Vets’ service fees now appropriate, vet groups tell CMA

Historic undercharging, which can no longer be sustained, may have contributed to perceptions that UK pet owners are now being charged too much for veterinary services.

The suggestion has been made by a coalition of industry groups in a joint evidence submission to the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) ongoing review of the sector.

But union officials have claimed the growth of corporate practice ownership has “fundamentally changed the nature of employment and career progression” for veterinary professionals.

Five organisations – the BVA, BVNA, BSAVA, SPVS and VMG – joined forces to compile a 26-page document, which was published on 3 November.

Most of them had previously urged their members to contribute to the review process, which was launched in September, while officials have also voiced concerns about its potential impact on practice teams.

Severe impact

The paper said the sector has been severely impacted by rising costs in recent years, on top of the other factors that have contributed to its well documented workforce pressures.

But it argued that practices were “now charging appropriately for their time, having historically undervalued their professional services”.

The groups suggested requirements for new graduates to have a basic understanding of business expenditure, together with the growth of corporate influence, had contributed to the evolving approach.

However, they also warned of a “disconnect” between clients’ expectations of both care quality and cost, which they believe is connected to a wider lack of public experience of paying for their own health care.

Substantial increases

The paper further highlighted a range of specific service areas where costs had increased substantially in recent years. On one such example, neutering, the document said the procedure had been undercharged to help “incentivise owners” because of the wider perceived health and welfare benefits.

But it continued: “Unfortunately, this is not well understood by clients, and future surgeries for other conditions may then appear overpriced, when in actual fact they are appropriately priced.”

The associations warned that offering neutering as a loss leader was “no longer sustainable”, even though some discounts were still offered to encourage owners to have the procedure carried out.

Cost concerns were also at the forefront of a separate submission by the British Veterinary Union (BVU), which its leadership said was compiled following consultations with members.

It highlighted the lack of influence that most staff have on pricing issues and urged the CMA to emphasise the impact of client abuse on staff mental health.

Pricing structure

It said: “Pet owners often believe the clinician treating their pet influences the pricing structure of the business, which is very rare in the current employment climate of the sector.”

The union also voiced concerns about the potential for clients to be misled about the ownership of practices where the original name has been retained following an acquisition and was highly critical of the current regulatory imbalance, which it said can leave practitioners liable for the consequences of policies imposed by senior managers without clinical experience.

Its paper added: “Clinical staff in the sector are seriously concerned about loss of clinical autonomy while still having legal accountability for practices and policies they may object to, but are forced to follow.”

The associations themselves acknowledged the corporate impact on the sector in their own submission, arguing that the lack of practice regulation should be addressed by a new Veterinary Surgeons’ Act, while stressing they were in favour of “transparency” in practice ownership.

But they added: “We fully support healthy competition, consumer choice and diversity of business models so that clients can select from a wide range of veterinary service providers – whether small independents or part of a large chain.”

Held meetings

Meanwhile, in an update to its latest council meeting on 9 November, the RCVS chief executive, Lizzie Lockett, confirmed the body had held meetings with the CMA since its previous session, which took place on the day the review was announced.

A college spokesperson later confirmed the discussions had taken place to provide “general background information on the professions and our role as regulator”, while the authority had also asked for further information on specific points.

But he stressed that the college had not made any formal submissions of its own “as we did not think that would be appropriate and were not asked to do so”.The new interventions come ahead of a Vet Times Big 6 Live debate, which will consider the review’s wider implications and how the sector can address its issues, at this week’s London Vet Show.

Representatives from the BVA, BVNA, BVU, SPVS and VMG will be part of the panel for the session, which will take place in the Humm Business Theatre at 4pm on Thursday (16 November).