Vet fees.

Re: Vet fees.

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:52:39 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

AFAIK SPVS continue to do and publish an annual fee survey

[/quote]

Yes, but it's only free to members. Pity about that. The public is a good target for info like this.

Re: Vet fees.

Rob Loxley — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:42:56 GMT

AFAIK SPVS continue to do and publish an annual fee survey

Re: Vet fees.

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:58:40 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

It worries me a bit when such meaningless figures are quoted in advertising. I am not suggesting they are incorrect in themselves but definitely are not a true reflection of veterinary fees.

[/quote]

I think you're right to be worried. What are true vet fees, then?

Would vetsurgeon.org be a good place to publish our own (more accurate) figures for average cost?

Re: Vet fees.

Bob Russell — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:54:27 GMT

It worries me a bit when such meaningless figures are quoted in advertising. I am not suggesting they are incorrect in themselves but definitely are not a true reflection of veterinary fees.

Re: Vet fees.

Kate Richardson — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:47:52 GMT

And I didn't mean to accuse you of accusing anyone

And I agree with regards to the price list, is is very odd. Surely the hosp fees must be typo? Especially as some insurance companys are now refusing to pay more than a set amount for hospitalisation. Scary when insurnace companies start dictating prices to us....

have you tried contacting Tesco's?

Re: Vet fees.

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 21:09:05 GMT

Forgive me for a poor turn of phrase.

Try this: A more thorough clinical workup does cost more; if a pet gets a more thorough clinical workup this will cost more. When insurance covers the cost, that may mean there's more clinical freedom. Is it likelier that an insured or an uninsured pet will enjoy this clinical freedom?

If this clinical freedom ends up costing more (and more tests/therapy does mean more money), it may be respectfully submitted that insured pets may have higher bills than uninsured pets.

I do not mean to accuse my colleagues of fraud.

While I certainly think the chart of prices is imprecise, the data has to come from somewhere. Ofcom doesn't look kindly on posting outright lies on websites, so where and what is the data this is based on? Dismissing it as "nonsense" is dangerous to us vets. The only way to combat misinformation is by answering with correct information.

Is that better then? Trying to watch what I say, honest! :)

Re: Vet fees.

Bob Russell — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:42:18 GMT

Insured pets owners do not get charged more in this practice. Diagnostic options are discussed with owners and fees charged are based on the work up agreed. My recommendations are not based on 'insured or not' but whether an owner follows these recommendations or not may be determined by presence or absence of insurance!

Re: Vet fees.

Kate Richardson — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:33:30 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

Insured pets get charged more. Not saying that vets stack it on when they see it's insured, but it does happen. And the insurers pick up the bill.

[/quote]

Be careful what you say! Not that there should be any non vets on here but just in case.....

Insured pets get larger bills because they get the full and correct work up necessary in many cases to obtain a diagnosis and treat them more accurately. Insured pets do not (or should not) be on the receiving end of unnecessary tests to bump up the bill. If vets imply this sort of thing goes on, no wonder the public thinks so! If it occurs, then I think it is disgraceful behaviour. I'll hold my hand up and say once I have an initial history and basic examination done, whether or not they have insurance or not is one of the next things I often ask, but I am careful to add that this means that Fluffy will be able to have the best care possible. Otherwise, this may be interpreted as 'oh goody, lots of profit'. What clients don't realise is that to most of us, insurance means there is likely to be a more clinical freedom and allow us to do our job to the best of our abilities without having to count pennies at every single stage. Trying to treat a sick animal with a limited budget can be very stressful and frustrating for us.

Re: Vet fees.

Julian Earl — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:12:04 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

The figures are absolute tosh in many or possibly even most cases: since when did boosters cost more than inital courses? Plus the dog/cat dentals, the speys/castration prices as mentioned above. Then there are "Drugs" - ? The "Overnight stay" prices £336 to £550? Dog x ray £232?

Nonsense. Unfortunately nonsense that the public may not be sharp enough to identify is full of anomalies.

[/quote]

Insured pets get charged more. Not saying that vets stack it on when they see it's insured, but it does happen. And the insurers pick up the bill.

Even comparing apples to apples, imagine a cat's in intensive care. Add in the drugs you charge - even 3 or 4 meds and IV drip and things could easily go up to 300-400. Dogs can be up to 2-5 times as heavy as a cat - drug volume alone means they'll be pricier than a cat.

Xrays? Who knows how many views that might have been?

It's certainly an interesting table, that link. Unlikely they're paying out for castrates and things like that, but if someone tries to claim, it would very likely be recorded in their files, and thus the source of the data.

