29 May 2025
College wants measures put in place by Competition and Markets Authority to be “proportionate, enforceable, effective, applicable across all veterinary settings…”.
Paul Imrie
Job Title
By Gravityaddict - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=89437708
The RCVS today (29 May) cautioned about the “risk of unintended consequences” of a package of remedies being put in place by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
In a detailed response, the college expressed caution the CMA’s potential package of measures, issued in draft papers on 1 May as part of its ongoing investigation of veterinary services for household pets, could increase regulatory costs on practices and reduce vet services in some areas.
And it said the risk of consequences posed by some of the measures risked impacting parts of the profession not covered by the market investigation, including the production animal, equine, exotic and charity sectors.
A response formulated by the college’s CMA working group did say it was keen to engage “with any measures that help increase transparency and information available to consumers regarding the cost of veterinary treatment to increase freedom of choice”.
But it also sounded a note of caution that any proposed remedies should be “proportionate, enforceable, effective, applicable across all veterinary settings, and mindful of the fact that any additional burden on veterinary practices could have the unintended consequence of raising prices to the consumer”.
The college suggested its existing Practice Standards Scheme and services such as Find a Vet could be built on, and it reiterated new vet legislation was needed, but concluded it looked forward to working with the CMA in coming weeks and months. The college’s full response is online.
SPVS and the Federation of Independent Practices (FIVP) submitted a joint report earlier today in response to the CMA’s draft remedies, which the bodies concluded “will have a disproportionately negative impact on independent practices”.
In their joint statement, they state: “We found that many of the proposed remedies, such as mandatory prescriptions and price comparison, risked significant burden on smaller independent practices. This would not only lead to administrative overload and reduced profitability, but could also result in increased costs for clients.
“We also suggest that an over-emphasis on price transparency could contribute to the erosion of the vet-client-pet relationship. Compassion and understanding are core values in many independent practices, however mandated price transparency could turn veterinary care into a purely transactional interaction.”
The full SPVS/FIVP response can be read here.
Earlier this week, in its own response – submitted jointly with BSAVA, BVNA, SPVS and the VMG – the BVA described the suggested remedies as “completely disproportionate” and “unworkable”.
