Are vets still about the care or more about the profit?

[Emma_H]

Just a musing really. Seems to me that vets are now more about making profits and less about the care. Both types, large and small animal vets, in fact my small animal vet left the practice he worked for, for just this reason. I'm sure it is down to insurance.

I have two cases in point.

1. One horse at my yard went lame with what looked like an abcess. Vet came and couldn't find it, prescribed antibiotics and bute. Farrier came next day, found abcess and care continued from there. While vet was out talked about tests for cushings. Horse in question, although older shows no typical cushings signs

2. Another horse went down with impaction colic, vet wanted to operate, owner said no. Horse is now back to his normal healthy self. If owner had gone with vet recommendation horse would have been in surgery for no real reason.

Don't get me wrong I would always have veterinary care when its needed, but is it just me who is starting to get disillusioned???

 

[Equi]

I think a lot of people are now making their own voices heardwith vets. I know so many people who take animals to be told something that is quite reasonably treated is not treatable and the animal should be pts. Also what irks me is the amount of vets who give "behavioural" advice, one told a staffy owner whos rescue dog had started growling to stick their hand in its mouth and grab its tounge so that it would gag and that anytime it growled it would associate it with gagging so would stop! I was shocked!

Frankly all i find them good for is getting scans/neutering/microchips.. I've never needed them otherwise (apart from one time they put a bandage on my cats leg which came off after a day.....for a dislocated elbow...)

 

[chocolategirl]

Just a musing really. Seems to me that vets are now more about making profits and less about the care. Both types, large and small animal vets, in fact my small animal vet left the practice he worked for, for just this reason. I'm sure it is down to insurance.

I have two cases in point.

1. One horse at my yard went lame with what looked like an abcess. Vet came and couldn't find it, prescribed antibiotics and bute. Farrier came next day, found abcess and care continued from there. While vet was out talked about tests for cushings. Horse in question, although older shows no typical cushings signs

2. Another horse went down with impaction colic, vet wanted to operate, owner said no. Horse is now back to his normal healthy self. If owner had gone with vet recommendation horse would have been in surgery for no real reason.

Don't get me wrong I would always have veterinary care when its needed, but is it just me who is starting to get disillusioned???

No your not the only one! I've thought this for some time now. I find that vets are more interested in if you have vets fees cover so they can throw lots of probably unnecessary treatment at a problem as it's more lucrative. Maybe I'm just an old cynic though and looking at it the wrong way?! I too know of a horse that went to hospital with colic and they were all ready to go ahead and operate but the owner said no as the horse was retired early through injury and she didn't see the point of it. The horse went on to make a full recovery sans operation !

 

[AmyMay]

I've never had any dealings with a vet that wasn't 100% about the care.

I also don't think that either vet in 1 or 2 did anything wrong. Bute and antibiotics are prescribed for lame horses presenting abcess like symptoms. But a farrier will always do a better job of finding it. Tests for cushings are, as far as I'm aware, free.

As for the colic. I can only imagine that the vet felt at that time that surgery was the only option. Obviously that was only their assessment of the situation, and the horse would have undergone further investigation once it reached hospital by the surgical team - who would have made the final recommendation.

 

[3OldPonies]

I've sometimes wondered about that too. What started me wondering was years ago when my NF X Welsh was being diagnosed for spavins. They were all keen to do joint injections, prescribe anti-inflammatory drugs etc until the point at which the insurance company turned round and said they wouldn't pay out after all, then suddenly it turned into a case of turn him out until the bones have fused. Also had a similar situation with one of the others, can't remember what the problem was now, but again they lost interest in treating him after I'd said he wasn't insured (I stopped after the spavins fiasco) and suggested a long period of turn out and just see how things go. Fortunately in both cases things turned out alright.

 

[Emma_H]

I'm mostly happy with my vet but I did have one virtually run away when I said I wasn't insured due to 1 year time lapse for laminitis with my last horse. The old school vets seem to be more about the care imo.

 

[Emma_H]

I do wonder if practices are now more target driven??

