail on day one rather than months of bandages, perineal urethrostomy for the blocked cat, remove the anal glands. It's fine offering a cast or amputation for a fracture, but a simple pin or plate may save the leg and mean you don't end up with early onset arthritis in the other leg that you have to treat.

Perhaps restrict the treatment to primary care only, no referral whatsoever. Might push some people to upskill as they used to. I could do a lot in terms of orthopaedics for £2000, that vanishes quickly as soon as sent away. I just worry that you will be paying out more money over the policy treating the otitis flare ups every 6-8 weeks, versus dealing with the atopy or moving to surgery.

It's really a return to what most of us used to do, and a few of us still do. I'm not sure you will have too many vets on board.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem"]He also said that I should write a solutions-based article which explains how vets could continue advancing care whilst simultaneously bringing prices down. [/quote]

That's impossible. Very simple. Can't be done. Well, it can, but no one would like it......

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Clive Ansell — Mon, 18 May 2026 18:42:32 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248879#248879"]Nobody else got any thoughts on welfare insurance? [/quote]

I'm not really sure if this idea would ever get off the ground.

Most folk I come across want or need insurance to cover the high ticket items; specialist referral, advanced imaging. OOH care and the like.

Most can cope with lower value day to day things; diarrhoea, simple course of antibiotics for an abscess, or a few days drugs for vomiting etc. Most often the insurance excess payment would be higher than the bill anyway.

Back in the day I often would suggest saving a few quid every month instead of insurance, but it no longer would be appropriate as peoples' expectations and fees have risen exponentially.

Also, it would need to be very clearly explained to folk. Most don't read, don't really know, or have the first clue what their insurance does or does not cover. many go online and buy the cheapest, thinking they've bagged a deal.

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 18 May 2026 15:00:18 GMT

Nobody else got any thoughts on welfare insurance?

The more I think about it, the more I think it could really help make care more affordable for more people. Such a policy would cover/not cover:

Covered

consultations related to welfare compromise
pain relief
anti-inflammatory medication
steroids
antibiotics where needed to relieve suffering or control infection
anti-sickness medication
appetite support
basic blood/urine tests where needed to choose welfare-preserving treatment
simple wound care
palliative care
humane euthanasia
possibly home euthanasia contribution
possibly cremation contribution

Not covered

referral treatment
CT/MRI
chemotherapy
radiotherapy
complex orthopaedics
advanced soft tissue surgery
ICU-level hospitalisation
advanced diagnostics not required for welfare decision-making
treatment primarily intended to extend life rather than relieve suffering
elective or quality-enhancing procedures outside immediate welfare need
long-term disease optimisation where the aim is normalisation rather than comfort

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

David Scarff — Tue, 12 May 2026 15:39:12 GMT

And that IS a diagnostic approach!

RE: Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Clive Ansell — Tue, 12 May 2026 14:08:09 GMT

[quote userid="2116" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31361/would-welfare-based-insurance-cover-solve-the-price-problem/248860#248860"]Applying a diagnostic approach and validating less expensive options for treatment, whilst accepting some have limitations (and making this clear) can be appropriate. Many owners will be grateful for support in not pursuing option that either they cannot afford or that actually may not be in the individual patients best interest. [/quote]

I work in some of the poorest and most deprived areas of the country, and this is just another day at work for me.

Most of the patients I see do not have insurance, and owners have little or no money, so the aim is to offer a good standard of basic care. The usually approach of do what you can with what you've got involves trial treatments and stepwise diagnoses cheapest first where possible.

All well and good, except the number of complaints because things get missed or more accurately not yet diagnosed is on the rise. We're almost at the point where we are considering getting signed disclaimers if investigations are declined.

I had a case this morning. I was presented with it 2 weeks ago because it was booked for abdominal ultrasound scan, radiographs, barium studies and full blood work. 5 year old otherwise health Westie with a several month history of intermittent vomiting, otherwise well. careful history and examination, and my thought was it was likely dietary indiscretion/intolerance. no money, so dietary advice and dispensed few days antiemetics and 2 weeks preds. Now much better, no further vomiting, eating well, passing normal faeces and gained weight. Not perfect and no actual diagnosis I know, but it puts the ball well inside the inflammatory/allergy court and likely rules out other dd's. Will continue with dietary management and try to reduce or stop preds as see what happens