High vet bills have eroded pet-owners’ trust – but vets aren’t getting rich from their fees
What would you pay to ease the pain of a beloved pet? For pet owners, vet bills are likely to be one expense that’s tightly bound up with emotion. But it seems the market is not working as well as it should. A report into the UK’s veterinary sector has identified concerns about price transparency and the growing dominance of large corporate groups that own local vet practices.
In the lead-up to the report by regulator the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), much of the media coverage focused on rising veterinary fees. But behind practice doors, there is a subtler but equally important issue at play – declining trust between pet owners and professionals.
Vets have long been portrayed as trusted figures, from the James Herriot novels to Mrs Hamster in the Peppa Pig cartoons. But, increasingly, that trust is being questioned and vets report that clients are suspicious of the advice they offer. One vet I spoke to this week was frustrated that a client had refused all treatment options because they believed the recommendations were motivated by financial targets and not their pet’s welfare.
In my research with early-career vets, this shift in the public’s perception is clear. Some vets describe hostility from clients, while others avoid telling people they are a vet to escape conversations about fees. One vet in my study even left the profession due to the stress of these interactions.
High fees for clients do not equate to high salaries for vets. Vets I interviewed with around four years’ experience reported salaries ranging from £37,000 to £48,000. This is broadly comparable to other graduate professions such as teaching.
However, unlike teachers, some vets are offered only statutory sick pay, and have no enhanced holiday or pension benefits. Despite this, they are often seen as personally profiting from rising fees, when in reality they have limited control over pricing decisions.
Trust matters not only for the wellbeing of vets, but also for animal welfare. When trust breaks down, clients may delay or decline treatment. Vets told me they struggled to balance the best outcome for the pet with the owner’s willingness or ability to pay.
This can lead to distressing outcomes, including the euthanasia of animals with treatable conditions. Some owners are also taking their pets to Europe for surgery, where lower wages and overheads, as well as different regulatory frameworks, can significantly reduce the cost of treatment.
What will the new rules mean for pet owners?
The CMA’s findings suggest that part of this distrust may stem from how the veterinary market operates. It proposes a series of reforms, to come in later this year, to give pet owners more control and clearer information about pricing and practice ownership.
In a central change, price transparency will be mandatory. Practices will be required to publish prices for common treatments and provide written estimates before expensive procedures take place. In addition, price comparison tools will be introduced to allow people to shop around. Together, these measures aim to inform and empower pet owners.
The CMA is also targeting the way medicines are sold. Many pet owners don’t know that they can request a prescription and purchase medications online, often at lower cost. Under the new proposals, vets will be required to make this option clear, and there will be a £21 cap on prescription fees.
However, many online retailers of animal medication are owned by the corporate practices and so some believe this will merely transfer income from independent practices.
Another key recommendation is greater transparency around practice ownership. Around 60% of practices are owned by a small number of corporate groups – up from 10% just over a decade ago. These practices are funded through venture capitalists and large corporations, although two also offer joint ownership models with vets.
Yet this information is often hidden, as practices work under their own names. In future, practices will need to state clearly who their parent company is on all signage and communications. They must also identify if this company also owns related businesses such as pet crematoria, online pharmacies and referral hospitals.
In theory, these changes should help rebuild trust. When clients have the ability to compare options, they may be less likely to assume that their vet’s recommendations are driven by profit.
Read more: Are independent vets really better? The real issue isn’t necessarily who owns them
But transparency alone may not fully address the loss of trust in the profession. There is a risk that more focus on pricing could reinforce the perception of veterinary care as a commercial transaction rather than a professional service grounded in animal welfare.
In my interviews, vets frequently told me that they did not join the profession for the money. And yet the public perception is that high veterinary charges lead to high salaries.
The CMA also highlighted the need for broader regulatory reform, including potential changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, which regulates vets’ training, conduct and disciplinary processes. Updating this to regulate whole practices rather than just individual vets will reflect the dominance of large corporate providers and ensure minimum standards of care.
The veterinary profession is navigating a complex set of pressures, including the rising cost of living, increasing overheads in the UK and difficulty in retaining experienced vets. The CMA’s recommendations are an important step towards improving transparency and empowering pet owners, but rebuilding trust will take more than clearer pricing. It will depend on people understanding and anticipating the cost of pet ownership and valuing the expertise and care at the heart of veterinary relationships.
Rachel Williams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.