 

[samlf]

I recently took my young cat to the vets with cystitis, it cost me just over £70, I was expecting about £50. It cost me £36 for them to give her a 'full health check' (look at teeth and stick thermometer up bum!), a couple of quid for injectable metacam, £8 for them to actually inject her, just over £10 for some metacam to take home, and just under £20 for some 'supplement' capsules to help 'repair the bladder lining'.

Now I have no problem paying vets, they are professionals and train for years, as such they deserve to earn a decent wage. I do, however, find it a little insulting that they charge over £120/hour for their time when you scale it up. I also was pretty annoyed that they charged a consultation/health check fee, then charged a fee to administer a sub-cutaneous injection on top of that (yes I know the syringes cost money, but I can buy a big pack online for not much more than £8, and they will buy in bulk so would cost way less than that).

I find that vets nowadays always want to push selling something else, they seem to be as much salesman as they are veterinarians. The vet was insistent that I used this wonder supplement, when I looked at the ingredients it was just a few amino acids. They also always push the food they sell in store (which is a load of crap, FWIW), and are insistent you use their in house specialists rather than referrals.

 

[LaMooch]

I believe some vets are profit driven. The old school vets are more for the care. My friend changed vet practice for this very reason

 

[pippixox]

although yes sometimes i think sometimes they do things for profit, personally i rate my vets and they do what is best in their opinion, but also talk things through and help me weigh up options. i have more issues with mark ups on things like bandages and medicines- which is purely for profit, but they have to run a business at the end of the day.
vets will sometimes disagree with how to treat the same problem, the same with doctors. with things like colic sometimes it can seem surgery is the only way and then a horse makes an amazing recovery, but it could go the other way, with the vet saying leave them a bit longer, and then resulting in death- which no body would want.
abscess- i would just always get my farrier out first any way.
one of my vets (have used a few from same practice) has phoned me to check how my boy was doing- which i see as a sign of care. she wasn't going to get any money out of it. she has also said not to do more expensive tests that she felt may not result in anything.

 

[eggs]

The horse vets I use now know me very we'll and are definitely interested in the welfare of my horses. I left the previous practice as they became a 'business'. The vets I now use both worked there previously it left as they were under pressure together in as much revenue as possible.

Part of the problem is that a lot of owners want their horses back to work as soon as possible and also want answers as to what the problem is so the old style 'chuck him out in the field and see his it goes' approach is not as popular. This is understandable given the high cost of keeping a horse.

Too often the first question asked is "are you insured".

 

[babymare]

well yes all vets need to make a profit. But incase of exs very elderly cat oh yes they saw pound signs and prolonged a life where it should have been pts. In case of my vet Liz with Baby no not at all and I trusted Liz 100%. so i think it depends on the individual vets morals.

 

[Auslander]

I think the question of insurance is more to do with what additional (expensive) things they can do to help resolve an issue, than them seeing pound signs. I have two practices, both of whom have asked me if my horses are insured. Neither led me to believe it was because they wanted to extract as much money as possible - more that they were keen to thoroughly investigate/resolve a problem, but were respectful of my personal budget, should I not be insured.

 

[Spottyappy]

Cat 1 not insured(yard cat) had few fits, getting worse so after bad one took to vet who said he could do tests, I declined and cat was pts. Cost about £60.
Cat 2 was insured (house cat) became lethargic over weekend. Vet refused to pts until had done tests to give conclusive proof of what was wrong, even though I wanted her pts regardless. Had tests, result was cancer, vet bill £550, cat pts next day.
Same vet practice though different vets. Convinced making money is their concern, not always the animals best interest.
Same practice refuse to do anything with the horses unless sedated first- even when horse is perfectly safe and not doing anything to concern anyone, and before they even examine it.
Have changed vets now as so disillusioned.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I don't feel that either of the vet practices I use (one practice for the horses, one for the dog) are unduly money driven. They are both big multi vet practices with sizeable hospitals, so must have big overheads.

Only one of my 3 horses is now insured, and they know that I self insure the other two, but it's not a big issue. The main pressure of being insured is having to try and get loose ends tied up within a year of treatment commencing, but that is not the vets fault.

