Concerns shared over CMA options

A Coalition of veterinary groups has warned regulators risk harming animal welfare and increasing pet owners’ costs if some of their options for sector reform are implemented.

In its strongest criticism yet of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) process, a senior BVA official described some aspects of the authority’s current thinking as “worrying”.

The RCVS has also urged the body not to impose “long-term pain” on the sector, while the BVNA cautioned it was “not reasonable” for practices to know their rivals’ prices.

Areas to address

The comments followed publication of a CMA issues statement last month, which set out the areas that it expects to address during its ongoing market investigation of companion animal services.

Although most veterinary groups remain supportive of the process, newly published response documents have prompted several major worries. In a joint paper, the BVA, the BSAVA, SPVS and the VMG said they had “significant concerns” over the suggestion that longer prescription periods could be imposed on clinicians.

They argued that such a measure imposed “without allowing vets to exercise their clinical judgement” potentially represented a serious threat to animal welfare. However, some of their strongest criticism was reserved for the idea of practices being obliged to send an annual “wake-up” letter to clients, which they said was “far removed” from how veterinary care is delivered.

They added: “Disrupting this relationship annually could lead to reduced trust, poorer health outcomes for pets and increased anxiety for pet owners.”

The groups also voiced concerns about the possibility of imposing maximum charges for written prescriptions, which they suggested could trigger increased costs elsewhere, and a threat to future medicine supplies in Northern Ireland if clinicians are forced to diverge from current cascade requirements for prescriptions.

The latter concern was echoed by NOAH, which said the business case for developing medicines for animals “simply does not exist” without the requirement for vets to prescribe licensed treatments first.

Elsewhere, the RCVS response paper reiterated its overall support for the CMA’s work – particularly its interest in legislative reform – arguing that it had “pushed as far and as creatively as we can within the boundaries” of the present law.

But it echoed the concerns about limits on medicine charges leading to increases elsewhere, which it said could lead to some pet owners avoiding visiting their vet and even to some practices being closed down.

‘Long-term pain’

The paper continued: “The dials that need to be moved to ensure a fair deal for clients, therefore, need to be shifted in subtle ways to ensure this is not a question of short-term gain meaning long-term pain.”

The BVNA’s response offered direct support for investigating several of the areas identified by the CMA, as well as expressing a willingness to take part in further “Teach In” sessions to the authority, having delivered an initial event jointly with the BVA in July.

But while it expressed concern that larger groups may have an incentive to act in ways that reduced competition, it insisted that clinicians must be free to offer a range of treatment options.

It argued that it was “reasonable” for vets to refer clients to specialists that they know if the connection is made clear, but “not reasonable to expect the veterinary practice to know the fees of other practices”.

Although CMA officials said they welcome the submissions being made, they declined to comment on the issues raised within them.

But BVA president Anna Judson said the authority’s statement emphasised the need for ongoing engagement between the professions and the CMA “to ensure the veterinary voice is heard and unintended consequences are avoided”.