I'm Preparing a Submission to ACCC about The Veterinary Industry. - I Need Your Stories

LCraigminns on 23/12/2018 - 06:41
Last edited 23/12/2018 - 16:46 by 1 other user

I've been invited by the ACCC to prepare a formal submission in relation to breaches of Australian Consumer Law within the veterinary industry. I have asked the ACCC for advice on the anti-competitive nature of regulation in this field and been advised that it has no power to act in respect of Government.

In order to support that submission I need your stories.

We all know that vet fees are high. In my view there are several reasons for this.

  1. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority (APVMA) administers a piece of legislation that expressly protects monopolies on veterinary medications. https://apvma.gov.au/node/1072

  2. The veterinary industry is dominated by a single large corporation, Greencross/Petbarn, which has a strongly integrated supply chain that includes wholesale and importation entities.

  3. Greencross is a large donor to the RSPCA, which supports its activities and benfits from that support both by direct donations and through the sale of high cost pet insurance products which in turn support the high charges made by vets.

  4. The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) is also strongly supported by suppliers to the industry, including medicines,pet food, equipment and services, including insurers. In my view this creates a strong incentive for that organisation to advocate for overservicing.

  5. There is no independent oversight of veterinary practise. It is self-regulated.

  6. Individual vets have a strong incentive to advocate for the use of expensive equipment they have leased or purchased.

  7. The RSPCA has become a large corporation in its own right and frequently acts in repugnant ways in pursuit of financial rather than animal welfare interests.

  8. Both the RSPCA and APVMA operate as regulators for animal welfare and both organisations are driven by a cost-recovery model which creates an incentive for punitive enforcement and in some cases to aggressive enforcement action unjustified by the circumstances.

  9. Governments condone the RSPCA's abuse of powers in order to cost-shift compliance activities.

  10. Veterinary schools, in common with some other vocational professional education schools are training students in risk management practises and business models that create an incentive to overservice.

I'd love to have your stories. If there are any journalists who subscribe to this site I'd be happy to provide you with any information you need.

IF you would like to provide information in confidence you can send it to [email protected]. I give you my word that no identifying information will be used without your permission. I may contact you to discuss things if you are agreeable. Please say so if that's the case.

**EDIT

One of the eagle-eyed contributors to this thread has pointed out that pharmacists are empowered to fill veterinary prescriptions. I'd strongly recommend that people ask their vet for a prescription rather than handing over cash for possibly inflated prices. Thanks wordplay.

Pets

Related Stores

ACCC
ACCC

Comments

  • altomic on 23/12/2018 - 14:01
    +6

    This sounds like a very interesting project. good luck with it.

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 23/12/2018 - 14:15
    +7

    I'm not informed enough in this area to know if or where issues lie but good on you for investigating and challenging the status quo.

    I don't want to toot my own horn but I've fixed quite a few problems with companies, workplaces and public infrastructure by simply telling someone that can do something that something isn't right. With regards to public infrastructure, some of these issues had existed for years. Some of the shifty workplaces were "Fortune Global 500" companies.

    You know the most common excuse I received? I was the first to file a complaint…

    I'm probably just as guilty as others of the "bystander effect", where you sub-consciously do nothing because you've been conditioned to believe someone else will in a large group/society (this is especially true in a social welfare state like Australia). But I disdain groupthink.

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 16:21

      Good on you Peter, I think you're spot on about the bystander effect. I think there is also a certain tendency for some to nurse grievances rather than to seek to have them redressed. In my youth a standard joke figure was the "whinging Pom", who could always tell you what was wrong with the world but wouldn't lift a finger to make it better and took great pride in telling those who did why it was impossible.

      Information is neutral, it's what we do with it that matters.

      • tranter on 23/12/2018 - 17:02

        Reminds me of a certain prolific poster on OzBargain.

        By the way, did you see the article in Saturday's Courier Mail on the same topic?

        • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 18:31

          Yes I did. I followed it up with a look for an online copy, which gave me the Mail's version that contained a link to this site. Thanks Sue Dunlevy.

  • blackorange on 23/12/2018 - 20:06
    +1

    My dad is a pensioner who volunteers as a puppy raiser with the Guide Dogs assoc. They have their own vets and do their own thing, except after hours where the puppy raisers are asked to take the puppies to the nearest vet for emergency care. This has happened maybe 5 times in the last decade and the vets usually send the bill straight to Guide Dogs (as the dogs all come with comprehensive paperwork).

    The last time a puppy ate some rat poison (warfarin) and we had to go to a vet unfamiliar to us, they asked my dad to pay $800. He explained he couldn't pay as he was a pensioner and they were absolutely livid. I then asked to read the bill and the vet wanted to charge him for 2 weeks of vitamin K pills (over $300) - I'm a human doctor and pointed out how unreasonable this was physiologically. The vet was embarrassed but said this is "usual practice". They refused to let him pay for 2 of the pills (so the dog could go back to the Guide dogs centre to receive more care the next day It was all round very tense, an awful experience

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 20:47

      Thank you. Please use the email address provided. I'd love to have a chat to your Dad.

    • wordplay on 23/12/2018 - 20:53

      I can find literature that suggests longer than 2 weeks of vitamin K1 orally after dogs ingest rat bait, but I'm not a doctor. what is the best length of treatment?

      • Justtip on 26/12/2018 - 12:17
        +1

        Really you'd want vitamin K9… Sorry but your username made me do it.

        In all seriousness though I'd like to compare this to the management in humans:
        For reference, warfarin is a vitamin K antagonist, and vitamin K is needed to create clotting factors. The net effect of warfarin use is initially a pro-coagulant effect after the anti-clotting factors are produced in shortage, followed by an anti-coagulant effect as the pro-coagulant factors (2,7,9,10) are produced in shortage. The biggest danger is that of the anti-coagulant effect and this is measured by prothrombin time (PT) or INR (International Normalised Ratio, a standardised measurement that can be cross-referenced across different labs/point-of-care machines and allows easier target range).

