Vet Medication Charges

[nicestman77]

The one comment I would make is that while I have no issue with mark up it would be nice if the vet would let me know that there are cheaper alternatives for long term medication. I am not going to quibble over a tube of eye ointment but when it is costing $96 for a months supply of meds that my dog will need for life via my vet I don’t think I should have to find out from a friend that I can get the same meds from the chemist at around 1/3 the price.

Ha! My pet hate (vets)

The last time I needed a vet my little fat dog got a stone stuck in his whistle,I dropped the dog off at the local vet at 9 ish,the vet rang me at 4 ish, and told me that the dog is fine now,and the cost would be $1000,I nearly fell over, where in the help does one get hold $1000 just like that,when I arrived at the surgery,the vet was all over me like a rash,I ask them what they did for the price,they said they needed to take xrays (1) they showed me the stones in the bladder,I asked them if they got the stones out, they said NO we pushed them back into the bladder from the urethra,I said why didn't you get them out of the bladder, they said, no need all you have to do is buy this large bag of over priced Science Diet dog food cost ($78.00) =$58.00 delivered on the net

So if fact all I had to do was blow on my dogs whistle, and blow the stone back-in, like a pee-shooter, and take a two weeks holiday to the Gold Coast, in this case the vet is taking the 2 weeks holiday on my money. A plumber would only charge $200.

The dog has still got stones in his bladder thanks to the over priced vet.

Vets are the cause of a lot of animals not being treated due to their prices,they say it is justified due to all the equipment they have to buy,well does that mean every time my wife buys equipment for her business she just puts the price up, A stupid idea,my prices prices would so high she would never get any work,come-on vets get with reality,and that is, people can't afford vets,they all go to vets under sufferance,and for the sake of the animal.This country is in a recession,prices should go down,not up.Mine have gone down by 10%.

Edited June 6, 2009 by nicestman77

[angelbundy]

The fact that your 'friends' treat their clients like crap with dodgy bills for people they don't like says a lot. And you have the audacity to complain about the mark-up on drugs.

You pay a consultation fee for your consultation (funnily enough)... that covers the time your vet takes to see your animal and give them a thorough check-up. You have every right to refuse the medication, but your consultation doesn't include meds, so yes, you still have to pay it. And just like you can't walk in to any Dr surgery and get a script without seeing the Dr, you can't walk in and demand the medication without a consult.

Then you have the treatment or medication charges, which will probably include a nominal dispensing fee, the medication and a mark-up. Compared to the mark-up on some products it is minimal. Even pharmacies mark-up their medications, if you are in the unfortunate position of being on a non-PBS medication, you'd know about it.

Personally, if you want cut price vet care, you tend to get cut price service. I know of a few 'cheap' vets, and they end up costing their clients more in the long run when someone has to fix up the issues they've caused. And funnily enough, a few of them have been in hot water with the AVA for malpractice...

And for those complaining about the treatment their animals require... Come and see what goes on in a clinic. I can tell you now the dog with bladder stones is not as simple as you make out. If you can find the food cheaper, buy it elsewhere. But pulling a crystal out of the urethre wouldn't fix the problems, I can bet you there are more crystals brewing in the bladder and the food will help to change the pH of the bladder to not only break down existing crystals but prevent new ones forming. Your fees also would have included sedation, x-rays, medications (I imagine) and consumables we use as we treat animals (in your dogs instance their would have been saline, catheters etc). Not to mention the staff looking after your animal and monitoring it.

Or by all means, go on holiday. Or pay your plumber to unblock your dog. I'd pay to see that!

[kimmax]

The costs of running a clinic are huge. If we did not have medicare and the PBS in Australia maybe more people would understand that diagnostic tests, surgery, medicines, lab work are hugely expensive in the human or animal field The goverment and private insurance pays for a large part of the human services. We dont have medicare for animals so what are vets to do run at a loss?

[poodle3081]

The costs of running a clinic are huge. If we did not have medicare and the PBS in Australia maybe more people would understand that diagnostic tests, surgery, medicines, lab work are hugely expensive in the human or animal field The goverment and private insurance pays for a large part of the human services. We dont have medicare for animals so what are vets to do run at a loss?

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.

[Danois]

The costs of running a clinic are huge. If we did not have medicare and the PBS in Australia maybe more people would understand that diagnostic tests, surgery, medicines, lab work are hugely expensive in the human or animal field The goverment and private insurance pays for a large part of the human services. We dont have medicare for animals so what are vets to do run at a loss?