 

[armchair_rider]

I suspect it varies with the practice. Our current vet is cheaper than the previous one and it might well owe something to the previous one being part of a large group and the current one being independent. Current vets also has much lower staff turnover.

Current vets do promote an annual health check for older pets but are happy to combine with jabs which keeps the cost down (they'll also clip claws for free as part of the health check). They are quite realistic with older pets though, they did blood tests when they suspected an elderly cat had cancer but when that was inconclusive offered exploratory surgery but told us it wasn't worthwhile (cat didn't have the surgery and was PTS a couple of months later). They didn't have the prescription diet current cats needed in stock, offered to order it but told us we could get in cheaper online. So we did.

Definitely focused on patient care not profit.

 

[undergroundoli]

Part of the problem is that a lot of owners want their horses back to work as soon as possible and also want answers as to what the problem is so the old style 'chuck him out in the field and see his it goes' approach is not as popular. This is understandable given the high cost of keeping a horse.

And if chucking the horse out doesn't solve the problem the window that the insurance will pay out for is reduced. I sympathise with vets proscribing turn out for uninsured horses but diagnostics and things when an insurance company will pay out.

I've met vets that were less than amazing communicators, they are often not people people. Perhaps this is the problem?

Same practice refuse to do anything with the horses unless sedated first- even when horse is perfectly safe and not doing anything to concern anyone, and before they even examine it.

Could that have been an insurance requirement? The practice has a duty of care to its employees after all.

 

[twiggy2]

Cat 1 not insured(yard cat) had few fits, getting worse so after bad one took to vet who said he could do tests, I declined and cat was pts. Cost about £60.
Cat 2 was insured (house cat) became lethargic over weekend. Vet refused to pts until had done tests to give conclusive proof of what was wrong, even though I wanted her pts regardless. Had tests, result was cancer, vet bill £550, cat pts next day.
Same vet practice though different vets. Convinced making money is their concern, not always the animals best interest.
Same practice refuse to do anything with the horses unless sedated first- even when horse is perfectly safe and not doing anything to concern anyone, and before they even examine it.
Have changed vets now as so disillusioned.

A vet cannot ethically refuse to PTS ANY animal that is bought in to see them

 

[twiggy2]

I hate this sort of thread it tars all vets with the same brush

there are very few vets IMO that are purely profit motivated

my equine vets constantly feel under pressure from owners to produce results and get horses working fit again, they will not do colic surgery as they feel most owners underestimate the risks and the after care.
they are happy if I say I want to chuck a horse in the field and see where we are in a year with regards to lameness.

my small animal vets listen and advise which is what they should do, we all pay them for an educated opinion, they are not all seeing all knowing and cannot be right all the time,

If a dog comes in that has been hit by a car/has pyo/an obstruction then it is seen as soon as it comes through the door and bloods run, as long as it is not suffering from shock (or likely to suffer shock) xrays are done and bloods results obtained within 15-20 mins-do any of you have any idea how much the equipment costs to be able to do that? As humans that sort of treatment is not even available to us.

Many procedures with animals require a minimum of 2 trained members of staff, where as with a human you may only need one-the whole private human health care is this country is propped up by NHS equipment being used by consultants in return for a few hours per week for the NHS and yet medical care for animals is still far cheaper.

for everyone out there if you really think your vet is only in it for the money THEN CHANGE YOUR VET you have no obligation legal or otherwise not to

 

[cauda equina]

I suspect it varies with the practice too.

I had a mare who was diagnosed with COPD, had to have inhalers; the following year I was told she needed a nebuliser. I changed my vet, the new vet said no evidence for COPD, but if I was worried to open the back door of her stable.