        Oral vitamin K in humans is extremely safe and the practice of warfarin (or INR) reversal is guided by the degree of INR derangement (related to the dose of warfarin and the physiology of the pt - eg liver function, nutrition etc, and the risk of reversal - eg risk of clotting, heart valve, atrial fibrillation) as well as the bleeding risk (currently bleeding and its severity, previous bleeding, trauma risk- eg contact sports etc). If you had a dog that ingested warfarin, you could measure the INR which is likely to peak around 2-3 days post ingestion (in humans) and give vitamin K orally (or IV if you want it to have a slightly faster onset, but no greater impact overall). If the patient is bleeding there are other things you can give but that's likely faaaar more expensive/unavailable in dogs. Ultimately I would have thought you could give a supertherapeutic dose of something like 5mg to medium sized dog for 3 days in a row and provided it didn't develop a bleed you wouldn't need to do anything further.

        Obviously there are a few assumptions here and those are based on human physiology but surely it can't be that different given both are mammals but happy to hear more from a vet. I do wonder though whether rat bait is a variant of warfarin that has a longer onset making a 2 week duration more necessary or something of that nature. Or maybe the effect is too variable especially when the dose could vary a lot and INR be too unpredictable - in which case the cost of re-measuring INR to check may be more expensive than simply giving a longer course of vitamin K..9

        • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 12:23

          Wow, great explanation. I hope that it serves as an example for others. Thanks.

        • ClarissaO on 26/12/2018 - 21:35

          There are many different ratbaits with many different durations of action. Weeks for some. But (shrugs) you do you

    • elgrande on 23/12/2018 - 22:14

      Did the vet save the dog?

  • chumlee on 23/12/2018 - 20:57
    +3

    Luxury car dealers are already hurting and investor property loans are down. Is now really the time to go after overcharging veterinarians? Soon private school enrolment will drop

  • bmerigan on 23/12/2018 - 21:28
    +2

    I don't think all vets charge the same. Just like all doctors and pharmacies don't charge the same. They are all private businesses which can charge whatever they like. I imagine if we didn't have Medicare you'd be pretty upset about doctor prices.

    Also, an example, my hairdresser charges 1/4 of the fee my wife's does. Doesn't make me think there's industry wide corruption that needs me to fight it. Are you a Uni law student who needs a thesis?

    I really don't understand what you have against vets, who actually have a very difficult job.

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 21:35
      +3

      I don't have anything against vets, I'm simply trying to understand why the costs are so high. I have clearly outlined a possible set of conditions that contribute in the initial post in this thread and someone else has suggested that the high cost of education may be a factor. If you are a vet or associated with the profession, I'd welcome your considered opinion on that subject.

      To date those have been lacking.

      As I keep saying, this isn't a witch hunt; if there are good reasons for the disparities I and others have described then please let us know. I give you my word that I will pass them on in full as part of my submission to the ACCC. The best way to do that is via the email address [email protected].

      • BertieBrown on 23/12/2018 - 21:55
        +2

        Another way of looking at is to ask, if there was a major economic catastrophe and everything went tits up, which industries would really suffer? Or, if it was a choice between feeding the kids and taking the dog to the vet, what would people do? In my estimation, they’d prob feed their kids and try everything they could to fix the dog at home.

        Vets charge what they do, because they can. If people weren’t forking out the dough to prop up the industry, either vets would charge less, or they wouldn’t exist. People have owned animals for eons, but I don’t believe that vets have been a real mainstream phenomenon until fairly recently.

  • BertieBrown on 23/12/2018 - 21:47
    +6

    Vets are a luxury item.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2018 - 01:42
      +4

      Vets are a luxury item.

      I kind of agree, ie. Initially pet ownership (and related vet bills) is a 'luxury' .
      Once a person has formed a bond and attachment to the animal, their health care (especially life saving treatments) then becomes more if a necessity rather than a luxury. Animals often become like part of the family and one would consider life saving treatment for a family member not a luxury

  • p1 ama on 23/12/2018 - 22:58
    +39

    I used to work for the ACCC and have written reports to the tune of what you are trying to do. I have some tips that I think would go some way to making sure you'll actually get action on the things you want.

    Firstly, I think it's important to understand the role of the players you might come across. The parliament passes (i.e. creates) the laws, the ACCC enforces the laws and the courts interpret the laws. What this basically means is that despite good intentions, you have to target the right place. If you believe that vets are engaging in behaviour(s) that are illegal (e.g. price fixing), then the ACCC is the place to go, but if you want laws passed that introduce new regulation into the sector, then you have to go petition your local MP, the ACCC can't do anything there.

    It's also important to note that just because vets are expensive, ripping people off, or not helping people doesn't necessarily imply that they are breaking any competition laws. I think that many of the points you are making come back around to vets being too expensive. If you actually want some sort of action on the work you're doing (which is difficult, I understand), you need to move away from the emotional arguments to legal and economic arguments. Whilst stories about people with a dying family pet not being able to afford treatment will tug the heartstrings on A Current Affair, they are not the basis on which serious decisions are made.

    An example of the sort of thing you need to stop saying:

    I don't have anything against vets, I'm simply trying to understand why the costs are so high.

    You haven't cited a single law. There's no law banning high prices. You could also try to understand why the costs of a Ralph Lauren shirt or Lamborghini is so high too.

    Also don't say things like:

    We all know that vet fees are high.

    You've provided no evidence for this. I never knew vet fees were high. How about comparisons with other developed countries?

