New puppy will need surgery - where do we stand with the breeder?

Cortez said:
Now why would I do any of that? I am answering your query: veterinary charges are generally far less expensive in Ireland and while it’s likely that overheads are lower here, I am inclined to think that UK vets are charging what they think the market can bear. Your questioning is extremely aggressive; what’s your problem?
Click to expand...
I think it might be useful for people to challenge views that vet care should be practically free/non profit - I expect to pay all my professionals- dentist, farrier, vet, private gp - a fair wage to reflect their time. We often pay our plumber and electrician more than our animal carers and don't say they are extorting us for our choices to have pets.
 
SusieT said:
I think it might be useful for people to challenge views that vet care should be practically free/non profit - I expect to pay all my professionals- dentist, farrier, vet, private gp - a fair wage to reflect their time. We often pay our plumber and electrician more than our animal carers and don't say they are extorting us for our choices to have pets.
Click to expand...

It’s ridiculous to say that vet’s don’t make a profit. There wouldn’t be any vets if that were the case, of course they have to be viable. I have no idea what you pay your plumbers, what does that have to do with anything?
 
SusieT said:
I think it might be useful for people to challenge views that vet care should be practically free/non profit - I expect to pay all my professionals- dentist, farrier, vet, private gp - a fair wage to reflect their time. We often pay our plumber and electrician more than our animal carers and don't say they are extorting us for our choices to have pets.
Click to expand...

Well i would challenge that if I ever saw anyone write it, but they don't.
.
 
malwhit said:
They dont necessarily need a licence, depending on the area where they live and how many litters they breed.
In my area, if you breed more than 3 litters a year you need a licence.
Some of the best breeders are not licenced as they only breed one or two litters a year.
Click to expand...

Not entirely the case, the DEFRA legislation does only cover the UK not Wales or Scotland. The number of litters is a red herring as there is a business test used to determine the need for a licence.
 
honetpot said:
I don't think so, I think they charge what they need to cover their costs and make a profit. You can ask for an estimate, I do and shop around. I do not have insurance.
Click to expand...



i have insurance for my dog and it is very obvious that the vet's charges are based on that premise.

I don't for the horses. Last time the horse vet (partner in the business who knows me well) came out he explained all the tests and scans and heaven knows what I could do. He knew I don't insure the horses and also that he was going to have to make a lot more justification for all those tests the insurance could pay for when it was me paying.

I am not suggesting for one moment that they shouldn't cover their costs and make a profit. I was just replying to Cortez comment about vet costs in England.
 
The first question I always hear (at least 3 different practices) 'Is.....insured?' It's definitely a factor in England. Can't remember whether it was on here or elsewhere that posters were saying it's worth going abroad for pets to be treated as it's so much cheaper. I have no idea how much an operation might be in Europe, for example, or how you'd manage to register and see a vet!
 
Cinnamontoast said:
The first question I always hear (at least 3 different practices) 'Is.....insured?' It's definitely a factor in England. Can't remember whether it was on here or elsewhere that posters were saying it's worth going abroad for pets to be treated as it's so much cheaper. I have no idea how much an operation might be in Europe, for example, or how you'd manage to register and see a vet!
Click to expand...
We do ask about insurance, for the very good reason that it gives options. Well insured pets usually have far greater investigation and treatment options - the vet (and owner) need to make a plan that suits everyone. An owner with limited funds will have far fewer options for a poorly pet - sometimes limited to PTS or pain relief. One with decent insurance could be looking at Xrays, scans, referrals to specialists - so of course that conversation must be had up front. Vets would be struck off if they altered their prices and charged more to people with insurance - we have published prices for everything. Insurance just broadens the options for treating the pet.

Good luck taking your pet to Europe for cheap treatment. You'll need to add the cost of a rabies vaccination (currently £79 at our practice), possible blood test, and an animal health certificate (over £250) before you start.
 
Yeah I think it would be useful to explain, as LC did above, that we don’t ask about insurance so we can rinse it and charge what we like. Aside from being illegal, it’s just not a thing that we do. I openly ask if an animal is insured, because then I know how well I can do my job.
I don’t offer diagnostics just for the spends, because quite frankly, I have test results coming out of my ears to report, I don’t need any more to add to my list! I don’t actually have time in the day to perform that ‘unnecessary’ x ray on a vomiting dog, I would quite like my lunch but if a pet needs it, they need it!
I always offer top (gold standard, how I was taught), middle and lower tiers of treatment. The fact is choosing the lower tier is often related to poorer outcomes because we just can’t treat things properly - if I am treating blind without diagnostics or using a drug that might work but has side effects rather than the one that will work and has less side effects because of costs, then I can’t do my absolute best for that pet, I’ll try my hardest, but it may not work.
and yeah, I have to offer economic euthanasia. I am realistic and there is a fate worse than death for animals, but it is heartbreaking being the one to help a pet pass when I know the condition is treatable with an excellent chance of a good outcome, worse when the owner blames me for being too expensive and it becomes my fault.
I’m a vet and insure all of my pets, I don’t get free diagnostics or tests or services
Some things are simple and resolve with simple treatment and it all goes well - I love those. But not all are like that. And if I offer a client blood tests to check suitability for a drug, and they decline and want to use the drug anyway, which is fine, so long as we discuss the risks I’m cool with that, but don’t then slate me on reviews or in a complaint because I ‘missed your dogs liver disease and killed him’
Insurance gives you options
 