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.

[poodle3081]

The costs of running a clinic are huge. If we did not have medicare and the PBS in Australia maybe more people would understand that diagnostic tests, surgery, medicines, lab work are hugely expensive in the human or animal field The goverment and private insurance pays for a large part of the human services. We dont have medicare for animals so what are vets to do run at a loss?

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.

[Danois]

Thanks for the tip but I can assure you that I read the thread.

I doubt that many vets would model a business plan on the sale of drugs given it is too much of a variable to account for. I do not recall anyone saying they would go out of business if they did not dispense drugs - I believe that the common theme was that it was reasonable for them to mark up drugs to cover the incidental time and handling.

Can't say I have ever had a vet propose unnecessary medication.

Any vet which over medicates to simply bring in money should consider their ethics (much like your friends really).

[nicestman77]

The costs of running a clinic are huge. If we did not have medicare and the PBS in Australia maybe more people would understand that diagnostic tests, surgery, medicines, lab work are hugely expensive in the human or animal field The goverment and private insurance pays for a large part of the human services. We dont have medicare for animals so what are vets to do run at a loss?

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.

I agree, if I charged for every broken part required to fix a customers equipment, to keep them happy, and charged as I should have, I would be driving a Volvo/Subaru, instead of a old Colt 1986 model.

I can't afford the pleasure of a vet anymore, it is out of my league, no more animals for me! not that I don't love them, I do, but I can't afford them.

I don't mind paying for the vets fees, I don't like the mark-up % charges on the medicals.

And I don't think I am alone, what about the poor pensioners.

[Rappie]

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.

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.

[nicestman77]

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.

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 think someone is missing the point, I used to squeeze 40 anal glands (FREE) a day for 18 years, that is 40 pieces of tissue paper a day =1 small box of tissues=$1.20 maybe, vets want to be paid for anything they do, even the air they breath, they want to be paid for it.

Come-on, get human, we are on this earth together, if we keep charging like wounded bulls, the earth is in a bad state.

I feel sorry for generation to come.

[Rappie]

I think someone is missing the point

I didn't realise I needed to justify myself by the number of times I squeeze anal sacs per day. I'll take your tissues and raise you a free squirt of dog cologne.

I referred to the royal 'we', the profession. Not me, I'm guilty as anyone for letting little things slide.

[Danois]

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.

Could not agree more Rappie.

I have lost track of the ad hoc advice, services etc I have had from my vets.

To use Nicestman77 (a bit of a misnomer...) example, if I get anal glands expressed ($10), vet looks over the dog as a whole (ears, mouth etc) , I can ask any question - get them to look at a spot or something all for no additional cost.

[poodle3081]

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.

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.

[Mum to Emma]

The costs of running a clinic are huge. If we did not have medicare and the PBS in Australia maybe more people would understand that diagnostic tests, surgery, medicines, lab work are hugely expensive in the human or animal field The goverment and private insurance pays for a large part of the human services. We dont have medicare for animals so what are vets to do run at a loss?

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 point is that when it comes to medication prescribed to animals by vets, unlike with doctors, 9 times out of 10, the customer is not given the option to shop around for the cheapest price. With everything else we buy - be it medicines for ourselves, petrol for the car, milk for our cereal - we have the CHOICE to shop at, say, Safeway (for price) or 7-11 (for convenience). Sometimes we'll go for convenience over price. And the same would apply with vet meds. But so many vets do not disclose to their patients that there IS this option - that they can get a prescription and have it filled at chemist for a fraction of the price. This is both unfair to the owner AND to the animal. I'm in a position where I can spend $1000s on my dogs, but how many animals suffer because their owner's stuggle to pay the vet bills?

I'm sure the vets on this board will now howl out "Oh, we know which owners are struggling and will help out" but how do you know this? Just because someone drives up in a nice car doesn't mean they haven't just lost their job. And they're not going to tell you this, are they??

Imagine the howls of protest if GPs could dispense medication. There'd be accusations of overprescribing across the land. And some WOULD overprescribe - just as vets do now. Doesn't mean they're not good vets. But as you say, they're running a business too. So perhaps that month they're not meeting budget - would it really do any harm to prescribe some antibiotics for the dog, they may think, even though odds are the diarrhea will be gone in a couple of days anyway?

