poodle3081

Not so much the wealthy, but only for those who can afford it - like anything in life really. I'm sure there'd be tonnes of people out there who'd love to have their own horse, but they don't, because they can't afford the costs. My agistors don't give me a discount on my horses board and feed, they offer a service for those who can afford to use it. That's their price and if I can't afford that weekly cost, then either I shouldn't have a horse, or I need to find somewhere else. Is that not reasonable? Is it fair for someone to take on the responsibility of a pet knowing they can't afford it? I do belive it is a privilege to own a pet and not everyone's given right. Either you can budget for the costs, or you can't - it's really that simple. If the average person owns a pet, what is the most costly vet procedure they could be expected to pay? Would anyone out there know this?

A gimp mask would be the way to go - that way the vets dont have to listen to the whingers complaining about markups while they do their job and treat the animals. If you have ever addressed a group of people polarised by a profession or a religion then you know how difficult it is to discuss an issue using logical argument. Replies about other businesses that derive there sole income from the sale of goods, not knowing what coles pay for lamb (you can get a ball park figure if you follow market pricing) the amount of schooling and it goes on. Many replies have made assumptions about me that have no basis of fact. I suggest you go and talk to the general public and break down a vet bill and discuss the mark up of medications. See what reaction you get.

A 'normal' consultation consists of obtaining a history, doing a physical examination of the pet, relaying findings of that examination to the owner then developing a plan. Mostly the plan consists of options A, B or C which are discussed with owner and then they make a decision about how they wish to proceed. Then there is a time where most people ask questions to clarify anything they are not sure about, including cost. Any treatments that require the dog so stay in hospital should also require the owner to sign a consent form - which bears a written estimate of the expected cost. There are sometimes additional unexpected costs - if you're not willing for these to be incurred then you need to make your finite $$ limit known before hand. This is all information that is frequently relayed to vets through their relevant states registration board. If your vets don't do this, then don't complain about the entire profession - find someone who offers services in a way you are happy with. I appreciate the constructive replies and I do agree that all Vets are not the same. Discussion about these issues should be discussed and if there are genuine cost implications these should be articulated to the general public. As NM put it owning a pet by certain people in our society such as pensioners and the disabled is important to the quality of their life, and there are vet procedures that will be out of their price range. I have read in earlier posts the cost of snake bite treatment. Many of these disadvantaged groups are unaware of the upper limit of vet treatment.

It is amazing that the pro vet lobby are happy to be "ripped off". The argument that everyone marks up excessively makes it an acceptable practice? When I go to a sporting event a bucket of chips are $5.00; I know I am being ripped off and there is a substantial mark up. I can elect to bring my own food or pay the inflated charge for the convenience. If I am experiencing financial hardship or have 5 children I will not buy. The scenario at most vets is you enter the consultation room, the vet diagnoses your pet and you are then confronted by a girl on reception with her head stuck in a computer. She hits the magic key and a printer spits out the bill and you are waiting for the surprise. The only fee you are aware of prior to entering the consultation room is the consultation fee.

The dog didn't receive 10ml of Clavulox. Also the tablets come in 50mg, 250mg and 500mg. The number of tablets suggests it was either a short course for a dog 20-30kg using 250mg tablets or a longer course for a similarly sized dog using 500mg tabs. The bigger tabs are comparatively more expensive, but some vets with hearts will dispense the larger tablets to be given as fractions of tablets (1/2 or 3/4) because it's more economical. (Edit: Some clients also complain about having to break tablets) The price of the injection will be made up of an injection fee and the cost of the drug. In my local area the injection fee run between $13 and $17. Clavulox (as in product manufactured by Pfizer) is not a generic and is more expensive than other products. The injection also covers the first 24 hours of treatment. I will get the name of that vet, if it was a 40ml injection that's great value and he is running at a loss

If you don't like the thread then don’t read it. Fortunately logical thinking and objective analysis are not judged by numbers. Read the bold bit At least, by responding to my post, you're admitting you're a whinger. You could actually try a bit of that "logical thinking and objective analysis" in your posts, but when you're out on a witch hunt, it just ain't there Your reply says it all. How does replying to your post admit I am a winger. I think you need educating in logical analysis

