Vet warns your next pet bill could be about to jump

Pet owners hoping for cheaper trips to the vet could instead find themselves paying more under new reforms designed to make veterinary care more affordable, an industry expert has warned. The Competition and Markets Authority is introducing changes to make vet bills more transparent, allowing customers to compare consultation prices more easily and shop around for prescription medicines.

But Eddie Holmes, founder of VetsCompared.com, believes the reforms could have an unintended consequence: encouraging some practices to raise their prices rather than lower them.

He warned that making consultation fees public could create a “race to the top” as independent vets compare themselves with larger corporate chains.

“The assumption is that greater price transparency automatically creates more competition and lower prices,” Holmes said. “But that’s not always how markets work.

“When cheaper independent practices can clearly see nearby corporates charging significantly more for the same consultation, some may conclude they’ve been undercharging for years and hike their own fees.”

One of the CMA’s proposals would require practices to display consultation prices more clearly, making it easier for pet owners to compare costs before booking an appointment.

However, Holmes said a surgery charging £42 for a consultation could discover nearby corporate-owned practices are charging between £65 and £80.

“Instead of thinking competitors are too expensive, they may simply decide they’ve been leaving money on the table,” he said.

The reforms will also make it easier for owners to buy prescribed medicines elsewhere by capping prescription fees and requiring vets to tell customers they may be able to source medicines more cheaply from other suppliers.

The CMA says the changes are needed because veterinary practices currently act as both the prescribers and sellers of medicines, creating potential conflicts of interest.

But Holmes argued that medicine sales often help subsidise other parts of an independent veterinary practice.

“Many independent practices use medicine income to help keep consultation fees lower while covering staffing costs, equipment, rent and out-of-hours services,” he explained.

“If that revenue falls, they won’t simply absorb the loss forever. They’ll have to recover it somewhere else, and consultation fees are the obvious place.”

He also questioned whether lower consultation prices would make commercial sense for many independent practices already operating close to capacity.

“Lower prices only make commercial sense if you’ve got room to see more patients,” Holmes said. “Many independents are already incredibly busy. Taking on extra work at underpriced consultation fees isn’t necessarily good business.”

According to Holmes, recent industry research suggests the gap between independent and corporate vet prices has already begun to narrow during the CMA’s investigation, which he believes could indicate some practices are already adjusting their prices upwards.

He also warned the reforms could put further pressure on smaller independent surgeries.

“The elephant in the room is whether some independent vets decide these additional regulatory pressures are simply the final straw,” he said.

“If more decide to sell up, the most likely buyers will often be the larger corporate groups that already tend to charge higher prices. That could ultimately reduce competition rather than increase it.”

Holmes acknowledged that the reforms could still benefit pet owners if stronger competition and cheaper medicines ultimately reduce overall costs.

However, he said the success of the changes should be judged by what happens in practice rather than what was intended.

“Everyone wants better value and greater transparency for pet owners,” he added. “The challenge is making sure the reforms don’t accidentally produce the polar opposite result.”