 

[babymare]

Undergroundoll in some way i agree with your comment that often vets arnt good people people but mmmm. My vet annoyed some with her upfront tell it as it is attitude. She would tellyou straight if you were wrong BUT she not only was a good vet but a horse woman. And that shone with her. Her patience her calm manner and her love of horses. Watching her playing quietly with my mare before jabbing her so quickly so effiently was pure magic. The stressy mare was falling asleep lol.Not cheapest vet but hey not most exspensive either. But most of all she know baby and her past she know me and i trusted her. priceless x

 

[AmieeT]

We had a severely laminitic pony at our yard (I've going there 5 years and never saw it out of the stable)- also had cushings. Front left leg bent outwards where it was resting the weight on it. Farrier would only trim with the vet there to supervise and x-ray (he didn't want someone else to take over and make the pony more uncomfortable- though he didn't like doing it himself).

Farrier mentioned to the vet that it was surely time to say enough's enough and the vet's response was 'It's eating and drinking, and *** is happy to foot the bill'.

Poor pony has recently been PTS (broken knee) but I was disgusted that someone who is supposed to have a duty of care to the animal was so laid back about the poor thing's suffering.

Thankfully my vet is a lot more straight.

 

[Polonaise]

I love it when people scale up the consultation fee...I charge £35 for a small animal consult, I get paid roughly £130/day
Your £36 consult fee pays for: Staff time (vets, nurses, receptionists, kennel staff, accounts department, maintenance, cleaners and management), building (rent, maintenance and development), equipment (purchase, maintenance and cleaning), an out of hours service, insurance, training, disposables (syringes, needles, gloves etc.), drugs (storage, wastage, admin to comply with VMD)... the list goes on. Before the vet called you through they made some attempt to make sense of your animals notes and will spend some time afterwards recording the consultation and looking up anything they were unsure of, they may call you for an update and will certainly dispense free advice over the phone in many situations.

If vets didn't make money there would be no vets to call.

That rant over these case examples are often taken out of context, yes I do ask if the animal is insured and it's role in life, these shouldn't effect treatment plans but they do. If I offer an OAP on the breadline referal and chemotherapy as an alternative to euthanasia for her uninsured cat I will be accused of insensitivity. If I offer to put insured to the eyeballs TrixieWoo to sleep before she's been to see the top 5 specialists in the country for a "second opinion" I'm heartless. Some are grateful to be offered pts some are not, you can never judge.

I sit on the fence if the plan is not obvious, I offer 3 options which I find acceptable for the animals welfare
1) textbook investigation and treatment possibly via referal
2) symptomatic treatment or the "quick fix"
3) euthanasia
This gets me "off the hook" but many owners feel very guilty about having to make the decision and I spend a lot of time explaining that all 3 options are ethical. I use information such as insurance status, clients background, use of animal to help guide the client when they struggle to decide.

Agreed vets are not good communicators, we are also in general poor at running a business efficiently but uncaring and after money....try looking at the mental health stats and how they live compared to other professionals before you judge.

 

[khalswitz]

I'm going to put a different spin on it. When I did my vet school placements, it really surprised me how much things added up - driving time, petrol, time at callout, drugs, amount of disinfectant used, bandaging, etc, then there are vet's wages to consider (which, unless they own the practice, often isn't a large even for senior vets!), the cost of buying and maintaining equipment like rasps/hoof testers/chaps/ultrasound machines/xray machines etc, then there is premises to consider, insurance, electrics, the receptionists/nurses wages, and then whether they outsource their obligatory out-of-hours or pay overtime... it does add up. They don't make a huge profit generally - a lot of money goes back into the business through funding CPD or investing into equipment. then remember that vets pay out for all the drugs/treatments etc and then often end up being paid back for large bills over time, which leaves you with an awful cash flow - and that's not including all the unpaid bills that accrue!

Regarding vets pushing for treatments - it's how they are trained. When I was at vet school, we were taught about trying to identify an answer to a problem - and you would try to utilise diagnostic tools to be sure, in the order you were taught (workup, bute trial, nerve block, X-ray, bone scan/mri etc). Then regarding treatment, you would do all you could to have problems sorted as soon as possible with as little longterm effect as possible. If you have the money, or are insured, it's a lot easier to go the whole hog, the way NHS doctors do. Some vets just don't know how to solve the problem without the resources, whilst others (usually, but not always, more experienced) do. It's not about getting more money, it's about ruling everything else out and then solving the problem quickly and effectively. The time limit on insurance claims also puts pressure on getting more expensive treatments done sooner, before money is an issue.

