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.
41 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 John Blanning posted on
Doesn't explain the price increasing so dramatically.
Comment by Jeffrey Denness posted on
in order to get a prescription the animal has to be examined by the vet and the requisite fees paid , so they have been rewarded for their expertise. On this basis the issue of a prescription is a very minor and low cost activity and as such is being grossly overpriced.
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 Wendy B posted on
Average prices haven't gone by 140%! Your argument makes no sense. Everyone works hard and has responsibilities but we don't increase our charges by 140% to justify them!
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 Wendy B posted on
Yes, but you get up to an hour long consultation for Private Medicine! Vets give you 10-15 min consultation at best. Any document produced in every trade is subject to liable action...you're not unique in the real world.
Comment by Tim Watts posted on
I have just paid £72 for two prescriptions for flea treatments!!
Comment by Neil Orchard posted on
We've just asked for prescription (with 1 repeat) at a cost of £35 which I would happily pay as the saving over 12months amounts to over £150. Now my vet practice has refused a prescription without a fresh consultation at an additional cost as none of the current vets in the practice have seen him in the past 12months. This despite him having been castrated by the practice 8 months ago & they're having given him his vaccination booster 10months ago!!
This makes accepting a consultation with a temporary locum in any practice potentially very expensive.
Comment by Graham Gant posted on
My Dog requires 2 forms of Eye Cream for a condition diagnosed by a referal Vet which I can purchase online far cheaper than from my own Vet, for these I require a prescription, however I'm charged for each line on the prescription (£12.01 per line), I recently asked for a quantity of 2 of each item as I'm going on holiday and was told the charge was per item, thus 4 x £12.01, how can this be justifiable, an extra £24.02 for changing the quantity. Neither the per line or the per item charge makes sense, surely a single charge for the Prescription would be a preferred option.
Comment by Kym posted on
Exactly my though and they will only put on 1 item per prescription, well at my vet at least which is medi vet. Its disgusting and ends up that getting the prescription and ordering on line saves you nothing at all .its like appointment charges £50 each time is joke especially if you have to keep going back once a week for 3 or more weeks .... so if they book in 4 appointments in an hour thats £200 who's on that amount and hour plus the medication price on top. People getting to the point they cant afford the cost and either having the pet put to sleep or taking to a dog shelter, which then down the line they might also end up been put to sleep also.its very sad and shouldn't be like this. Also vet prices should be available on there website and also receipts should be itemised say cost for each thing. But neither happen at medi vet and im guessing same at alot of other vets ... when are things going to change. Example of cost my dog needed to hsve eye drops to detect an issue .1 drop of dye in each eye £17 ???? How can this be justified??? It's disgusting .its outrageous. There needs to be a price cap on medication and on appointment charges and to be less if you go back more than once for the same issue to see if said issue is getting better or not .... why is nothing been done. We are constantly been ripped off ...
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 Wendy B posted on
And you charge for all this in the form of a consultation and repeat consultations and the charge for the prescription. What do you want?
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 John Blanning posted on
Where is the restriction on you buying online? Competition law allows you to be able to buy from anyone so long as they are authorised to sell the item. I'd be really interested to see the 'chapter and verse' on this.
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.
Comment by E Smith posted on
My dog had epilepsy for 8 years. The cost of insurance, prescriptions, medications and blood tests was crippling. The company owning the referral centre recently bought out my vet and his 5 practices. When we finally allowed our dog to stay overnight at the neurology referrals, he never came home, they had him for 24 hours before we had to put him to sleep.
I know exactly which medications he needed in a 24hour period, after all we worked together to tweak his doses. The final bill massively overcharged for all five of the medications and I put to them that they had either overcharged or overdosed. Took 5 weeks of chasing for them to finally tell me they had refunded the cost of the extra meds, no acknowledgement of over charging. Their markup for the medications they gave him was 1200% of the cost of buying online. They also kept pressuring us to give him another MRI, at £3000.
Owing a dog has become a luxury few can afford.
Comment by Richard clark posted on
£240 to walk through a door of an emergency vet out of hours. £140 charge for a mile drive to visit a cat. The list is endless. Rip off pricing 400% mark up. Asked to make sure insurance will cover any out of hours costs during any operation. Who is reading this and doing anything about this?
We all want to get it right for our pets health but are being robbed in plain sight!
Comment by Amber posted on
Absolutely, the disabled & those without a support network cannot get to a vet at times so have the added worry of extra cost they cannot afford. Especially as their pet/s are their only companion(s).
