More Daily Mail vet bashing

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Simon Neuhoff — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:27:34 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Bob Unlike you I am still enthusiastic about my job, and would recomend it to a teenager, but public recognition of the enormous financial sacrifice I've made would be nice

Wynne

[/quote]

I like my job most of the time and consider myself very fortunate. Bad days can be tough but the good days can be magical. The problem is that the veterinary world I entered and lived in for my working life is slowly dying in front of me.

New graduates leave college with massive debts, face great competition for a shrinking jobs market so will not have the chances I was lucky to have.

More vets, fewer jobs means lower wages, more unemployment. Increased competition works similarly. If new graduates were to enter the veterinary world I did 25 years ago I would say lucky them - unfortunately they will not. How can it be acceptable that a new graduate needs a second job to make ends meet or cannot find work in the profession after 5 hard years at college?

There are good reasons why the veterinary courses is (I believe) now the 11th most popular university course - when I applied it was number 1.

Would I like to be able to recommend it to a teenager? Dead right I would. Would I actually recommend it? No. If despite this they went ahead would I help? Of course I would.

[/quote]

Getting off topic but this is a great post. I feel for the new veterinary graduates and even more so for those just starting their degrees. I am so glad I am not in their shoes.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Mark Holmes — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:25:38 GMT

[quote user="Sarah Green"]

Until more practices do it and it is seen by the public as common pricing practice, I feel I would be shooting myself in the foot.

[/quote]

It depend how much you want to be liked by your local veterinary competition! Vets are allowed to prescribe against another vets prescription so you could market yourself along these lines and hence draw attention to your drugs prices. You might have to invest a little in a marketing campaign and don't expect a christmas card from your local competitor.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Bob Russell — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:54:35 GMT

We are introducing a variable mark-up based on usage.

A medicine that is frequently used, especially those that we buy and sell before we pay are at a lower mark-up than those likely to go out of date because they are required rarely.

We may charge at much higher mark-up to compensate for the fact they sit on the shelf and cost us money. This seems a rational approach and if we price ourselves out of that market it is no big deal.

This means we can supply small quantities in emergency profitably and owners can then get a prescription for longer term use. This sounds complicated but actually is very simple. We all know which products turnover rapidly.

It is a bit arbitrary but quite easy to run along the shelf - low, medium, high and very high!!! Takes a few minutes to do and most computer systems allow easy price adjustments. Check the out-of-date bin as well. It allows honesty with clients.

We cannot compete with the internet pharmacies directly but we can run a dispensary at a profit.

Discussing mark-ups with neighbouring practices could very easily be seen as attempted price fixing.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 08:49:32 GMT

[quote user="Sarah Green"]Until more practices do it and it is seen by the public as common pricing practice, I feel I would be shooting myself in the foot.[/quote]

Isn't the answer that there has to be a combination of measures, rather than a single practice taking the plunge:

Edge mark up down over a period of time, rather than making a sudden dramatic change that risks losing custom
Highlight your reduced drug prices. Explain to people that don't ask about drug prices that these are the hidden costs
Perhaps more discussion in the profession about a united approach to reducing drug mark ups. On a local level, why not discuss the principle of low drug mark ups with other practices in the area. This is NOT price fixing, it is talking about a principle.

Sarah, I'm not in practice, so these are just the thoughts of an outside observer

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Sarah Green — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:35:13 GMT

I find these numbers fascinating, for ages I have wanted to reduce my drug mark up (currently 50%) and charge significantly more for time including consults. How, then do I1 do it with 2 other practices in town that do exactly the opposite - ie they keep time down and drugs/materials high. But then people asking prices don't ask about the cost of their preds, they ask how much is it to see the vet?

Until more practices do it and it is seen by the public as common pricing practice, I feel I would be shooting myself in the foot.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:29:15 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Bob Unlike you I am still enthusiastic about my job, and would recomend it to a teenager, but public recognition of the enormous financial sacrifice I've made would be nice

Wynne

[/quote]

New graduates leave college with massive debts, face great competition for a shrinking jobs market so will not have the chances I was lucky to have.