    Out of the ten points that you raise initially in your post, I think only a few of them actually will help you, but again, you need to focus on the points that will actually help your case, not build up a sob story about how people can't afford vets. You're not running a TV show for mass entertainment, you're trying to get serious action on what you perceive to be a serious issue.

    The veterinary industry is dominated by a single large corporation, Greencross/Petbarn, which has a strongly integrated supply chain that includes wholesale and importation entities.

    There's nothing inherently wrong about being vertically integrated. In many cases, vertical integration is a great thing because it reduces costs. Some of our biggest industries are heavily vertically integrated. I think the only point you can make here is a monopoly argument regarding Greencross/Petbarn, but you'll need to be able to prove that they are acting in such a way that is anticompetitive. Are they taking specific actions which are preventing independent vets from starting up, for example?

    Greencross is a large donor to the RSPCA, which supports its activities and benfits from that support both by direct donations and through the sale of high cost pet insurance products which in turn support the high charges made by vets.

    There's nothing wrong with this on a surface level. The RSPCA is basically a charity.

    The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) is also strongly supported by suppliers to the industry, including medicines,pet food, equipment and services, including insurers. In my view this creates a strong incentive for that organisation to advocate for overservicing.

    It's not good enough to say that in your view this creates a strong incentive for overservicing. You need to prove that there is overservicing. Person X is a poor guy, that gives him a strong incentive to steal from his neighbour, person Y. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's doing anything wrong. On top of that, you will have to prove that the prescribing behaviour of vets can be influenced by the AVA.

    There is no independent oversight of veterinary practise. It is self-regulated. Individual vets have a strong incentive to advocate for the use of expensive equipment they have leased or purchased.

    These sorts of points should be removed. If you want independent oversight, great, go petition your local MP to set up a government agency to oversee the activities of vets. Most industries are self-regulated. Doesn't mean there's anything dodgy going on. Second point should be removed altogether, every industry has the incentive to advocate for use of expensive equipment. All of this is weak evidence, again, you can't just talk about hypothetical situations and incentives. You need to show that laws are being broken if you want action.

    The RSPCA has become a large corporation in its own right and frequently acts in repugnant ways in pursuit of financial rather than animal welfare interests.

    Irrelevant. The RSPCA is an independent charity. You can go after them, sure, but this has nothing to do with the rest of your argument.

    Both the RSPCA and APVMA operate as regulators for animal welfare and both organisations are driven by a cost-recovery model which creates an incentive for punitive enforcement and in some cases to aggressive enforcement action unjustified by the circumstances. Governments condone the RSPCA's abuse of powers in order to cost-shift compliance activities.

    What does this even mean? This makes no sense to me.

    Veterinary schools, in common with some other vocational professional education schools are training students in risk management practises and business models that create an incentive to overservice.

    This point should be cut completely. If you want the curriculum changed, go talk to the universities setting the curriculum. This has nothing to do with the prices being set by vets.

    Last point I'll make is that, as someone who has actually written these sorts of reports and thought about them at length before, I think that you're a bit confused and really, I don't think you have a good idea of what you're doing. Most of the things you are saying are very hypothetical and there is absolutely no evidence in any of it. The remainder of what you say are personal attacks on the personal integrity of vets. I don't know any vets, I've never been to any vets, so I have no idea whether they're warranted. But even if they are, you cannot regulate the fact that some vets are bad people who will do the wrong thing. This is a different issue to what you're trying to tackle.

    In other words, my feeling is that you're someone who's been screwed, you're trying to enact some change (which is a noble thing to do), but the way you're going about it won't bring any.

      • p1 ama on 24/12/2018 - 00:15
        +8

        Well from what you wrote:

        I've been invited by the ACCC to prepare a formal submission in relation to breaches of Australian Consumer Law within the veterinary industry.

        This would actually involve relating what is happening in the veterinary industry to potential areas of the law which are being broken. I'm not discouraging you to do what you're doing, I think what you're doing is great, but you need to realise that just because you have a bunch of people who are unhappy with services they're receiving from vets is not a cause for further investigation.

        • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 04:25
          -4

          Yes, it would.

          • p1 ama on 24/12/2018 - 11:54
            +8

            @Craigminns: If a bunch of unhappy people are cause for further investigation then the ACCC would be investigating every business with negative Yelp reviews. There's a difference between being a bad business and breaking the law.

            • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 14:00
              -7

              @p1 ama: Of course, however if there is evidence of anti-competitive or business models, deceptive conduct or other breaches of consumer law then the ACCC is very interested. I would like to give them the opportunity to decide if that is the case.

              If the industry players feel that this is a case that cannot be made out then it behooves them to explain why. I'm sure that the public would appreciate the opportunity to learn about the pressures facing the people entrusted with the care of their animals, whether companions or stock.

              If, as I've been informed, the industry is creating serious mental health problems for practitioners, then the AVA has a duty of care to its members to do all it can to rectify that. Similarly, if the cost pressures are forcing vets to offer services at prices that people are unable to afford, leading to detrimental animal welfare outcomes, then the RSPCA has an obligation under its own Charter to take action insofar as it can. Further, if those detrimental outcomes for animals are likely to have a detrimental effect on the mental health of the owners, then there are several groups, including the AMA, Beyond Blue and others that have a duty of care to support action being taken to remedy the situation. Additionally, if charges are inflated to the extent that animal ownership is taken out of the reach of willing pet-owners on incomes which could support fair costs, then the Anti-Discrimination Commission may have an interest in the matter. Finally, if there is evidence that parties have engaged in conduct which in all of the circumstances may be considered unconscionable, then ASIC may be interested.