Comment by Diane Adam posted on
I agree the cost of a visit to the vets has become more expensive over the last few years.
However my biggest gripe since my vets became part of a large chain is there seems to be a higher turnover of staff. There also feels like more of a sales pitch for treatments or check up.
My dogs have just had bloods done, vaccinations and their annual check up and I have had a message about a wellness check up for them covering the same things! They obviously have not checked my dogs history, it is so impersonal and a money grab. So much so I have lost trust in my vets, are they treating my dog because it needs it or just raising money!
I would never let my pets suffer and for over 10 years with the practice have always erred on the side of caution and gone as soon as I feel anything is wrong, but I can’t shake the lack of trust I now feel. Many of the vets near me are also part of chains or I would move. It’s so sad, not everything is about money.
Comment by Neil Orchard posted on
Yes Diane, And we've been with the same practice for 3yrs and despite our Collie having been castrated by them 8 months ago, they now demand a fresh consultation before they will issue a prescription for which they also charge! They claim that none of the vets currently working for them have seen my pet and therefore, "by law" a fresh consultation has to be carried out which will more than double the cost of getting a prescription. We'll still save over £100 on the medecine over 12months but what an absolute moneymaking rip off!
Comment by Fiona Burnett posted on
In all of this, let us not forget the positive impact on the health and wellbeing of people owning a pet. We have two dogs but sadly, owing to the rise in vet costs we will definitely reduce to one and are even thinking of having none when ours pass to the Summerlands. My sister has reduced to one dog too and my mother in law to one cat. Rehoming charities will be hit by these sorts of decisions.
Being retired, the daily hour's walk (so beneficial to health), whatever the weather, will not happen when the weather is just poor; never mind when it's the sideways rain we have to be out in with our dogs.
Pets are also beneficial in combatting loneliness that one reads is now considered an epidemic.
The NHS will thus potentially be negatively impacted as people do not replace their pets.
Pets have become a luxury item and I welcome anything that will bring owning one back into being affordable, for the benefit of the nation's health.
But also for the benefit of the vet profession, because the rise in costs will mean a reduction in pet numbers and that will negatively impact the veterinary profession - less punters means less profits, and less jobs.
I appreciate the progress made in medicines and surgical procedures but common sense must prevail. Offering dementia drugs to my sister's 14 year old dog - is that sensible? She (retired GP) decided not. And offering pain relief for arthritic hips to my 15 year old dog that requires a blood test first for liver function costing £70, before we even start on the cost of the meds? A dog that age is likely to have impaired liver function, or likely to at some point soon, while on medication that is not good for such - is that sensible? As humans we go for a simple pain relief solution first, so after discussion with our vet my dog did not have the blood test and is on Calpol 6 when needed. Cheap and effective; but I had to ask and sort of challenge to get that solution. Why?
And I am all for quality standards and regulation. Solicitors (I was one) had to go through it and the reaction from my profession was very similar - it's all rather more complicated than people think, who is going to police it etc etc. It's only surprising it has taken so long to drift into vet services.
Comment by John Blanning posted on
it's all about making money now.
Comment by Sue W posted on
IVC bought up my independent vet Practice and straight away the prices shot up by 45%, the standard of care went through the floor and they cancelled the 10% discount for pensioners! I understand IVC has now acquired the out of hours service VetsNow and the online pharmacy PetDrugsOnline so basically they have us clients screwed in every area. For info,my daughter has just been charged a £263 consultation fee by VetsNow for her rabbit who was taken ill earlier today. An overnight stay on a drip for fluids is adding another £1500 to the bill. For a tiny little rabbit!!
Comment by Amber posted on
RSPSA low cost vet shut down years ago & there are no low cost. The one out of area allows one animal per household which for many is Sophie’s Choice. There is a large increase in all type of pets being rehomed or sadly dumped.
The United Kingdom is supposed to have the highest animal welfare laws & are failing pet owners with excessive vet fees.
With the loneliness epidemic and the previous Conservative government recognising how crucial pets are for mental wellbeing, costs must be lowered as without pets the nhs will have a higher burden.
Comment by Jeff Gill posted on
You state "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"
What about environmental health and the One Health Agenda? Where is evidence of your concern for welfare of our waterways that are being polluted at levels above the PNEC by pet treatments for fleas and ticks?