Disclaimer: I'm not a vet, I just did the first degree. But I work regularly with and for vets, and they are terrible to get money out of, because they never have any spare (small practices anyway). So I sigh, but don't complain when my vets bills look huge.

 

[khalswitz]

I love it when people scale up the consultation fee...I charge £35 for a small animal consult, I get paid roughly £130/day
Your £36 consult fee pays for: Staff time (vets, nurses, receptionists, kennel staff, accounts department, maintenance, cleaners and management), building (rent, maintenance and development), equipment (purchase, maintenance and cleaning), an out of hours service, insurance, training, disposables (syringes, needles, gloves etc.), drugs (storage, wastage, admin to comply with VMD)... the list goes on. Before the vet called you through they made some attempt to make sense of your animals notes and will spend some time afterwards recording the consultation and looking up anything they were unsure of, they may call you for an update and will certainly dispense free advice over the phone in many situations.

If vets didn't make money there would be no vets to call.

That rant over these case examples are often taken out of context, yes I do ask if the animal is insured and it's role in life, these shouldn't effect treatment plans but they do. If I offer an OAP on the breadline referal and chemotherapy as an alternative to euthanasia for her uninsured cat I will be accused of insensitivity. If I offer to put insured to the eyeballs TrixieWoo to sleep before she's been to see the top 5 specialists in the country for a "second opinion" I'm heartless. Some are grateful to be offered pts some are not, you can never judge.

I sit on the fence if the plan is not obvious, I offer 3 options which I find acceptable for the animals welfare
1) textbook investigation and treatment possibly via referal
2) symptomatic treatment or the "quick fix"
3) euthanasia
This gets me "off the hook" but many owners feel very guilty about having to make the decision and I spend a lot of time explaining that all 3 options are ethical. I use information such as insurance status, clients background, use of animal to help guide the client when they struggle to decide.

Agreed vets are not good communicators, we are also in general poor at running a business efficiently but uncaring and after money....try looking at the mental health stats and how they live compared to other professionals before you judge.

Sorry, I posted before seeing this! But this exactly.

 

[blackcob]

^ Seconding Polonaise's post. Vets are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

They also don't make anything like the money you would expect. The last example figures I saw showed that a £200 bill to a client results in about a £5 'profit' when all overheads have been accounted for. 'Profit' because a good portion of that will be ploughed back in to new facilities, equipment and upgrades beyond usual running costs.

 

[khalswitz]

^ Seconding Polonaise's post. Vets are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

They also don't make anything like the money you would expect. The last example figures I saw showed that a £200 bill to a client results in about a £5 'profit' when all overheads have been accounted for. 'Profit' because a good portion of that will be ploughed back in to new facilities, equipment and upgrades beyond usual running costs.

What put me off finishing up qualifying was the wages. I know senior vets, who have worked for years at their companies, who are earning 30,000 a year - and up here all the engineers only qualified for 2 yrs are earning that. And that is assuming a 50hr week including on call! I decided that giving up competing my own horses for that would make me sour in the long run... and am very happy working in the veterinary industry doing something else now, with the prospect of earning the same for much less hours!

 

[Laafet]

I am very careful about which vets I use, it's down to the feeling I get. I have only ever felt iffy when I've had to use a general practice not a horse only one. My current vets are Rossdales and they are fab, they do care. It's the little things that make you realise that they care, like being stopped in the supermarket by my horse's lameness specialist to ask how he is getting on two years after his operation. IMO small animal vets are more about the profit from experience.

 

[Emma_H]

Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Makes some parts easier to understand.
I do like most of the vets at my practice and respect them but I do sometimes think some of them go a bit over the top.

 

[undergroundoli]

.Agreed vets are not good communicators, we are also in general poor at running a business efficiently but uncaring and after money....try looking at the mental health stats and how they live compared to other professionals before you judge.

I can see that you do enough for the money without also explaining why your doing it I'm sure that if you were all people people rather than animal people you'd be doctors and considerably better off.