An update on our market investigation, following our consultation on potential remedies for vet businesses
When we published our consultation on measures to address potential competition concerns in vet businesses, we expected a broad and robust set of responses – we have not been disappointed!
We've received over 500 responses to our consultation, the vast majority of which were from individuals and independent vets, alongside responses from pet owners and consumer representatives.
Understanding a complex market
Providing vet services is not like selling mobile phones or insurance. This complex market requires careful consideration of animal welfare and public health alongside competition. Clinical judgements, professional expertise, and the relationships between vets and pet owners all play vital roles.
This is precisely why we consult.
It would be wholly irresponsible to produce remedies without subjecting the possibilities to vigorous debate and discussion by those who may be affected, which is what we will be doing over the coming weeks as part of our extended administrative timetable.
What we are hearing so far
We're still analysing responses, but our initial review has revealed a number of key points:
What consumers are telling us
Many consumer groups have told us that action is needed to address significant consumer detriment, including inadequate complaints and redress systems for when things go wrong.
For example, Which? urged the CMA to ‘act boldly to tackle the high barriers to consumer engagement’ and told us:
"The evidence collected so far in the market investigation, the CMA’s preceding market review and our own research leave us with little doubt that a comprehensive package of interventions is needed in the veterinary services market to improve competition and to deliver better outcomes for consumers."
What vets are telling us
We've received mixed feedback from the vets sector.
Many would welcome changes to the regulatory system, including ensuring that non-vet owners of practices are subject to appropriate regulatory scrutiny. There's recognition that regulation has real-life impact on both animal care quality and value for money for pet owners.
Many vets acknowledge the importance of transparency – people incurring significant costs should know what they may end up paying, and be informed of available treatment options before committing. All whilst recognising that clinical practice can never be entirely predictable.
We've also heard about 3 concerns:
1. Practicalities
What are implementation risks? For example, can generic prescribing, common in human medicine, work effectively in veterinary practices?
2. Costs and proportionality
Do benefits to pet owners outweigh additional costs to businesses, particularly for smaller practices?
3. Business model impacts
What would happen to veterinary practices that rely on medicine mark-ups if more pet owners purchase medicines online?
While it's too early to say what will be in our provisional findings, the many helpful and constructive submissions that we've received will be core to what we're considering.
Key considerations
1. Context is crucial
It is important to remember why we're considering these remedies in the first place. While people have a lot of trust in individual vets, there are concerns about vet businesses and we are considering evidence that may indicate:
- price rises of 60% or more between 2016 and 2023
- medicines sold for 3 to 4 times the purchase cost
- very limited price transparency
- limited visibility on whether practices, referral centres and online pharmacies are part of large national groups
- considerable dissatisfaction with the complaints system
- veterinary businesses owned by non-vets not being subject to mandatory quality or professional regulation
- budget-conscious pet owners not being given a sufficiently wide range of choices
- a sector radically changed with large groups now controlling 60% of first opinion practices and many related businesses
Our job remains to get to the bottom of these concerns, and address them where we can.
2. Impact on businesses
Additional responsibilities, even when designed to address consumer concerns, have real consequences for businesses – not just in costs but in time and focus.
40% of first opinion practices are small or medium-sized businesses – some of them are very small indeed.
My father ran a small business, I understand the pressures – no HR department, no compliance professionals, no finance department, it was all him. His time was precious, costs were tight.
We made a point in our consultation to seek views on potential regulatory costs and burdens, and this is a key consideration to balance against wider benefits.
3. Informed consumer choice
The relationship between pet owners and vets is not purely transactional – trust is key – and we have heard suggestions that giving consumers more information so that they can better assess the choices available to them might damage this relationship. But is it the case that there is a tension between better informed consumers and trusted relationships with vets?
Some responses suggested that greater awareness of available choices might lead pet owners to make decisions detrimental to a particular business. For example, knowing that medicines can be purchased more cheaply online might encourage pet owners to buy there instead.
On the other hand, where buying online could lead to savings on some medicines of up to 50% or more over many years, should consumers not be made aware of their options to make their own choices?
And to make informed choices, pet owners need to know what the alternatives are.
Moving forward constructively
The issues we're addressing are widespread and strongly felt. Our inquiry did not create these concerns but was set up in part as a response to them.
Our job is to assess problems and seek the most proportionate resolutions. Many veterinary professionals understand this. They recognise that resting on professional trust isn't enough when veterinary services as a business may not be functioning as well as they should.
We particularly value those respondents who acknowledge the problems and suggest alternative solutions where they disagree with our proposed remedies. Through constructive dialogue, we'll find the right answers.
Extending our admin timetable
We have announced our decision to extend our administrative timetable so we can fully consider the responses we have received on our proposed remedies.
The statutory extension is for 6 months but we aim to publish our provisional decision in September 2025, to hold the response hearings around the end of October 2025, and to publish a final decision by February 2026 rather than at the end of November 2025 as originally intended.