              Please don't think I am trying to bring any of this about, I would simply like to have an open and honest discussion in the hope of arriving at a better solution for all parties. My sense is that this is not your own intent, which is a disappointment.

              • p1 ama on 24/12/2018 - 18:17
                +17

                @Craigminns:

                Please don't think I am trying to bring any of this about, I would simply like to have an open and honest discussion in the hope of arriving at a better solution for all parties. My sense is that this is not your own intent, which is a disappointment.

                I don't know why you're focusing so much on intent. The intent doesn't matter, the facts are what matter. For example, you see a robbery, you report the robbery. It doesn't matter whether you reported the guy because you hated him or because you felt it was a moral obligation. Nobody gives two hoots about why you reported him, the evidence is whether he broke the law or not.

                Of course, however if there is evidence of anti-competitive or business models, deceptive conduct or other breaches of consumer law then the ACCC is very interested. I would like to give them the opportunity to decide if that is the case.

                If the guy next door has a drug lab, the police are very interested. I would like to give them the opportunity to decide if that is the case. Sound ridiculous? You can't just say if there is XYZ, if you are reporting something, you need to substantiate what you're saying.

                If the industry players feel that this is a case that cannot be made out then it behooves them to explain why. I'm sure that the public would appreciate the opportunity to learn about the pressures facing the people entrusted with the care of their animals, whether companions or stock.

                No, nobody has to explain anything to anyone. I think you're confusing what is illegal behaviour with what behaviour you simply don't like. There is a huge difference.

                If, as I've been informed, the industry is creating serious mental health problems for practitioners, then the AVA has a duty of care to its members to do all it can to rectify that.

                This is not a competition law issue.

                Similarly, if the cost pressures are forcing vets to offer services at prices that people are unable to afford, leading to detrimental animal welfare outcomes, then the RSPCA has an obligation under its own Charter to take action insofar as it can.

                This is also not a competition law issue.

                Further, if those detrimental outcomes for animals are likely to have a detrimental effect on the mental health of the owners, then there are several groups, including the AMA, Beyond Blue and others that have a duty of care to support action being taken to remedy the situation.

                This is also not a competition law issue.

                Additionally, if charges are inflated to the extent that animal ownership is taken out of the reach of willing pet-owners on incomes which could support fair costs, then the Anti-Discrimination Commission may have an interest in the matter.

                Don't be ridiculous. It's not discriminatory to charge high prices.

                Sorry, but the more I read of what you're saying, the more I'm convinced you have no idea what you are doing. I've tried to help you get the action you want, but I cannot help someone who doesn't want to help themselves. I'm going to reiterate that you are trying to get serious action on a serious issue. This is not Today Tonight or A Current Affair where you can go on TV, say some bullshit and throw out hypotheses and get people to rock up at their local vet clinics with pitchforks. If you are submitting a report, think about how you would submit a report to the police about a robbery that occurred at your house. You need precise evidence of actions which are against the law.

                In your entire diatribe, you have not once cited any:

                1) competition law and why/how it may be breached
                2) comparisons with other markets and/or countries which demonstrate your claims about pricing
                3) evidence which may support your hypotheses

                Instead, you have:

                1) called someone who gave an account you disagree with "an advertisement"
                2) claimed that I am a vet who is threatened
                3) given anecdotes and faux evidence which wouldn't even be enough to resolve a schoolyard dispute let alone stand up to any scrutiny in court.

                Let me be clear once again. I'm trying to help you. You don't have to listen to me and you can report whatever you want. I am coming to you as someone who has done what you are trying to do before. I have read reports from people like you. I know first hand what is taken seriously and what is thrown out because there is no substantial evidence to warrant investigation.

                If you went to the local police station and reported your neighbour for "being a bad guy", you will not be taken seriously. This is the same thing. The ball is in your court if you would like to take my advice onboard.

    • kingmw on 23/12/2018 - 23:52

      Excellent post, I completely agree with what your wrote.

    • ankor on 24/12/2018 - 09:04
      +3

      My feeling is that you are too nice. Merry Christmas!

        • p1 ama on 24/12/2018 - 11:49
          +17

          My feeling is that the poster is a vet who is feeling under threat, which is unfortunate, since I bear no ill-will toward vets.

          You've already lost the argument when you're saying someone you disagree with has an ulterior motive rather than actually addressing their points.

          I can't believe you can't see that I'm trying to help you…I want you to succeed, hence pointing you towards a better path to do so.

          Unfortunately, many of them have been induced to sign up to expensive equipment purchases or leases and anti-competitive supply agreements I suspect, enforced no doubt with non-disclosure agreements and other legal ringfences and are trapped.

          This is why you can't be taken seriously. Remember that you are trying to prove vets are committing a crime. The burden of proof is very high.

          An ACCC enquiry would give those people an opportunity to speak up under the protection of the Commission.

          I have presented at commission meetings, I have written reports presented to the commission, I have put together evidence for hearings.

          It's not a Yelp review where you have a bunch of people getting up to give good reviews and a bunch of people getting up to give bad reviews. The evidence needs to be directly related to how and where the law is being broken, and exactly which laws.

          You're not presenting to potential vet clients. You're presenting to lawyers and economists who need to make enforcement decisions based on your evidence which could be challenged in court. Realise what that means.

          • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 11:56
            -8

            @p1 ama: Thanks again, I wasn't disparaging you, I was trying to understand your motivation, which wasn't clear in your first post. I don't agree necessarily with some of the points you raised and I'd like to understand your reasoning better. The thing I would like to avoid is possible contributors on both sides of the argument being scared off by negative comments. As you have agreed, this is an important issue and it needs to be properly aired

            I'd be very happy to have your assistance in preparing a submission. If you would like to help, please do get in touch via the email [email protected] or PM me if you'd rather remain anonymous. If we come to agree on aspects I may have misjudged I'll edit the head post to reflect that improved understanding.