[/quote]

I'm going to stand by my evaluation of these figures being nonsense . Note this statement at the top:

"Vet fees will vary but here is a list of the average costs of various treatments."

That's average. The average of where? Central London? Birmingham? Isle of Skye? The UK? I cannot conceive of an average overnight fees of anywhere that would be £550 for a dog, even central London. And an average for a sedated pedicure £243? I.e. costing more than the multiple x ray views? Even if the x ray fee average includes GA and hospitalisation (not overnight, obviously) then it's quite a lot of views - for an average.

They're nonsense.

Re: Vet fees.

bob lehner — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:59:32 GMT

[quote user="Vikki Halliday"]I was looking at a private GP website over the weekend, and their initial 15 minute consultation fee was £180, WITH A £35 PER 5 MINS SUPPLEMENT[/quote]

Last time I looked the initial consultation fee for a s.a. specialist appointment at the Animal Health Trust cost more than I paid to see a human specialist at the BUPA hospital down the road in Cambridge.

Re: Vet fees.

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:59:17 GMT

I suppose one lesson to draw from this is when a client claims from an insurance company, to list as specific a condition as possible so as to avoid a lot of things being lumped in under "surgery" and "overnight stay".

Re: Vet fees.

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:57:43 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

Nonsense. Unfortunately nonsense that the public may not be sharp enough to identify is full of anomalies.

[/quote]

Insured pets get charged more. Not saying that vets stack it on when they see it's insured, but it does happen. And the insurers pick up the bill.

Xrays? Who knows how many views that might have been?

Re: Vet fees.

Laurence Webb — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:47:50 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

I am sure this was the subject of a previous thread. It is complete c**p and totally bizarre!

[/quote]

But quite interesting nevertheless. Kitten/puppy vaccinations are cheaper than dog/cat boosters and why not! They take twice the time and cost twice the amount in drugs so it seems fair to cut your own throat to make it cheaper.

In fact why bother vaccinate animals when you can charge more than twice the amount to clip their nails and you only have to buy the clippers once? Invest in a bottle of Domitor and you can charge almost the same amount to clip the nails that you would to perform a dog castration and you don't have to worry about the cost of buying surgical kits, cleaning, sterilising, suture materials, drugs and all the other luxuries that we use. Mind you their 'average' fee is just three times the amount that we charge for a dog castrate.

My favourite is 'drugs' though. Expensive to treat a cat bite abscess, but pretty good value for an elderly dog with OA and CHF that may be on Vetmedin/Fortekor/Prilactone/Frusemide/Metacam for several years.

Re: Vet fees.

Julian Earl — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:30:15 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Most of our fees are pathetically low in comparison to other professions. It is one of the main reasons the profession is struggling. Again covered in previous threads but I am sure we will all be happy to get our woes off our collective chests again!

[/quote]

But what do you think would happen if we all, collectively, doubled, tripled, or quadrupled our fees? In fact don't answer, I'm going to start a thread...

Re: Vet fees.

Bob Russell — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:10:00 GMT

[quote user="Vikki Halliday"]

At a guess, probably the average of the claims they receive.

I personally think its on the low side.

I was looking at a private GP website over the weekend, and their initial 15 minute consultation fee was £180, WITH A £35 PER 5 MINS SUPPLEMENT!

I'm in the wrong job.........

[/quote]

Re: Vet fees.

Bob Russell — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:07:39 GMT

I am sure this was the subject of a previous thread. It is complete c**p and totally bizarre!

Re: Vet fees.

Julian Earl — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:42:37 GMT

Nonsense. Unfortunately nonsense that the public may not be sharp enough to identify is full of anomalies.

Re: Vet fees.

Utlendigur — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:32:03 GMT

[quote user="Vikki Halliday"]

At a guess, probably the average of the claims they receive.

[/quote]

But a lot of them are for things usually excluded like neutering,vaccination and nail clipping. I wonder how many clients think that insurance will then cover these

Re: Vet fees.

CatherineThomas — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:04:35 GMT

£105 for a bitch spay but £272 for a dog castration! How can that be?

And why is a cat dental more expensive than a dog dental?

Re: Vet fees.

James Laidlaw — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:03:44 GMT

But some prices are bizarrely high - over 240 for a "pedicure" with sedation and the dog Spey is significantly cheaper than dog castrate costs... Someone with a desk job making up numbers maybe?

Re: Vet fees.

Vikki Halliday LLB — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:56:37 GMT

At a guess, probably the average of the claims they receive.

I personally think its on the low side.

I was looking at a private GP website over the weekend, and their initial 15 minute consultation fee was £180, WITH A £35 PER 5 MINS SUPPLEMENT!

I'm in the wrong job.........