Now not all vets are like this. Emma sees a wonderful eye specialist who when I asked for a bottle of Maxidex insisted on writing me a prescription, even telling me to go to Chemist Warehouse because their patients find it the cheapest!

The point is, vets should disclose the cost of the medication DURING the consultation (not just present it on the bill) and then, if possible, and if it's not needed immediately, offer the alternative of writing a script so that they owner can get it cheaper elsewhere. And they should not charge for writing a script if it's during a consultation (doctors don't - why do some vets need to?).

Actually, in my experience I've found vet specialists far more upfront with their costs than regular vets. And it's interesting how the consultation fee and the cost of x-rays, ultrasounds, MRIs etc, mirror the charges imposed on humans. Yet the cost of medicines is so much higher (and so often hidden).

[poodle3081]

The costs of running a clinic are huge. If we did not have medicare and the PBS in Australia maybe more people would understand that diagnostic tests, surgery, medicines, lab work are hugely expensive in the human or animal field The goverment and private insurance pays for a large part of the human services. We dont have medicare for animals so what are vets to do run at a loss?

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.

[Danois]

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 point is, vets should disclose the cost of the medication DURING the consultation (not just present it on the bill) and then, if possible, and if it's not needed immediately, offer the alternative of writing a script so that they owner can get it cheaper elsewhere. And they should not charge for writing a script if it's during a consultation (doctors don't - why do some vets need to?).

... Yet the cost of medicines is so much higher (and so often hidden).

Have you considered this - chemists are in the business of dispensing drugs and has hundreds of drugs on their shelves so can spread their mark out across more drugs.

If your vet does not disclose cost of drugs during consult then what is stopping you asking about it? Why shouldn't a vet charge for writing a script if you're going to get it elsewhere?

I think the comparison between GPs and chemists is artificial. As stormie said (or along the lines of) - a GP is your doctor (and your chemist is a chemist). Your vet is your GP, dentist, chemist, radiographer, surgeon, behaviourist, dietician and more all in one.

[WreckitWhippet]

I don't get what all the fuss is about, every business charges a mark up on their stock in addition to any service/labour charges. Only a fool would mark up at a % that does not stand to make them a profit.

If they mark an item up 400% so be it, I'd rather have my vet earning a nice healthy living and providing me with excellent servce and a smile , than go broke and leave me without vet care.

I've worked in a vets too and the overheads are huge and the cost of the equipment required would leave most people gasping for breath

[Cosmolo]

Even if its true (which i don't think it is for most) that vets are earning millions of dollars a year- whats the problem? Why should a vet caring for your pet be less worthy of high salaries and profit than a business manager or CEO?

Do some vets over charge? Sure they do. And no one forces you to continue to use the same vet. I am more concerned with the care of my pet than whether a vet is making a profit on some drugs dispensed. And my vet does countless things cheaply or at no charge for me for which i am extremely grateful.

Have you ever considered that mark ups on certain medications are more to compensate for those meds/ services/products that have minimal or no mark ups?

[stormie]

Why do people keep comparing the cost of drugs at the chemist to the cost they are at the vet?!

And for all you people complaining about vets charging for things like anal glands, then do it yourself. You're going to a clinic, getting someone to do a job for you that you obviously cannot do yourself, and expect this to be done for free?!?! I'm sorry, but I think that's a joke.

And nicestman - You complained at the cost of treatment for your dogs bladder stones - how would you have coped with the cost if they had operated to remove them all from the bladder? Sounds to me what the vets did for your dog was very practical and the most cost effective for you. The food that you were put on actually dissolves the stones - yep, its not cheap, but it's cheaper than surgery!

I don't think people realise how expensive it is to run a veterinary hospital. Poodle your estimations on gross profit from your drugs example is way off. Not all drugs are marked up the same amount. It can vary from what class of drugs they are.

It was also mentioned that we don't go through medications at the same rate a chemist would. We often have to throw out out of date drugs because only a few clients use them, but not fast enough to go through a full bottle or box. But we still have to keep them in stock for when they might be needed again. Same thing with vaccines. We have one client who vaccinates her rabbit. So when she wants it done, we have to order a full bottle, even though we're only going to use one dose. We don't charge them for full bottle, just the price of the single vaccine. So there's another example where we lose out.

Edited June 7, 2009 by stormie

[poodle3081]

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.