This is not a decision we have taken lightly. We understand the value of providing greater certainty to the many stakeholders – not least the vets, nurses, receptionists and other hardworking frontline staff – affected by this work and delivering outcomes as quickly as possible is a key objective for the CMA.
It is also important that those outcomes are measured, well-targeted and proportionate, and that the process gives a fair hearing to affected parties.
In this case, given the volume and strength of feeling of comments from consumer groups and vets and the complexity of the issues we are considering it is vital that we take the time needed to address consumer harm and avoid unintended consequences for veterinary professionals and businesses.
Follow our ongoing investigation on the veterinary services for household pets page.
15 comments
Comment by Duncan MacIntyre posted on
Is there scope for CMA to be asking why there are such differences in medicines prices? In many cases higher price to clients is simply due to enormous differences in prices further up the supply chain and it might be best to look at differences there - eg between online pharmacies and small vet practices.
Comment by Colin Capner posted on
It hardly seems open and transparent if there is information shared in a privilaged way with only the larger veterinary groups - ' the working paper relating to an econometric analysis of pricing and treatment
data from two large insurance companies (Econometrics Working Paper)
which the CMA shared with the large veterinary groups (LVGs)3 via a
confidentiality ring in December 2025, followed by the sharing of a revised version with those groups in May 2025'.
The pricing of corporate groups relative to independents is a matter of considerable sensitivity and it appears from this that all parties are not equal in the considerations of the CMA panel.
Comment by David Hodges posted on
Yes very strange , seems like a CMA condoned large vet group monopoly! Where commercially sensitive data is not shared transparently with the whole of the profession. Almost seems like the LVG’s who own the majority of the online pharmacies are in cahoots with the CMA. Has the LVG’s intense lobbying completely altered the original aims of the CMA review- one of the key thing’s being the transparency on clinic ownership.
Comment by Gerard W Henry posted on
Had to do a double take when I saw your name !
Comment by David Elliott posted on
My vet typically sells medicines at least 2 to 3 times the price I can obtain by buying online. Equally to maintain that mark up it has over the last 4 years raised the price of obtaining the prescription, which is required to buy most vet medicines online. The price 4 years ago was £10 now it is about £24. Clearly your aims re reducing the excessive mark up on of medicines by transparency and hopefully increased competition will be circumvented by the price vet's can freely charge for prescriptions. Given the work involved in producing a prescription is minor (particularly a repeat prescription) it would be appropriate to introduce price regulation on prescription charges. I would suggest it be set at £10 (or frankly lower) - rising by CPI each year.
Comment by Sean posted on
Presumably "the work involved in producing a prescription is minor" excludes the many years of training before graduation and the mandated annual continued professional development required to maintain their RCVS membership?
Many independent veterinary businesses run at low profit margins (often around 10%) so you are correct that any loss of revenue experienced is likely to need to be redressed elsewhere- the alternative is closure.
Comment by Nichola Hinchy posted on
And when you buy that prescription medicine online there is a very good chance you are buying it from a corporate owned pharmacy as the 4 LVG own the 4 large online pharmacies. Many small independents now put a minimal mark up their medicines in the hope that their clients will support an independent business and any revenue from medicines will go back to that business to offset the costs of their services and therefore won’t be redirected and lost to a LVG. Most small independents can’t even buy some medicines for the prices that the LVGs are charging online. The prescription fee is to account for our time, knowledge prescribing that medicine, time to ensure it is safe to prescribe that medication and time to answer any ongoing questions the client may have about that medicine. Asking small Independents to write prescriptions for free or at a greatly reduced price just doesn’t seem fair.
Comment by Nicole R posted on
I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement - “given the work involved in producing a prescription is minor”. Being a writer of said prescriptions, I can tell you it is anything but minor and can occasionally take me just as long as a consultation and sometimes longer. This is not some piece of paper that is whipped up, this is a legal document for which the veterinary surgeon signing it has responsibility. It requires clinical judgment, full knowledge of the animal’s case, and carries professional liability. I also disagree that setting a maximum price is a fair outcome. Suggesting it should be reduced to a flat, nominal fee completely undermines the complexity, responsibility, and risk involved in its creation.
In response to the increase in price from £10 to £24 in recent years, it’s important to recognise that the cost of almost everything—from food and fuel to timber—has risen significantly. Veterinary practices are not immune to these economic pressures, and it is neither reasonable nor sustainable to expect our fees to remain static while the cost of running a practice continues to climb.
Comment by Receptionist posted on
Would you write a legal document, that would possibly result in liabilities for £10? So you want the vet to revise your file, check current weight, adjust the dosage, calculate new dosages, call you to discuss if you need a review for £10? Also ask him to keep a copy and to liaise with the pharmacy in case of a doubt. This is the typical lack of understanding of the work involved in writing a prescription. Of course this can happen, but your consult price would be about £150 (and that would include 2 free scripts). That is what private consultants charge. Also ask your GP to write any legal document, see how much the charge is, so you can compare. Then see if you would take the responsibility over that fee if you were in the vet shoes.