Redders said:
Yeah I think it would be useful to explain, as LC did above, that we don’t ask about insurance so we can rinse it and charge what we like. Aside from being illegal, it’s just not a thing that we do. I openly ask if an animal is insured, because then I know how well I can do my job.
I don’t offer diagnostics just for the spends, because quite frankly, I have test results coming out of my ears to report, I don’t need any more to add to my list! I don’t actually have time in the day to perform that ‘unnecessary’ x ray on a vomiting dog, I would quite like my lunch but if a pet needs it, they need it!
I always offer top (gold standard, how I was taught), middle and lower tiers of treatment. The fact is choosing the lower tier is often related to poorer outcomes because we just can’t treat things properly - if I am treating blind without diagnostics or using a drug that might work but has side effects rather than the one that will work and has less side effects because of costs, then I can’t do my absolute best for that pet, I’ll try my hardest, but it may not work.
and yeah, I have to offer economic euthanasia. I am realistic and there is a fate worse than death for animals, but it is heartbreaking being the one to help a pet pass when I know the condition is treatable with an excellent chance of a good outcome, worse when the owner blames me for being too expensive and it becomes my fault.
I’m a vet and insure all of my pets, I don’t get free diagnostics or tests or services
Some things are simple and resolve with simple treatment and it all goes well - I love those. But not all are like that. And if I offer a client blood tests to check suitability for a drug, and they decline and want to use the drug anyway, which is fine, so long as we discuss the risks I’m cool with that, but don’t then slate me on reviews or in a complaint because I ‘missed your dogs liver disease and killed him’
Insurance gives you options
Click to expand...

but surely you are offered the same options insured or not or at least I would be very upset if that wasn't the case.
 
paddy555 said:
but surely you are offered the same options insured or not or at least I would be very upset if that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

Of course I do. You said your vet said he could do x y z expensive test but you weren’t insured so didn’t and he didn’t push it. That’s not proof that vets charge whatever insurance will pay
Even if a pet is insured, we still have to get consent from the owner to actually perform diagnostics etc. it’s not like we can say ‘ok, this one’s insured guys, Chuck in an MRI for good measure, that’ll pay for the Christmas party’
 
The dog we had put to sleep at the end of last year was insured. The referral vet knew this. It made no difference to what diagnostic tools she used, and she certainly didn’t push for more of this or that. We had a very sensible discussion on what should or should not be done. And she fully supported our decision to pts.

The bill was still high as their facilities were much more high tech than our own local vets - but that’s why we went there.
 
Clodagh said:
I always think when people say they don’t trust their vet, then why are you using them? I wouldn’t use a vet I felt was ripping me off or cheating me or my animals in any way, how could build a working relationship with them?
Click to expand...

This all over, my dogs a very important to me and I want someone I can trust to provide the medical care and knowledge they need.
 
Redders said:
Of course I do. You said your vet said he could do x y z expensive test but you weren’t insured so didn’t and he didn’t push it. That’s not proof that vets charge whatever insurance will pay
Even if a pet is insured, we still have to get consent from the owner to actually perform diagnostics etc. it’s not like we can say ‘ok, this one’s insured guys, Chuck in an MRI for good measure, that’ll pay for the Christmas party’
Click to expand...


It's very difficult to respond to posts like these without making it sound like you are writing about all vets. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am talking about a small minority.

But approval of the owner is no proof that some vets are not milking insurance. Why would an insured owner who isn't going to pay for it refuse an MRI recommended by a vet?

I have certainly seen a big teaching hospital, which was renowned for it, max out an insurance with some difficult to justify diagnostics. And I have heard of more than one person where suggested big machine diagnostics disappear when the owner asks "how will the treatment change if we have this done". All cases were horses, not small animals.

I want to repeat, the vast majorly of vets have nothing but the welfare of their patients and their owners at heart. We would miss you sorely.
.
 
paddy555 said:
i have insurance for my dog and it is very obvious that the vet's charges are based on that premise.


I am not suggesting for one moment that they shouldn't cover their costs and make a profit. I was just replying to Cortez comment about vet costs in England.
Click to expand...

. What vets charge for items and services and procedures is pre set before you walk in the building. All vets want to offer what is best for the pet - "gold standard" as Redders said above. It's pretty insulting to be accused of upping prices or offering unnecessary treatment to insured pets just to fleece money out of insurance companies, which is what your sentence above implies. . I've been working in the industry for 8 years and have never yet met a single person on the front line who doesn't just want the best FOR THE PET. Vet treatment costs a lot less than the equivalent human medicine, and yet the skills and equipment etc are the same - or even more complex, given the range of species etc. People without insurance are often very limited and this can be heartbreaking for owners but also the people treating the pets. AS stated before, insurance gives more options for (expensive) diagnostics and treatment, simple as that.
 