There are good reasons why the veterinary courses is (I believe) now the 11th most popular university course - when I applied it was number 1.

Would I like to be able to recommend it to a teenager? Dead right I would. Would I actually recommend it? No. If despite this they went ahead would I help? Of course I would.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Julian Earl — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:26:38 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Julian, it's a legal document in your eyes. I'd have a small bet with you that the majority of pet owners don't see it as a legal document. And it may represent the culmination of five years to you, but all the pet owner can see is the 30 seconds it takes you to write it.

[/quote]

That's a fair comment but when farmers used to complain about paying for a slaughter certificate, I would suggest they get someone else to sign it, the plumber maybe, or their postman. The absence of a veterinary signature makes the document a worthless piece of paper, and as such if I am selling something of value to them, be it a signature or a bottle of penicillin, why should I not charge? Having said all that, trying to rationalise the issue and argue the case on this basis is at best hard work, and ultimately can alienate the client. In the end I think the client accepts a modest charge but not a high one.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:37:09 GMT

Bob Unlike you I am still enthusiastic about my job, and would recomend it to a teenager, but public recognition of the enormous financial sacrifice I've made would be nice

Wynne

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:20:38 GMT

[quote user="Pete Wedderburn"]

UK based internet pharmacies currently falls in to two groups.

(a) Pharmacies registered with the RPSGB (Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain). These dispensing pharmacists have to take a short course to be able to dispense 'prescription only' medication for animals and have to display a registered pharmacy logo on their homepage.

(b) Veterinary owned pharmacies, have veterinary surgeons who are registered with the VMD (Veterinary Medicines Directorate), they are run by qualified Veterinary Surgeons registered to work in the UK and have RCVS membership, and so do not need a pharmacist license to trade. As I understand, there's only one internet pharmacy falling into this category: http://www.petdrugsonline.co.uk/

I think it's probably safe to presume that the RPSGB and VMD do a reasonable job of regulating the businesses that are registered with them, but I don't know how this is done.

It's much more difficult to trust online pharmacies as many are not regulated at all and so can supply medicines that may not be licensed products, or indeed medicines could be counterfeit, repackaged or just not stored or transported in an appropriate manner.

[/quote]

My understanding is that the bulk of the sites selling pet medication are run by vets and this means the level of regulation is lower than for a pharmacy.

The number of these sites seems crazy - is every other practice selling medicines to every other ones clients?

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Pete Wedderburn — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:46:45 GMT

UK based internet pharmacies currently falls in to two groups.

I think it's probably safe to presume that the RPSGB and VMD do a reasonable job of regulating the businesses that are registered with them, but I don't know how this is done.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Edward Jones — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:30:10 GMT

[quote user="Emily Nightingale"] I rang the VMD and they informed me there are none they can recommend at all[/quote]

I think that's more apathy on the part of the VMD than anything else. Internet pharmacies don't contribute directly to the VMD so why would they bother?

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Emily Nightingale — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:11:10 GMT

Re internet pharmacies: following a request from a client for recommendations for a credible internet pharmacy I rang the VMD and they informed me there are none they can recommend at all- ie. none that are guaranteed to supply the bona fide real thing and not a phoney copy. There are in addition to this some internet pharmacies that are being "investigated" for fraudulently supplying fake drugs.. Food for thought.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:13:05 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"][quote user="Bob Russell"]

I tell people that our income is a balance between what we do and what we sell. I am quite honest that there is a degree of subsidy but that it is relatively minor.

Most owners seem to accept it (not necessarily believing it!) - at the moment writing a prescription is a rarity for us.

Charging for a prescription covers costs and may be as profitable as selling medicines but owners are not impressed that a charge is made for a piece of paper!!![/quote]

Surely your final comment is tongue in cheek? It's not just a piece of paper, it's a legal document. ("It doesn't take five minutes to sign, it takes five years, etc.")[/quote]

So isn't 'bigging up' the script a case of flogging a dead horse. Wouldn't it be better to stress the value of the things that clients can really see value in. i.e. you and your training.

