Has insurance made useless owners?

I do think insurance supports all these invasive tests and treatments indirectly.Of course I refer to hoof problems especially. Often, a simpler, longer term route is preferable but with all the high tech knowledge the overall picture gets blurred and lost in the concentration on minutiae.
 
Feathered said:
... maybe its just that these days there's more and more people buying horses who don't know how to deal with these small issues by themselves.
Click to expand...


Although I to some part think that people are less likely to go to the veterinarian if they don't have insurance, I also think people in general seems to have gotten less capable of dealing with minor medical problems, regardless if it affects their animals or themselves. I know some persons who believes that having a first aid box at home equals having some elastoplast at home and nothing else.

Personally, here at home I have a large tool box that I've turned into a first aid box for dogs, cats and humans, and in my summer house I have a grooming box that I've turned into a first aid box. So I can take care of minor problems myself, but other times I use it to wrap the injury before going to the veterinarian.


:)
 
I only third party insure, so vet bills are my own. I have a vet pool (same as basic insurance) for if needed.

I use the vets same as I use breakdown cover. When needed, not when there is something simple I can sort. Anything involving eyes, puncture wounds, heart etc will get an immediate call and farrier (OHs dad comes out to anything involving feet and legs).

OH works for a vets so they are fantastic at answering little questions on the phone for nothing.

However the last time I called a vet out, wouldn't have happened a few years ago... I phoned in the middle of the night to say something was wrong. I couldn't work out what it was at all, just something not right, and bless my vet, came out instantly and confirmed that there was a problem. Not a cheap thing to do but I'm happy that if my horses tell me there is something wrong and I cant give it a very good guess what that is, I won't try to. Thankfully *touch wood* this has only happened once with my own!

Anything basic we sort ourselves though and injections are the next on the list to do so will just buy them and round them up on a good day!

I also know my vets will happily sort monthly payment etc if necessary so the lack of insurance wouldn't change my mind on anything. There are some treatments I wouldn't do and some I would, insurance doesn't play a part in it - in fact it's less limiting having built up my own pool as to what I can use it for.
 
The last abscess we had was pretty text book as to how I'd deal with one. A day or two of poulticing myself, if that didn't sort it then farrier, and if the horse wasn't near enough sound a couple of days after the farrier (or if the farrier couldn't find anything) then it's a vet job. As it was the farrier found it in about 60 seconds and the horse was better 24 hours later.

I wouldn't think anyone was a numpty for calling the vet though - abscesses can get into internal parts of the hoof which can be catastrophic, and a fractured pedal bone can present like an abscess. If your internal alarm bells are saying 'need help here' then generally you should listen to them.
 
This has been a really interesting thread for me, thank you everyone that has contributed :)

Those that are saying most call outs for wounds etc would come under the excess how would an owner know this UNTIL they had called out a vet & had the treatment? Or am I missing something?

Knowing when to call a vet is an important part of being a horse owner, I have & will still happily call out my vet when I see fit but I do understand what my farrier was getting at.

What a couple of posters have written about the experience some owners have before buying a horse does ring so true for what I've seen BUT I'm not calling any novice owner a numpty....we all started somewhere.
 
glamourpuss said:
This has been a really interesting thread for me, thank you everyone that has contributed :)

Those that are saying most call outs for wounds etc would come under the excess how would an owner know this UNTIL they had called out a vet & had the treatment? Or am I missing something?

Knowing when to call a vet is an important part of being a horse owner, I have & will still happily call out my vet when I see fit but I do understand what my farrier was getting at.

What a couple of posters have written about the experience some owners have before buying a horse does ring so true for what I've seen BUT I'm not calling any novice owner a numpty....we all started somewhere.
Click to expand...

Well for me, my excess is £135 and if the bill arrived for example under about £250 then I wouldn't even bother to claim - I generally only use the insurance for the big things. I've currently got a claim in with my insurance for an abscess - which didn't really follow the normal abscess route. I didnt' want to claim, but as it started to involve x-rays and numerous visits from the vet, I had to put a claim in as the final bill is around £600.

Basically horse went lame a few months ago - initially I didnt' call the vet as it just seemed to be stone bruise symptoms. After about 10 days when there was no improvement, I called the vet who also agreed that it was bruising and if no improvement a few weeks later then to take her for further tests. The horse went from cripplingly lame, to sound overnight, several times. There was no reaction to hoof testers. She went for x-rays where it was hoped a gas pocket of an abscess might be seen, but it wasn't to be and i was advised just to rest her and see how she went on. The scenario continued from lame to sound always within hours, then back to lame again. Vets were out several times just to give pain relief. In the end she was booked in for an MRI scan. About 10 days before she was due to go, the vet came out once more, nerve blocked etc and was basically at a loss, but as she has navicular he was pretty certain that the navicular would be deemed to be the cause when the MRI was done. As it was he scraped at a tiny area near her toe where she had on that day made a tiny pull away from the hoof testers. We poulticed and next day the abscess burst out. Horse has been sound ever since. So was I wrong in calling the vet out for that? When even the vet hadn't thought it was an abscess? A farrier wasnt' going to find it as there was no reaction to hoof testers until the final visit, so what should I have done? Left her to suffer in pain? Does it make me a useless owner that I called the vet for what ultimately turned out to be an abscess?
 
Holly Hocks there are a couple of things that this thread has hilighted.
Firstly even if you do not claim, if there is a condition on your horse's vet records your insurance can exclude.
Secondly no-one is saying what YOU do with YOUR horse is wrong. All I was interested in discussing is this interesting idea that because they've paid for vet cover they should use it so there is a decline in horse owners being able to treat simple ailments themselves.