Gee, you are lucky to find a vet like that mine just put $1000 at the bottom. O! I did get a smile. Could you let me know his address, you found a vet with the fire still in his/her belly. I have NO problems with the fees, but when it comes to the drugs, I don't trust them. EVERY single invoice I have received from vets (4 in total) have consult + drugs on them. And after having had a very sick dog I have seen a lot of invoices. You need detailed invoices for insurance claims anyway. My last one following a dog attack: Consult (std evening) $64.90 Medication Clavulox $53.60 (15 tabs) Clavulox Inj $29.80 (administered at my request and knowing price) Bandage $11.60 Dressing $.30 Professional fees Tissue Glue $49.95 (tube) Total - $210.15 Clavulox injection 10ml pricing ok about a 50% mark up. Can't comment on the tablets as you would need to specify the whether they are 50, 100 or 250mg

If you don't like the thread then don’t read it. Fortunately logical thinking and objective analysis are not judged by numbers.

If you go to your mechanic and he charges you for labour and parts then you can get on the phone to a parts supplier and get the price. Who can you call to find out the cost of medications if you believe you have been charged too much?

I think many of the replies here do not reflect the true feeling in the general community. I posted this thread as I had a number of people in the general community raise issues with me. Most of the members of this forum have a relationship with their Vet and hence do not have an issue, but there is a greater number out there in the general community that only visit a Vet occasionally and the charges are not transparent.

Is it fair that some unfortunate client's animal that needs medication is subsidising your consultation?

Seriously, I can understand that some people would prefer a lesser mark up on drugs (although 10% is unrealistic I'm afraid) along with a larger charge for a consultation, although I can't see why people think the distinction is so important - the vet has to cover the costs and make a profit somehow, so you'll end up paying about the same either way, whether through drug markup or through higher consultation charges. Hooray!!! That is exactly my point. Charge for the service and the true cost of running the business, and not hide the charges in the medication. That is the point most replies are missing. I do not want to shop around, I do not want to pay less, I want a good relationship with a Vet and I want to pay for the professional service and not a retail operation.

Good to see where your priorities are (not)! Forget the animal, eh? And the people who only consider costs when seeking treating for their pets are thinking of the animal Unfortunately you need to get out more. Many in our society do not have the ability to pay, and need to shop around for the best price. The lady I spoke to who triggered this thread was involved in the recent bushfires and their business has suffered as a result. She had no problem paying the $106 but was a little put out when the Vet told her the medication PREDNEFRIN FORTE was expensive and apologised for the price. She came to me to out of curiosity to find out what the Vet paid for it, and was surprised at the mark up.

Good to see where your priorities are (not)! Forget the animal, eh? It is interesting to view the double standards. The vets I know admit to charging difficult customers more. One example is when one went to treat a horse that only had a minor problem, and was called out early on a Sunday morning. The client was difficult to deal with and he was charge the maximum possible i.e. Sunday rate, travel etc, the bill was loaded to the maximum. This practice appears to be common as many replies here state that certain customers are offered discounted services for other than professional reasons. Does this mean that a pet owner who consults the vet infrequently is charged more? Is their ability to pay considered?

Community challenging fuel prices is so far unrelated its in friggin' Siberia. Fuel Prices have high components of government taxes and charges in them. You continually miss the point Danois. I was stating the predictable nature of the replies and gave the oil industry as an example.

Is this an admission of trolling then? Clearly, you're not liking the answers to your statements/questions. What did you want, a mutual backslapping society? I fail to see why vets are obliged to barely cover their costs on the basis that they're doing vet work for the love of it. Yes, there are many people who can't afford vet treatment - but that's THEIR issue, and not the fault of the vet, unless they're YOUR vet mates, poodle3081. The statement re understandable and predictable relate to the vet industry. I expect them to justify their charges. It is the same when the community challenges petrol prices, do you expect the oil companies and employees to agree?