Comment by janine Redman posted on
From a clients perspective requesting a repeat prescription may seem to be a minor consideration. From a veterinary perspective there are a number of considerations to be made .
Is the medication actually effective ,is the prescription correct for this patient ,is the owner administering it correctly, has the animals weight or condition changed , are any additional medications being used , does the animal require a check up . Some owners may take it upon themselves to adjust dose or frequency of medication so you often have to check the previous dose and timings. And they do not always appreciate changes in the patients condition or understand interactions between different medications. Whilst sometimes it is straightforward to, often it is not and it takes time and knowledge of each patient and their condition or conditions and clinical history to determine whether a repeat prescription is appropriate
Comment by Charlotte posted on
As a tiny independent vet practice I wish I could buy in a lot of medicines at the same price as you can buy them online. I have to buy from a small number of vet wholesalers who can charge whatever they like. We aren't allowed to buy our medicines online. As a small practice I don't get the discounts that the large practices get, hence our medicines will never compete with the online pharmacies.
Comment by John posted on
Quite right Charlotte. As a veterinary practice owner too, I buy Apoquel for my own dog from an online pharmacy because it is cheaper than I can buy it through the practice from a wholesaler - this is a fundamental problem. 'Net net' pricing needs to be levelled.
Comment by Rita Santos posted on
I have read the CMA’s proposed remedies for the veterinary market with great concern. Over the past year, this market has become increasingly concentrated, with a couple of large vertically integrated providers combining veterinary services with prescription drug wholesalers. The number of independent providers has declined sharply since the COVID-19 pandemic, and competition has decreased, if it exists in certain geographical areas, to a couple of large players.
Therefore, remedies such as enforcing that vets provide written prescriptions to be redeemed at online pharmacies (if cheaper) will actually decrease competition since most of the online pharmacies are owned by those vertically integrated corporations. This remedy will actually redirect revenue from small independent practices into a couple of vertically integrated veterinary chains, entrenching market dominance by a few large players and making it increasingly difficult for small, community-based practices to survive.
While promoting regulation, these remedies are likely to undermine competition in the long term. The proposed remedies may unintentionally accelerate sector consolidation, reduce patient choice, and exacerbate healthcare access inequalities in the long run, particularly in rural or underserved areas where independent vets are the only providers.
I urge the CMA to reassess the unintended consequences of these proposals, establishing several long-term scenarios to consider alternative approaches that protect transparency without undermining competition or penalising small providers. For example, the CMA should explore how online pharmacies, often owned by the same large corporate groups that operate many veterinary practices, have lower prices than the wholesalers from which independent veterinary practices purchase medications.
Kind regards
Comment by Mauro Braganca posted on
Dear Sirs,
As a small independent veterinary practice — one that already offers some of the most competitive prices in the region, and possibly in the country — I find many of the proposed remedies both impractical and unfair.
Take, for example, Bravecto, a name that repeatedly comes up in these discussions. I cannot legally purchase it online to resell in my practice. Yet the online retail price is often 30–70% lower than the wholesale price I am charged. Add to that VAT, handling, traceability requirements, labeling, storage, and wholesaler fees — and the margins shrink further.
How can it be considered fair that corporately-owned online pharmacies can sell products below the price I pay to acquire them? The playing field is clearly not level — and these proposals may worsen that imbalance.
Many of these online pharmacies are now owned by large corporate groups. Encouraging pet owners to purchase directly from them risks accelerating the consolidation of the market, with independent practices squeezed out. Does the UK really want to eliminate small, community-based veterinary practices in favour of a handful of vertically integrated corporations?
We already offer written prescriptions and include clear disclaimers about clients’ right to purchase medicines elsewhere. But to draw a parallel: when I dine at a restaurant, I’m not given a disclaimer saying I could have bought the same burger cheaper at a supermarket.
To force small veterinary businesses to go further and actively promote external alternatives under the guise of “transparency” risks turning our consulting rooms into retail comparison desks — at the expense of professional care and trust.
I respectfully urge the CMA to reconsider the impact of these proposals on independent practices like mine. A one-size-fits-all approach may serve large groups well, but it risks dismantling the very diversity and community care your investigation claims to protect.
Kind regards,
Mauro Bragança, MRCVS
Comment by Ms Peplow posted on
All vets have became very expensive, most of the Vets in Lincoln, Lincolnshire all work together to keep the prices higher, but it's us the customers and our beloved animals that are paying the price, because these vets are holding us to ransom, it's an absolute disgrace that no one in authority puts a stop to these Vets increasing prices by 10 fold.