            I intend to make the terms of my submission public, so this isn't an attempt to avoid scrutiny, merely to avoid muddying the waters.

              • p1 ama on 24/12/2018 - 23:25
                +15

                @Craigminns:

                Thanks again, I wasn't disparaging you, I was trying to understand your motivation, which wasn't clear in your first post.

                Yes you were - you suggested that I had no idea what I was talking about, and even more ridiculously, that I was a vet who was afraid of you. I have no intentions - I don't know anything about vets and how much they charge. I do know a bit about the administrative aspects of what you are trying to do. I'm just stating what I know.

                So far there haven't been any contributions in this forum from vets willing to justify the charges and some considerable evidence that charges are prima facie excessive, especially for medication and that overservicing through upselling of services is a standard practise.

                This makes absolutely no sense.

                In order to submit evidence, you need a charge. For example, a charge could be that several large chain veterinary clinics are engaging in collusion which contravenes s45 of the Competition and Consumer Act. The evidence, for example, could be that from observing the prices charged for the 5 most common services, they all increased at similar points in time over the past 5 years.

                What you are doing is just complaining. This will not get any action. You cannot say that a vet charges excessive fees because 1) there is no law which prohibits that, and 2) there is no definition of excessive. I can summarise everything you've said so far into one sentence "vets are dodgy" - that's not cause for any action.

                In addition there are possible breaches of Australian Consumer Law in failures to advertise costs of products and services prior to purchase and that there are significant beneficial linkages between various players in the industry which may create conflicts of interest.

                The first point here is good. If you can find evidence of such, it could be a serious point. The second point is meaningless. Having a conflict of interest is not illegal, you have to think about this deeper than that.

                If Greencross or the AVA or RSPCA or anyone else wishes to take action through the courts it's their privilege. I would advise against it though, they may find they have opened a much larger can of worms than they realise.

                Seriously, cut the attitude. You're here to provide serious evidence in a serious case which could result in serious action. You're not here to muck around. Goading others into legal action and/or threatening them is one of the quickest ways to discredit yourself.

                Lawfare might sound good to bullies, but it's seldom close to an optimal solution.

                You really have no idea how this works. What do you expect will happen? You'll submit some evidence to the ACCC and they'll just say "hey, yeah, the prices are real high! let's slap some price ceilings on these vet services"? You're really mistaken if you think that's what's going to happen.

                Look, even though you questioned my integrity…etc. I'm not a child, I don't take offence. Take my advice on its merits, it's your choice whether you want to accept it or not. All the best.

              • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 15:16
                -2

                @Craigminns: Ah, I see that someone is trying to downvote the above comment into oblivion. It's OK folks, the page is already downloaded and saved.

                Instead of playing silly buggers, why not just put your side of the story? Surely you can't think this is going to go away?

        • ankor on 24/12/2018 - 13:06
          +16

          hahahaha. I think it is you who is the shonk. p1 ama graciously writes a thoughtful and well-considered post trying to help you and suddenly that person is an anonymous poster with questionable expertise who may also be a vet who is threatened by your drivel.. give me a break.

          • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 13:07
            -1

            @ankor: I'm sorry you feel that way. Do you have anything to contribute?

          • CMH on 24/12/2018 - 22:22
            +9

            @ankor: I agree it was well written.

            If OP can't see that his submission to ACCC is just going to be full of reviews of vets and complaints about how much they charge.

            Completely lacking of substance and will be thrown out pretty quickly.

            He will however get his 15 mins of fame on Today Tonight and similar junk news shows.

            • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 15:18
              -2

              @CMH: Thanks again for your opinion.

              It's always good to have expert contributions to a reasoned debate.

              On that subject, do you have any?

            • ankor on 26/12/2018 - 20:45
              +1

              @CMH: Yes well it's clear that the OP hasn't had any formal guidance on academic writing. Screaming from a soap box will get you nowhere, but it may get a few facebook likes.

              • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 20:47
                -4

                @ankor: Once again, I'm happy to defer to an expert. I won't bother asking if you've anything to contribute.

                • ankor on 27/12/2018 - 20:36
                  +1

                  @Craigminns: p1 ama is someone I would consider to be a subject matter expert. You didn't defer to him/her so why hide behind such a statement when you have no intention to do so in the first place? You're hiding behind a b.s statement and you know it.

  • 0wave on 23/12/2018 - 23:28
    +7

    hello I disagree with your stance on Greencross tremendously.

    I have found Greencross to be one of the most ethical large corporations I have ever dealt with.

    A few years ago I owned a rescue dog which had a heart condition when I got him and needed regular treatment to keep him alive. He lived 3x his remaining life expectancy because of the treatment he received from Greencross.

    I am not just saying this just because Greencross happened to be the treating vet for his condition, but because it's their corporate practices which actually saved him. I am not affiliated with them in any way

    They key practices are:

    1. Integrated nature between Greencross practices and in particular the ability of AEC emergency vets to log directly into the Greencross system to see the full patient history instantly without having to re-explain everything and probably wouldn't even be possible in an after-hours emergency. It also saves time & money on unnecessary treatments, for example during an emergency AEC vets were able to pull up recent blood results without the need for a re-test. It is also possible to go to another nearby Greencross vet in can you have an urgent issue and your regular one is fully booked, no duplication of treatment.

    2. Healthy Pets Plus. Unlimited consultations including at AEC emergency vets (which usually costs $200+ just to walk in the door) for only $440 per year and includes a bunch of other stuff like discounts and fully includes vaccinations.