Redders said:
Of course I do. You said your vet said he could do x y z expensive test but you weren’t insured so didn’t and he didn’t push it. That’s not proof that vets charge whatever insurance will pay
Even if a pet is insured, we still have to get consent from the owner to actually perform diagnostics etc. it’s not like we can say ‘ok, this one’s insured guys, Chuck in an MRI for good measure, that’ll pay for the Christmas party’
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. If was not the fact that he didn't push the tests because I wasn't insured. I am in the extremely fortunate position of being able to pay myself for whatever tests and treatments that I want way above insurance limits if necessary and I have done on occasions.
 
Landcruiser said:
. What vets charge for items and services and procedures is pre set before you walk in the building. All vets want to offer what is best for the pet - "gold standard" as Redders said above. It's pretty insulting to be accused of upping prices or offering unnecessary treatment to insured pets just to fleece money out of insurance companies, which is what your sentence above implies. . I've been working in the industry for 8 years and have never yet met a single person on the front line who doesn't just want the best FOR THE PET. Vet treatment costs a lot less than the equivalent human medicine, and yet the skills and equipment etc are the same - or even more complex, given the range of species etc. People without insurance are often very limited and this can be heartbreaking for owners but also the people treating the pets. AS stated before, insurance gives more options for (expensive) diagnostics and treatment, simple as that.
Click to expand...


I am feeling quite insulted, too. We don't insure but that doesn't mean that we won't have diagnostic tests done, if they would be helpful.
When the 6 yr old Rott was suddenly taken ill, the vet suggested an ultrasound scan which could be done that day. The results of that led to a operation, which unfortunately resulted in pts. I had discussed chemo with vet, which I wasn't prepared to put the Rott through. Vet told me she wouldn't have done so either.
Also when her 8 yr old litter sister had a 'urine infection' that wouldn't clear up, she had the scan suggested by the vet, which showed that she had a bladder tumour, she was treated accordingly (no chemo) and lived happily for another 6 months.
At no point were any other tests recommended/suggested. I really don't think it is the vets' place to make a judgement about their clients' financial position and would be very cross if I felt that was happening. I have never thought that it has happened with the independent practice that I use.
 
Last edited:
The last 2 dogs I have lost have not been insured, and both became unwell quite suddenly. Vets knew they weren't insured but still gave me all options, in the case of Freya there wasn't even chance to go beyond a simple ultrasound as she went down hill so quickly, but if this hasn't happened I would have paid for whatever the vets thought was necessary. Evie was nearly 13, she could have gone to a specialist for MRI scans but as she hated vets, and the scans would really only confirm what we suspected, I didn't go for this, and as she didn't respond to pain relief she was pts. Neither vet asked if I was insured before offering me all the options.
The other side is when people complain about vets "missing things" because they don't go in with all the bells and whistles at the first sign of illness, yet often I suspect these same people would be moaning about vets milking them if they did suggest such an approach early on.
 
Landcruiser said:
. All vets want to offer what is best for the pet - "gold standard" as Redders said above. It's pretty insulting to be accused of upping prices or offering unnecessary treatment to insured pets just to fleece money out of insurance companies, which is what your sentence above implies. .

paddy555 said:
i have insurance for my dog and it is very obvious that the vet's charges are based on that premise.

.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that, in my case, that is what happened. My instructions to the vet were at the first sign of trouble PTS instantly. (inpatient) that didn't happen. I had gone to the vet for PTS in an emergency, I wasn't persuaded (it was my choice) to have more tests after discussion as it seemed that despite another 6 hours or so of possible distress it would be a reasonable thing to do. The proviso however was at the slightest trouble then this is your authority to PTS and that is most definitely what I want to happen. There was trouble. Big trouble. My instruction wasn't acted upon. I would never ever have authorised the treatment that was carried out (which did go badly wrong) I would have PTS many times during the next 48 hours if I had been aware. However he was insured so they carried on with treatment that I would never have authorised and paid for myself as it was not in the animal's best interests. If he hadn't been insured that wouldn't have happened..
Click to expand...
 
Amymay said:
Did you not have any discussion with your vet during that 48 hours about what was going on/treatment?
Click to expand...

I was told later that day he had come out of the GE. As that was late afternoon I knew he was going to stay with them overnight for a couple of minor tests the following morning before he came home. That was the plan, there was no need for any other conversation, we would have discussed the test results next day when I collected him.

The next thing I knew was a call at 7.30 am the following morning from the vet nurse to say he had survived the night. Erm what!!!! I have had similar calls (which were expected) from vet nurses before at 7.30 am when I have had horses in horsehospital. I knew exactly what it meant.

(before anyone asks why didn't I take action against the vets and heaven knows I was beyond furious then there are reasons and it wouldn't have been in the animals best interests)
 
Confused about the timings.

So in the afternoon you had a call to he’d come out of GA and in the morning another call to say he was still alive?
 
Amymay said:
Confused about the timings.

So in the afternoon you had a call to he’d come out of GA and in the morning another call to say he was still alive?
Click to expand...

exactly, rather gob smacked me as well.

The vet invoiced the insurance company direct for payment. I finally pieced together what had happened when I got hold of a copy of the bill. That night had cost £1000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top