Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 11 May 2026 16:14:18 GMT

Sharing a post here that I put up on Linkedin and wondering if anyone here has any thoughts:

As if we needed it, more research has found pet owners are worried about rising vet bills. What's more, the results are startlingly similar to another study published in the Veterinary Record a few weeks ago.

At that time, Joshua Stern argued that this kind of data does not indicate a systemic problem, just an 'unmet need', which can addressed by emphasising the breadth of treatment options available.

He also said that I should write a solutions-based article which explains how vets could continue advancing care whilst simultaneously bringing prices down.

I continue to disagree with the idea that this is primarily a communication problem rather than a systemic one.

If large numbers of owners repeatedly report anxiety about affordability, across multiple studies, it becomes difficult to argue that the issue exists only at the level of consultation-room communication.

And I’m not convinced that simply emphasising the breadth of treatment options, aka contextual care, fully solves the problem either.

Because unlike getting the fridge repaired, there's a lot of emotion attached to the dog, and people will always want more treatment than they can afford, and resent it when they can't.

What's more, people make rational, logical decisions about their fridge. If it cost £500 to replace, they won't spend £600 fixing it. The same is not usually true of the dog.

Joshua argues — and he is not alone in this — that I am wrong to talk about a “rational” limit on spending, and that I am simply projecting my own view of what constitutes rationality.

But society clearly does make judgments about proportionality in healthcare spending, whether we admit it or not.

If someone spends £30,000 treating a 15-year-old dog, many people would regard that as disproportionate. A billionaire may view it differently, but the earlier research suggested owners themselves place the limit far lower than modern veterinary medicine increasingly assumes — somewhere well south of £3,000.

It was suggested that I write an article which shows how vets can continue advancing care whilst bringing prices down.

I don't think that's possible. Advancing care whilst bringing prices down seems oxymoronic.

I think the solution may lie in offering a lower, more affordable standard of care, perhaps based more strictly on the welfare needs of the animal, and supported with an appropriate level of cheaper insurance cover.

In other words, shifting cheaper insurance from simply offering less comprehensive financial protection to supporting a consciously different model of veterinary care — one focused more on welfare thresholds than maximal intervention.

Of course that doesn't restrict those who want the highest clinical standards for their dog. But the cost of that should not come from the premiums paid by low-income owners.

Just a thought!

anyone using Vetoquinol's 'Phovia' system for wound healing?

ian bates — Tue, 26 May 2026 14:21:35 GMT

Hello all,

Opinions / experience welcomed please

Thank you

Ian

Evelyn Barbour-Hill's Groups Activities

Would welfare-based insurance cover solve the price problem?

anyone using Vetoquinol's 'Phovia' system for wound healing?