    Unlike Pet Insurance, no prior medical is required and they will happily take on sick animals with complex needs. Not only did I find this extremely cost effective way to keep my beloved pet as healthy as possible with his heart condition, but the structure of it means that if there is a genuine medical issue that the owner is worried about but is holding back from treatment because they are worried about cost, that barrier to treatment is no longer there.

    1. Script writing. My only complaint is that AEC won't write scripts but in that case I just buy the minimum amount to last the night and a go to Greencross first thing in the morning and get the script from them. Sure the script fee is a bit high, around $25, but still it usually works out cheaper to get the script and fill it from a regular or animal pharmacy.

    I find the $25 fee more than fair because the consultation is already heavily subsidised by HPP, the vet is putting in the effort but would still be losing out on the margin from selling the medication directly, and there is no Medicare for pets.

    At the end of the day, their regular high prices are justified. At the end of the day, pets are a Luxury item and if you can't afford to look after them then you can't afford to have them.

    People who are more affluent don't mind paying the high medication fees to have the convenience of getting it right away.

    People who are less affluent still have the cheaper option.

    I don't care about the high prices at petbarn, other alternatives exist and it is a good outlet for them to make money from affluent people to keep their business thriving which supports people like me who use HPP.

    In my case, I hit financial difficulty during this time and if it wasn't for Greencross HPP and script writing I simply would not have been able to AFFORD the treatment because the cost would have been so high that I would have had to put the dog down much sooner because I just wouldn't be able to afford such a high price tag. Instead, he lived the rest of his life comfortably too the full extent possible until his body couldn't take it anymore and there were no medical options left.

    Please consider the positive effect that Greencross has on the community. Perhaps there are things that they are doing which the rest of the Vet industry could follow. For example, I think that MyHealthRecord would be great for animals, not so much for Humans. There could be more public awareness of script writing option for people in financial hardship.

    In my case, the Greencross I went to was extremely ethical. When my animal was in end stage and needed hospitalisation overnight to see if they would recover, my vet advised which emergency vet was the cheapest which was non-AEC - they gave me that option even though it was against the Greencross corporate interest to only recommend their own. I know someone else who uses Greencross who also has a pet who is very sick at the moment, a different Vet at the same practice also gave the cheaper overnight vet option despite this person not being in financial hardship, and this is years later. The Vets at Greencross ALWAYS acted in the best interest of the animals, not themselves. Whatever corporate responsibility they have running at corporate, it must be working. Next time I get a pet, I will only use Greencross, I owe them a great deal of gratitude for how they treated my first pet with them, and it's this corporate responsibility which will make me come back.

      • 0wave on 23/12/2018 - 23:31
        +12

        get lost, it is 100% true. If you don't believe it and are looking to blindly target "big corporations" then I will write my own submission to counter yours.

        • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 23:34
          -4

          I will gladly add your views to my submission if they are backed up by evidence. All you have provided is a glowing anecdote.

          I'm not "targetting" anyone, I'm simply seeking evidence. Greencross or anyone else is welcome to give me evidence to refute the arguments in the head post of this thread. I would very much welcome it.

          • 0wave on 23/12/2018 - 23:39
            +12

            @Craigminns: Fine, I will pull out all my receipts for Treatment from Greencross, add them up, and make a submission.

            It is actually your statements which are the anecdotes, YOU have no evidence whatsoever, in fact you come here hoping that WE find the evidence for you to support your suspicions.

            Look up "Healthy Pet Plus", the information is readily available online. There is no comparable service in Australia which I know of. Pet insurance does not cover pre-existing ailments.

            • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 04:32

              @0wave: That's your right. I wish you all the best.

          • p1 ama on 24/12/2018 - 00:24
            +13

            @Craigminns:

            I will gladly add your views to my submission if they are backed up by evidence. All you have provided is a glowing anecdote.

            I don't understand. You asked for stories and when you get stories that are not what you want, you call them "glowing anecdotes"? To quote your original post:

            I'd love to have your stories.

            Again, I respect your seeking of evidence, but to begin seeking evidence, you need to lay out a charge. Otherwise, all you're going to get are some people who are happy with their vet services, some people who are not, and we all know that to be the case already.

            • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 04:31
              -3

              @p1 ama: Thanks, I'm happy with the way things are going. If you have a piece of evidence to contribute, please feel free to do so.

              • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 07:38
                -1

                @Craigminns: I have repeatedly asked for people to send me supported evidence. I am seeking evidence from all sides of the debate, that's the only way to arrive at the truth. I must apologise to 0wave for being a little testy last night, I was rather tired. If he or she wants to get in touch via email I'd be pleased to discuss the issues. The advice in relation to the health management plan is very good.

                As I keep saying, this isn't a witch hunt, it's a search for the truth of the issues. I think vets are an essential service and need to be properly supported to do the job they felt passionate enough about to make it a career. One of my correspondents has pointed out that the suicide rate among vets is up to 4 times higher than that in the general population, which points to a serious mental health crisis in the profession and she herself comes across as seriously depressed, considering leaving the profession.

                That has to be fixed.

                • SydStrand on 28/12/2018 - 02:02
                  +6

                  @Craigminns:

                  I am seeking evidence from all sides of the debate, that's the only way to arrive at the truth.

                  You're a liar and have as much regard for the truth as 'fair and balanced' Fox News. A user who worked for the ACCC gave you actual useful, solid information and your first instinct is to attack their integrity. Someone else recounted a story you claim to be interested in, but you accused them of advertising because it was positive.

                  You asked for a vet's perspective and I left one on the next page, but I have a feeling that you probably don't care much for opinions that clash with your worldview.

                  • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 08:04
                    -5

                    @SydStrand: Sorry mate, haven't been on the site since my last post. I do have a life to live. I'll get to it and if it's not abusive I'll respond.

