3 Nov 2025
Senior figures back warnings the Competition and Markets Authority’s current remedy plans risk forcing some independent care providers out of business.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: Fotolia/whitestorm / Adobe Stock
Regulators have been urged not to “oversimplify” the veterinary sector’s challenges amid growing fears that proposed reforms could lead to practice closures.
Several senior figures have now backed warnings that the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) current remedy plans risk forcing some independent care providers out of business.
The authority has dismissed those fears, claiming that its measures could actually benefit such practitioners.
But BVA president Rob Williams warned the concerns raised following the release of its provisional remedies were not “unreasonable” and likely to be widely shared within the sector.
In a Vet Times Podcast (see link at bottom of this story), he said the organisation was worried that little would be achieved for the pet-owning public if lost medicine revenues had knock-on cost effects in other service areas.
He added: “These things are complex and complicated and when we oversimplify them and try to deliver thinking or solutions that are too simplistic, we’ll end up having unintended consequences.”
The comments follow fierce criticism from the Federation of Independent Veterinary Practices (FIVP), which has led warnings about the closure threat and accused the CMA of seeking to impose an entirely new business model on the sector.
Asked whether it was prepared to risk such an outcome by implementing the remedies in their present form, the CMA instead pointed to its findings that independent practices were cheaper on average than many of their large veterinary group (LVG) counterparts and a substantial majority of pet owners interested in practice ownership preferred to use independent providers.
It added: “We believe that our proposed measures to support better informed pet owners could be beneficial to many independent vets.”
But in a Big 6 panel discussion of its recommendations, which will be available via the Vet Times website soon, SPVS board member Kate Higgins warned the scale of change required could look “potentially insurmountable” for some practices if the present proposals are enforced.
She said: “I think there will be people who will consider whether they stay in practice.”
IVC Evidensia CVO Gudrun Ravetz conceded the profession had been having a long-running “discussion with itself” around the topic but warned that implementing the kind of change envisaged would be “quite tough” for the whole sector.
She added: “For us, a thriving veterinary workforce, a thriving veterinary business landscape of all different types of business, is what we all want to see.
“We are concerned that the administrative burden will impact significantly on all business types.”
Fears have also been raised about the likely impact on individual clinicians, particularly on issues such as the automatic provision of written prescriptions.
The CMA believes the measure could make it easier for pet owners to obtain medicines from alternative sources, despite fears that it could reduce the time available for treating animals in need of care.
British Veterinary Union chair Suzy Hudson-Cooke argued those burdens imposed through the measure would be felt by individual clinicians, rather than businesses.
BSAVA president Julian Hoad added: “It worries me that at the moment, particularly with the prescription remedies, they’re not going to be proportionate for people who already feel beleaguered and overworked.”