Major international law firm - did not realise there were any of those (jurisdictional/ different legal system issues and all). What you tell clients is part of your professional obligation on costs disclosure. You are required (by law) to disclose your costs. The client can still instruct you to do the work or go elsewhere. No comparison between lawyers and vets... You seemed lack continuity in your case for vet charges. You want me to reply re a cup of coffee and the claim there is no comparison between a vet and lawyer. I would think there is more in common with a lawyer who has similar professional charges than to a cafe operation. But I will reply to your coffee example. The cafe does not charge me for sitting at the table, there is no hourly charge and their entire profit comes from the products they sell. I know when I stay at a hotel the prices of goods in the mini bar are marked up excessively. I have a choice to buy or not.

If that was what was needed, then I'd be fine with that, because I needed to call an electrician to use his skills and expertise to do a job that I was unable to do myself. Poodle - can I ask what you are basing your mark up examples on? Are you comparing the cost of the same eye ointment from a chemist and a vet, and concluding a huge mark-up on the vets side? Without working in the industry yourself, where are you getting this information from to make these assumptions about massive mark ups? Or is it all second or third hand information? As stated in an earlier reply I have friends in the industry. I note that no one has disputed the quoted cost price figures to Vets.

It is interesting that some people do not care what the mark up is and that is a personal choice but he point of this post was to highlight that many do. I don't like making comparisons with other professions but as an example if an Electrician claimed his hourly rate was $100 and he arrived at your house to do a repair that took him 1 hour and the bill was $500 that is $100 time plus $400 for materials. Would this be acceptable? The answer is yes if you believe the material cost is reasonable. If you were then told the cost of the material to the Electrician was $50 would you still feel the same? The fact is most people have a sense of justice and fairness in our society and they resent being ripped off with hidden charges.

The responses to this thread are understandable and predictable. The main point of the discussion from my point of view is that vets by all means charge an appropriate fee that reflects the work performed and the services provided, but not to load the bill with excessive marking up of drugs which distorts the true cost of the service. Ah, this is a subject dear to my heart.... I totally see where you're coming from poodle3081. And I resent the implication by some (most) who have posted here that owners who want medication at a fair price are somehow negligent skin-flints. I spent over $7,000 on one of my dogs in the course of a week (he subsequently died) and don't regret a cent of it. BUT I question why vets routinely charge wildly inflated prices for common medicines. As an example - Maxidex. It's $25 at the vet and $7 at the chemist. Oh, and my pet doesn't have a Medicare card, so the argument that what I pay for her meds at the chemist is somehow subsidised by the PBS is ridiculous. I do understand that vets themselves can't buy it at that price and would expect it to be marked up about 100%, but over 300%?? I would assume the chemist is making a profit and has it's own mark-up, so my god - what does the medication REALLY cost?? $1?? The cost price to Vets for the Maxidex is around $5, this would be a mark up of 300 to 400% if you were charged $25.

Why does the 'validity' of the actual % markup have anything to do with you as a consumer? The markup will vary between practices just as the overheads will, and just as the quality of care and service will. Some people are prepared to pay a higher price for excellent service and best practice veterinary medicine and some are not. If you want the cheapest prices, then go to the practice that offers that. I see this a lot on the forums when people compare the cost of desexing - a spey is not just a spey, and it's worthwhile asking exactly what is included. A lot of the time an 'appropriate fee' is just code for the smallest number that one finds acceptable, and has no actual reflection on what service is actually provided. There is no point comparing the cost of human medicines from pharmacies and the same drug sold through veterinary practices as often the cost price to the clinic is higher than the retail cost from the pharmacy. It comes down to whether you want the treatment NOW with professional advice and ongoing care or whether you would really rather wait and traipse around the countryside to save a few $$. I find that most of our good clients choose the former. As for inflating bills for difficult clients, I think you've misinterpreted. As a profession, we tend to get ourselves in trouble by being very generous with our time and by trying to be 'nice' we frequently don't charge for all the services provided. It's not adding unnecessary things to the bills, that is unethical. It's more that we might let occasional charge slide for excellent clients as a matter of goodwill, like the umpteenth recheck for a chronic medical problem, or the free anal gland squeeze because you asked nicely. I am shocked at your first statement "Why does the 'validity' of the actual % markup have anything to do with you as a consumer?" are you serious? You need to contact the ACCC. I have never compared vet charges to that of a pharmacy as it has nothing to do with the marking up issue I raised.