                    You might like to do some other things while waiting.

                    • misspep on 29/12/2018 - 21:31
                      +4

                      @Craigminns: So when an actual vet responds, you now have nothing to say?

                      Case closed. Good luck with your witch hunt.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2018 - 00:32

    I wanted to send you a private message in relation to this post.

    Sent me a message, I'll try to give you some examples of some extremely overpriced medicine. 5 grams for $100+

  • Jugganautx on 24/12/2018 - 00:42

    Took my mastiff to get checked for a limp
    told to rest and get pain killers… 49 bucks for 7 pills. what a bloody joke. Looked online for the same stuff can buy them for $1.60 a pill and vet sells the same ones for $6.80

    • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 04:30

      Do you have the details on the type of medication it was and where this happened?

      It's important to have proper data, so please try to be specific.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2018 - 11:55

      Can also get the horse ones at local nightclubs in the city ;)

  • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2018 - 01:27

    I've heard that individual vets are not allowed to advertise prices.
    ie. If vet up the road charges $100 for a certain procedure, and you open up a vet charging $60, you are not allowed to advertse your prices, therefore the peole paying $100 at the other vets, never get to know that they are paying more than they need to (except from word of mouth).
    Also, the incentive to do things cheaper is taken away, because you cannot advertise/market that you do things cheaper so you're getting whomever walks through your door, rather than being able to advertise that you do certain procedures for $xxxx and then customers are lured in by the marketed cheaper pricing.
    I actually asked someone who had neely opened a vet, and had cheaper pricing then nearby competitor "why don't you advertise your cheaper price" and they aren't allowed to, even though they know they ar doing certain procedures cheaper than the competitor nearby.
    Being able to advertise pricing should make pricing more competitive overall. I'm not sure if it is a law that says they cannot advertise, Or maybe it is just a rule of the vets association or something like that.

    • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 07:41

      Are you able to have the vet you refer to get in touch? Alternatively, if you supply the details via [email protected] I'll get in touch confidentially.

      If the AVA or anybody else is enforcing such a policy it's serious anti-competitive conduct and in clear breach of Australian Consumer Law.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2018 - 11:53

        I cannot really give specifics. It just came up in general conversation with a friend who manages/owns a vets. So I didn't push as to whether there is any sort of "enforcing" . There could be good reasons why they are not meant to advertise pricing, maybe treatment quality and inclusions might be different from one vet to another. Perhaps the average person won't understand all the included (or not included) aspects with certain procedures. I do know certain things are well justified in their cost. For example, snake anti-venom I think that costs the vet about $500, then they might have to go and source it from another vet if they have none in stock (obviously snake bite won't wait, while they order in new anti-venom) .
        Then you have xrays etc, this equipment costs alot, the vet my friend bought included some of this expensive equipment, the other option I guess, would be to send animals elsewhere to seperate vets xray place, which would likely cost more (plus hassle and cost of transportation from the vets without xray in-house, to place with xray equipment, then back again to treating vet).

        • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 11:59

          If your friend is willing to get in touch I'd be very interested in hearing what s/he has to say. Would you mind asking them to get in touch via the email [email protected]. I guarantee confidentiality will be maintained and it is important to understand the pressures that vets may be under.

  • cameldownunder on 24/12/2018 - 09:27

    "The RSPCA has become a large corporation in its own right and frequently acts in repugnant ways in pursuit of financial rather than animal welfare interests."

    I totally agree, especially with this one

    How can a RSPCA approve meat products? It's just a label for making money. Disgrace

    • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 09:38

      I'm not sure that I completely agree, but I understand your reasoning. The approval represents an endorsement of the animal management practises in recognition of the fact that people demand the supply of meat products. The program has lead to improved awareness of good husbandry, so that's a good thing.

      I'm more concerned about aspects of their punitive enforcement of their own rules, which in one case I am aware of has lead to an older lady having her door broken down with a battering ram under police supervision, followed by a lengthy and vindictive series of Court actions that culminated in her losing her home to pay for the RSPCA's claimed costs. Along the way she was accused of being mentally incapable of bringing a defence and various other very ethically dubious legal tactics designed to strip her of resources were employed.

      Our Governments have created a monster, it seems to me.

  • Nads2407 on 24/12/2018 - 09:29
    +4

    you must be really bored with your life.

    • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 09:31
      +1

      Well, comments like this are certainly boring. Do you have anything to contribute?

  • lonewolf on 24/12/2018 - 09:56

    I have found the industry to be overpriced and depending on the vets / hospitals, they try to charge for excessive or unneccessary tests and dont tell you the costs till the end. Then there are other vets who seem to always opt to put the pet down than to even try to diagnose what the health problems are.

    • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 10:00

      Do you have any specific examples? You can use the email address [email protected] to send me a confidential report of your experiences.

      Alternatively, send me a PM on this site. I give you my word that your identity will not be disclosed if you don't wish it to be.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/12/2018 - 10:00

    Tip someone off about how tafes and uni degree mills

    • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 10:04

      I'm sure the ACCC will decide whether that is a relevant topic for investigation.

  • cantstanzya on 24/12/2018 - 11:24
    +1

    We got charged $2400 for 24 hours of emergency care only for the vet to recommend our dog to be put down for another $700.
    We chose to take our dog home and care for her ourselves.
    She was ok and lived another three years.
    After that experience we only take our pets to animal welfare league vets and the like.

    • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 11:29
      -1

      If you could get in touch via email [email protected] that would be very helpful. Details of the type of emergency that necessitated the care and the type of treatment that was given, as well as the reason for the prognosis that euthanasia was the best course would be useful too.

      The more detail the better.

  • msimpatient on 24/12/2018 - 14:58
    +1

    A few years ago an emergency vet wanted $2000 to remove my dogs eye as it was bulging out due to possible trauma.