For the record & this is NOT a dig or a slight at how anybody chooses to deal with their horse I must've been very lucky because in 30 years around horses I've never had a farrier miss an abscess, even when it looked like the horse didn't react to hoof testers!
 
I completely disagree. It is nothing to do with insurance, merely the modern type of horseowner. In the past ( not so distant either), horses were kept for a purpose - be it hunting/racing/sport or work and handled by experienced amateurs or professional horsemen. Nieadays the average horse owner keeps a horse for pleasure riding while working a fully one job. Unfortunately the majority lack basic horse-sense but thankfully most call a vet when they are out of their depth.
 
I don't have vet cover insurance for any of my horses. I also live a good distance away from my vets. I have an array of drugs and suchlike in my vet room at home so I can deal with most run of the mill type things. I call my vet for stitching as he would make a much better dressmaker than I'll ever be! Mild colic I will deal with myself, not that I've had many cases of colic over the years, but I've only needed vet intervention once as I didn't have the the different drugs on hand which were needed. The equine vets I use (3 different practices) are all very good at talking me through anything on the phone that I might be unfamiliar with and as I stock a wide selection of drugs here I usually have exactly what the horse needs and I just follow vets instruction as to what cc is needed.

I'm not sure insurance can be blamed for owners calling vets willy-nilly, I think people usually do what they can and if they feel they are out of their depth then the first call should be to their vet. What insurance has done though is upped the price of any vet treatments to those insured. I pay nothing like the costs that my insured friends are billed for treatment.

In essence, I see nothing wrong with an owner calling the vet for whatever reason they feel they should. Better to be safe than sorry.
 
Also disagree - it is more to do with the inexperienced owner. Not saying that is a terrible thing - but at least they are calling vets when they aren't sure, even if it is for a little mud fever! Far better than just ignoring it, or having a google diagnosis (isn't there an active thread with that on here!! :p )

I can't see how it would put premiums up - you wouldn't (I assume) claim if it was something small, I assume. If it turns out to be something bigger and a genuine problem - then regardless of the experience of the person, the vet would probably be needed at some point anyway. Hopefully that makes sense!

I do think more people should pop themselves on a good equine first-aid course.
 
Id rather see a horse treated by a vet than an inexperienced owner possibly causing more harm than good, cant see what the problem is tbh, to each there own if they want to call a vet let them, the only person ot costs money to is them, i dont think insurance has much to do with it
 
I'm probably more likely to call a vet early, than when I was less experienced. Very much a fan of nipping things in the bud.

Wouldn't dream of asking a farrier to diagnose lameness. Sadly a very experienced owner I know did do this with their teenage horse. Farrier dismissed horse's footiness, horse box rested for few days then back to normal ie t/o, work etc. The farrier had failed to spot the early signs of cushings disease. The horse succumbed to serious laminitis some weeks later and several months of box failed to bring a reprieve.

Given that insurance usually has an excess higher than a minor vets bill, I don't agree that it has any impact on owners.
 
No but many owners don't have the experience to deal with certain ailments. I have 2 horses . insured and one not. I am pretty old school in that if a horse is up and about and has a good appetite then I won't call the vet immediately and see how things go. Having kept horses for 37years and livestock for the past 10 years it reasonably easy to tell if an animal is in distress just by its behaviour. It's not that I'm tight with money but in many cases the vets know less than me about my pigs and sheep! I had a yougster that was not 100% sound and the vet wanted to send him for a full lameness workup once they knew I had insurance. I decided against this deciding to wait and see and the horse was sound the following week. Had just tweaked something having a mad half hour! I have had the vet out for an abcess though when I couldn't find the reason for my horse being on 3 legs.
 
I think insurance has made useless owners, but not in the way of individual horse insurance policies.

I think it's more down to high insurance premiums/health and safety/the blame and suing culture that has now practically done away with the old fashioned riding schools, where you learned horsemanship, not just how to ride.

It's so expensive now for riding lessons, it's actually in some cases cheaper to buy a pony even though you may not be ready for ownership. And you have your pony presented to you, ride it, and leave after the hour is up.

The riding schools aren't allowed to have kids slaving for them all weekend, and learn about tack, help with young horses, see and treat injuries and get themselves into and out of problems.
 
Marydoll said:
Id rather see a horse treated by a vet than an inexperienced owner possibly causing more harm than good, cant see what the problem is tbh, to each there own if they want to call a vet let them, the only person ot costs money to is them, i dont think insurance has much to do with it
Click to expand...

I know of a case where the vet was not called out after a horse was kicked on it's front leg and the owner treated it herself. By the time the vet was called a few days later the horse had a serious infection in it's joint and ended up being PTS.
No insurance and delay in calling the vet to save cost and a sad ending for a very nice horse. :(
From first hand experience the biggest risk to horse health are ill informed, cost saving owners, giving it just a few more days before getting the vet out.
 
mtj said:
I'm probably more likely to call a vet early, than when I was less experienced. Very much a fan of nipping things in the bud.

.
Click to expand...

I am actually the same tbh. When I was a teenager I rarely thought to call the vet but the older I get and the more horror stories I hear of things I would have said 'o it's just this or that' and it has turned out to be something obscure and horrible the more I think I'll let the vet look just to be sure.

I can, 9 times out of 10, tell them exactly what is wrong and what I need and they just confirm but I think it's worth letting them look because I'd be so cross with myself if I was wrong and missed something.

I must have the best insurance company in the world because they have never tried to exclude anything that was considered an injury :confused: The horse had surgery on its hock and the leg isn't even excluded as it was a kick and the vet told them there was no lasting damage!

I'd never claim for anything under £500 and I've only racked up a bill that big once so far touch wood so don't think me being insured changes much in that respect at least :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top