Comment by Mandy Edwards posted on
I own 2 cats 13yrs and a dog, 8yrs old. I have always been a responsible pet owner and have them adequately insured.Over the past couple of years, I have noticed a huge rise in the prices the vets now charge and also, the massive increase in pet insurance which obviously is a knock on effect. The increase I have experienced is for routine appointments and medication, not emergency treatment. I feel like I am being fleeced from both sides and if I knew back then how much anything "pet related" would increase, I would never have owned as many pets. What makes me laugh is that our pets are receiving a vastly superior and expensive service than what we are. How can that be right?
Comment by Stephen Williams posted on
It seems I'm my experiences with numerous vets that large powerful companies are simply buying up every vet in an area.. reducing choice. Ingress prices to unaffordable prices for the average person ... skirting around the current laws on monolopolies... while the government do nothing... this practice should be banned and vets should not be allowed ownership by any insurance groips... and only be allowed vets fees to be paid by insurance companies not the individual, which would give these hugely powerful insurance companies who do have the power to argue about vet costs.. and therefore bring cost down drastically as the vet groups wouldn't have sway over these massive businesses.. and they themselves would become the little insignificant companies.. which would reduce the incentive to buy up all these vets and hopefully encourage more independent vets to reestablish beck into energy town.
Comment by Harold Eatock posted on
Our vet was independent until taken over recently. We have just paid £80 for 100ml Loxicom that we can get from vet uk for £20 plus the vet prescription charge of £25. How can this be justified?
Comment by Grahame Tranmer posted on
We were putting our two dogs into kennels so we needed to bring their kennel cough inoculations up to date, £67 each seems a bit expensive but hey ho . When trying to book them into the vet they are registered with I was told we can’t ? Or won’t just give them the kennel cough treatment they must also have all there other boosters updated and quoted a price of £226.50 each dog. Now you may argue you should have everything up to date for the dogs sake but I wasn’t refused my flue injection because I chose not to take up my Covid booster or I haven’t had a tetanus shot for a few years . I’m convinced it’s not the dogs welfare they have in mind but another way to make a few quid on the back of people needing a holiday.
I’ve researched this and there is no medical need to have other boosters to enable you to vaccinate against kennel cough.
Comment by Ms Peplow posted on
I am a housebound lady who has no one to take her dog to vets for annual Boosters etc, my vets offer a Dog Taxi, 2 years ago it cost me £12 today it cost me £30, price for a normal taxi starts at £6.30, my vets are using peoples disabilities make money, they continue to get away with it as no one cares, ots an absolute disgrace.
Comment by David Elliott posted on
My earlier comment about the excessive price that Vets are charging for writing a prescription and the need for a price cap on the fee for a written prescription has provoked some interesting comments. Many of those comments from vets seem to have missed the point. I have no issue with vets, based upon their expertise and training, charging a suitable cost related fee for consultation - by which I mean diagnosis and deciding the best medication for any remedy. Equally I recognise that many independent vets face serious issues from the lack of competition at the level of wholesale supply of vet medication and it is this which is driving them to charge the excessive fees for prescriptions. Indeed it seems that a vet can often buy medication for their own pet cheaper on- line than from a "wholesaler". It would seem that two issues limit competition in the wholesale supply of vet medication to vet practices. Firstly it seems that regulation prevents vets buying from the cheapest source and the CMA should robustly address this. Basically if a product is licensed for animal use the vet should be able to buy it from whoever they wish - within and outside the UK. Secondly the vertical integration of large "vet chains" back into wholesaling clearly inhibits competition at the wholesale sector. The vertical chains can control the competition at the retail level they face from independent vets by the price they charge for "wholesale" supplies to those vets. Independents vets cannot charge a significantly higher fee for consultation than the local vet chain. Independent vets face a "margin squeeze" and one (partial) way out of this is to charge an excessive fee for prescriptions. No behavioural solution can satisfactorily address this. The CMA should require total divestment of any interest wholesaling (including on line suppliers) by vet chains. Obviously the CMA will need to decide what the minimum number of vets outlets makes a "chain", recognising that any "number" will lack a strong empirical basis but it should err on the side the smaller the better. The chains will no doubt argue that by being a chain they can exert buying power on suppliers - that may well be true but by controlling the wholesale costs of independent vets (and hence their prices) the chains face less/or no competitive pressure to pass any cost savings onto vet owners.
What is clear from all the comments is that tweaking with transparency issues about vet pricing will make NO difference to how this market can be made to work well for pet owners. Radical change is required to the wholesaling of animal medication and the CMA must no shy away from this.