One practical idea: lots of parents and children presumably spend lots of time in the waiting room. If there's space, how about a display about how to become a vet. Ostensibly to give helpful advice to children/parents, but actually to educate owners about how long you train for, how much debt you accumulate, etc. etc.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Julian Earl — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:43:02 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

I tell people that our income is a balance between what we do and what we sell. I am quite honest that there is a degree of subsidy but that it is relatively minor.

Most owners seem to accept it (not necessarily believing it!) - at the moment writing a prescription is a rarity for us.

Charging for a prescription covers costs and may be as profitable as selling medicines but owners are not impressed that a charge is made for a piece of paper!!!

[/quote]

Surely your final comment is tongue in cheek? It's not just a piece of paper, it's a legal document. ("It doesn't take five minutes to sign, it takes five years, etc.")

[quote user="Catherine Williams"]

[quote user="Rob Davis"]

I think this should be included in a survey - how much free treatment does the average veterinary surgeon perform each year... [/quote]

But my concern would be that if we emphasise what is done for free or subsidised then yes there will be more people pleading special circumstances but is there not also a danger that people will wonder how we can do it on the cheap sometimes if overheads and costs are as high as we claim. Are we going to be accused of a large mark up on our fees above and beyond costs or charging extra to subsidise others?

Apart from drug and over the counter sales costs it is difficult for owners to compare costs and I would guess the assumption is that if drug costs are heavily marked up then so are service costs

[/quote]

I agree very much with Catherine here. Emphasising the free has all sorts of awkward ramifications - how can we afford to work for free, who gets the free treatment, who subsidises the free treatments? It would be far better to show a comparison of our average salaries againsts dentists, private doctors, GPs, (accountants? solicitors?), in combination with hourly rates and overheads. The vast majority of people have not got the remotest idea of our overheads and have simply never thought it through. After all, how many of us think of the overheads of the local garage when we have the car serviced?

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:06:47 GMT

[quote user="Pete Wedderburn"]The results of the survey would not need to come from an official veterinary body - e.g. if Arlo was happy to do it, it could be released from this website. The publicity that the website would get might help to compensate him for all the work he's going to put into designing and analysing the survey :-)[/quote]

Love the ideas, Pete. Especially comparing attitudes of people to docs, veterinary surgeons and dentists - we could look at the waiting times for each too. And there's no reason why a survey can't include both serious and wacky (in fact, that is generally a good thing, to offer the broadest range of newshooks for the broadest range of media outlets).

I'm more than happy to put the work in - mainly because I genuinely would like to see the balance being redressed a bit.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:49:29 GMT

I reckon getting on 50% of all the neutering I do is now for charities and free-loaders waving charity vouchers, at rates of 1/3 -1/2 of my normal rate. These free-loaders give a disproportionate amount of aggro in terms of unreasonable demands and no-shows and it can get to the point it is interfering with my normal work but to feel better I try to tell myself that I am doing some good for the genuine cases.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:18:44 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]We would not prescribe a 180ml bottle for a small dog as it far exceeds a months requirement. We treat all patients the same whether a prescription is requested or medication supplied. The pack sizes are the same and examination frequency is the same.[/quote]

Sorry - should have made myself clearer. I wouldn't give someone a writen prescription for anything more than I would prescribe in-house. Am just getting cheesed off by these types of requests. "But I've looked online and....." is getting to be a familiar comment. And I can assure you that, as a practice, our mark-up is very low!

I would actually love to stop selling meds at all - just stock injectables. I'd love to charge more reasonable (ie higher) fees for my time and then give everyone a written prescription. They wouldn't complain at the charges as, without meds, they would seem very reasonable. I wouldn't have to find room to stock all the meds and get depressed throwing away those that you have to stock 'just in case' but rarely dispense. Less nurse hours ordering and sorting meds etc.... I can but dream. Unfortunately not possible - even the people who want a written prescription will continue to expect us to stock their meds for those occasions when they run out - or during another postal strike! But wouldn't it be nice.......... :-)

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Bob Russell — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:08:27 GMT

You will punish them even more if the practice closes or downsizes. I do not believe the big boys will be cheap if the competition is reduced.

I do not know of any practice making unreasonable profits and a few that have made very little - any reduction in income has to be made up or costs cut.