The responses to this thread are understandable and predictable. The main point of the discussion from my point of view is that vets by all means charge an appropriate fee that reflects the work performed and the services provided, but not to load the bill with excessive marking up of drugs which distorts the true cost of the service. You don't get it do you? The cost of drugs is not the cost of the service. The service is the consultation. The cost is easily ascertainable by speaking to the vet first. The drugs are the recommended treatment. They are not part of the service offered. A client can choose to take or leave the recommended treatment. Ergo - the cost of them does not distort the cost of the service. I think you need to read all the threads by others as most say that the mark up on drugs is required to run and operate their business, therefore if they did not dispense drugs they would go broke. As a business person I would prefer to base my income on the services provided and not on the sale of drugs. If the business relies on the sale of drugs could this lead to over medication? When ever there is a financial gain to be made by a practice it will lead to over servicing by some.

The responses to this thread are understandable and predictable. The main point of the discussion from my point of view is that vets by all means charge an appropriate fee that reflects the work performed and the services provided, but not to load the bill with excessive marking up of drugs which distorts the true cost of the service.

Gross profit is a far cry from net profit. Go back to the example I gave about the cost of a cup of coffee. Given you have several close friends who are vets then I am surprised that you are so determined to run them down in this thread and essentially accuse vets of price gouging to plump their own pockets up when surely their opinions would not be too dissimilar to those in this thread from the vet industry. Gross profit is a good starting point especially when have an accountant. The vets I know are well off and they joke about the charges. One gave an injection to horse and said that buys the back door to my new surgery. They have also stated to me that the load up the bills of customers that rub them up the wrong way.

That sounds reasonable and average costs to me It seemed reasonable to her until she found out it was marked up 150%. If I was to take your approach I would charge $20 for the consultation and mark up on medication 600%. In the example I gave the Vet could charge $20 for the consultation and $86 for the eye drops. Does this example make it any clearer as to what I mean by hidden charges? But that's not practical because there are plenty of people who have consults that don't go home with medication. And there are also plenty of people who buy medication without having a consult. I still don't understand why you think its not right for vets to mark up their drugs. You haven't explained why you don't think this is reasonable. Forget the price of their services, I just want to know why you don't think its reasonable to mark up the cost of the products they sell. It is not the mark up that is the issue, it is the level. Everyone accepts there is a mark up to cover costs etc. I repeat, is the case I gave as an example of 150% reasonable? but unreasonable compared to what? Do you know what the mark up is on the food you buy at coles or woolworths? You cannot compare a Vet practice to coles. Coles does not charge for a service and you know the price prior to purchasing. It is impractical to have a Vet consultation and then balk at the price of the drugs. If you refuse the drugs because you think they are expensive do you still have to pay for the consultation? I think the answer is yes and then what; visit another vet? but the food you buy at coles has been marked up!! That's the point i'm trying to make! Every vet will have marked up the cost of their medication to around the same price in a particular area, to cover their overheads. Yes, you should have to still pay for the consultation, because that was the vets time, skills and knowledge you have just used. You are welcome to decline treatment though. If your dog has an infection and you are told it needs 'X' antibiotics, you are welcome to decline this. But you should still have to pay for the time it took for the vet to tell you what the problem was. You might find a vet a few suburbs over who have a cheaper dispensing fee, but gees, is it really worth it to save $5? Personally I do not have problem paying. I have owned race horses in the past and the cost of vet fees for my dogs is minimal compared to owning these. As stated in my earlier responses it was brought to my attention by a number of people I have dealings with. I also have knowledge of the industry and have several close friends whom are vets. One vet owns two clinics and has an annual expenditure in excess of $1million with one vet supply wholesaler. If you extrapolate those sales with a 150% mark it brings the gross profit to over one and a half million dollars.