We would not prescribe a 180ml bottle for a small dog as it far exceeds a months requirement. We treat all patients the same whether a prescription is requested or medication supplied. The pack sizes are the same and examination frequency is the same.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:51:18 GMT

We have never charged for a written prescription. I also used to think that clients were entitled to shop around - and didn't feel happy charging for a 'piece of paper'. I also saw very few requests for them. Not any more. Having now been asked for written prescriptions for anything from Stronghold, 180ml bottles of metacam for a tiny dog and even a single milbemax tablet, I have now started to charge. If you google any drug name then all you will get is 'buy cheap *(*&% from us - and the prices they charge are so low as to be ridiculous. We just can't hope to compete. At the same time, putting all the fees up will punish those loyal clients who will happily continue to trust us and get their meds from us. Charging for the prescriptions seems, to me, to be the only way that is fair.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Bob Russell — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:14:02 GMT

I tell people that our income is a balance between what we do and what we sell. I am quite honest that there is a degree of subsidy but that it is relatively minor.

Most owners seem to accept it (not necessarily believing it!) - at the moment writing a prescription is a rarity for us.

Charging for a prescription covers costs and may be as profitable as selling medicines but owners are not impressed that a charge is made for a piece of paper!!!

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Catherine Williams — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:50:29 GMT

[quote user="Rob Davis"]

I think this should be included in a survey - how much free treatment does the average veterinary surgeon perform each year (wildlife, strays, reduced fees for charities, discounts given to those in financial difficulty etc). Realistically it is very difficult to estimate this accurately, but I think people would be surprised. The only down side is that it may encourage some people to plead poverty and push for discounts.

[/quote]

I think the vast majority of the public are unaware of the amount of work we do for nothing. I know charity contributions barely scratch the surface of the work we do for stray and wild animals...it's one of the things I like about my current practice that a stray cat is not automatically pts'd as soon as the RSPCA contribution has been spent.

Apart from drug and over the counter sales costs it is difficult for owners to compare costs and I would guess the assumption is that if drug costs are heavily marked up then so are service costs

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:34:28 GMT

I went into a private hospital for surgery recently and not only does the bill make very interesting reading in compariosn to ours, the free newspaper they handed out was The Mail. This struck me as strange as my first reaction was that the average private patient would want something with a rather higher standard of journalism (I certainly did). Or maybe it's only Chavs and the working class nuovo riche who can afford private medical fees or insurance these days; but then surely they'd see how reasonable our fees are.

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:58:01 GMT

Pete Newspapers really love slamming people, so what about a survey of how many humans have post-op infections, and how many pets. Also promptness of veterinary treatment, compared with months/years of waiting for NHS appointments

Wynne

PS SPVS can provide details of veterinary pay, and David Bartram of suicide rates, so that's 2 less things I'll have to find out for you

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Bob Russell — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:57:43 GMT

Very scary and a very poor reflection on our profession that vets have to subsidise themselves with a second job!!! There was a previous thread about what advice would you give to a teenager wanting to become a vet?

Those like me that said 'don't' took a bit of stick but this says it all!!!

That could be mentioned in any article as long as money grabbing bosses are not blamed!!!!

Just looked up the £99 vaccinations for life - it appears patients are not allowed to go 'overdue' for a booster without restarting and this is chargeable!!!!

It is not just Baldrick that has a cunning plan!!!!!!

I wonder how clients will react when the get charged for it. Why can't the profession survive without these stunts?

Re: More Daily Mail vet bashing

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:51:29 GMT

The Express might be a good paper to get on the pro-VS side They and the DM are rivals so might be glad to take the opposite stance Definitely survey the charities, eg ask Dogs Trust how many bitches are neutered at very reduced rates every year-and compare this with the cost of a hysterectomy at a private hospital Survey doctors (in private sector ) on private consult rates Survey solicitors on hourly consult rates, and find out how much we (tax-payers ) pay them per hour for legal aid, and compare with veterinary hourly consult ratesTry to terrify the DM with the thought of the damages the dependants of the next veterinary surgeon to commit suicide could get from them

Wynne