    They stated her eye could not be saved at all and must be removed

    We paid $700 for her 5 hrs of overnight care (pain meds and fluids) and took her to our usual vet on the Sunday morning.

    Our usual vet operated on her that day, put her eye back in place, provided all meds and we had 5 check ups in total, all for the princely sum of just under $200.

    The emergency vet didn't want to do the operation til the Monday and was going to charge $1300 for it. $1100 difference in costs and a higher level of care through the independent vet.

    Multiple trips for the same issue would always cost a consult fee plus whatever else.

    This vet charges the 1 consult fee even if there are follow ups.

    I don't understand why the large gap in the costs. Why they can charge multiple times even if they were wrong.

    • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 15:00
      -1

      Thanks for that.

      Would you mind getting in touch through the email [email protected]? It would be good to have some more detail.

    • wordplay on 24/12/2018 - 20:44

      should have just taken the poor thing to your normal vet on the saturday night.
      at least an operation on a sunday and and 5 check up for $200 seems about the right price. that ~$20 for each of the checkups, $50 for the surgery and maybe $50 for any drugs/medication. Still more expensive than seeing a bulk billing GP though.

      • CalmLemons on 25/12/2018 - 11:36
        +2

        For perspective you pay for the bulk billing GP via your medicare levy in your taxes.

        $200 was probably not even enough to cover the wages and rent cost. The vet was probably being very generous or had little idea of how to run a feasible business.

  • Levathian on 24/12/2018 - 16:23
    +10

    I think the problem is that people are used to the government subsidising human health via Medicare and the PBS and subconsciously compare those costs to their animals.

    I can assure you most graduate and inexperienced vets are not very rich at all and make a very modest income for 5 years study. It's a very emotionally demanding job.

    I have a family member who is a vet who charges 'high fees' but he also has very high practice expenses and bills. He's not 'raking in the money' by any stretch even though he's got 40+ years experience.

    From our experience though most Greencross vets are very ethical and charge decent fees for the service performed. If you disagree with a quote there's nothing stopping you from shopping around though.

    • CheapCoffee on 24/12/2018 - 22:59
      +1

      I'm glad that you brought up the parallel to human health which makes look veterinary bills feel like small change if you start taking out multiple layers of government assistance - especially for emergency care or specialist referral counterparts.

      Each billing item (standardardised) in human medicine can be seen here for 2019.

      http://www.mbsonline.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.ns…

      • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 18:00
        -1

        It seems to me there is a strong linkage between human health and animal ownership and welfare. There have been a number of studies.

        From the evidence presented to date, the issues that are most raised are (not in any particular order)

        For consumers
        high cost of medications
        high cost of routine services
        Upselling of unneeded services
        Sometimes poor advice
        Lack of transparency of costs

        For vets
        Low pay
        Poor mental health

        • kgbhouse on 25/12/2018 - 19:32
          +3

          Define "high-cost". You aren't comparing vet fee to human medical fees surely? If government abolished medicare, government subsidies today the cost to treat YOU as a person will go up through the roof. Veterinarians are not subsidised by anything or anyone. Of course costs are high.

          • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 19:59
            -1

            @kgbhouse: Oh, of course.

            The question is whether they are justifiably high.

  • SickMyDuck on 24/12/2018 - 16:43

    I took my cat to one of the charity vet clinic that is part of the adopted pet centre. Im not too sure if this is a government-cost subsidy or not but they don't over charged.

    how do I know they charge reasonably? I went to one of the vet clinic near highpoint shopping centre (Melbourne), and asked for a quote for desexing my kitten, they asked for $300+ while the vet I took my kitten to desex charge less than half of the price. Also, prescript food my vet sold are almost as much as you buy online.

    My experience so far is great with this charity vet clinic. Reasonable price, good practice, friendly staff.

    I suppose if we could come up with certain regulation to oversee the price that would be great as for some people they prefer to take their pets to local vets and if they are way over-priced then they would have no other options.

    • wordplay on 24/12/2018 - 20:46
      +1

      Its probably cheaper because they are a charity and are subsidised by donations, do charities pay less/lower tax than for profit businesses?

  • cAnt on 25/12/2018 - 10:45
    +1

    There is no Government "medicare" for animals.

    Be thankful there is a "medicare" for people in Australia for health care and medicines.

    • CalmLemons on 25/12/2018 - 11:37
      +1

      Yes, first world problems.

      We can barely take care of the people. Or better said people can barely take care of themselves.

      • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 13:20
        +1

        Perhaps some of the same factors are at play in the medical sector.

        I recently did a job which involved a visit to a building site where a home was being built on behalf of a prominent orthopaedic surgeon. I'm told that the land was purchased for some $5,000,000 with an existing home on it, which was then demolished to have a new house built at a cost ofaround $3,000,000.

        I'm sure the doctor is very good (apparently he specialises in hip replacement for the elderly), but it did make me wonder just how good you have to be to make that sort of money…

        I wonder how many of his patients are from the less wealthy parts of town?

        • p1 ama on 25/12/2018 - 14:08
          +9

          I'm sure the doctor is very good (apparently he specialises in hip replacement for the elderly), but it did make me wonder just how good you have to be to make that sort of money…

          Why didn't you become an orthopedic surgeon then? Are we complaining about everyone who makes a lot of money now? (I'm not being sarcastic, this is a serious question).

          I wonder how many of his patients are from the less wealthy parts of town?

          Beauty of living in AU is that it doesn't matter, we're all covered by Medicare.

          • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 14:48
            -4

            @p1 ama: Not at all, it's a fair question. I didn't become a medical practitioner because it's not a field I was interested in as a young man. To be quite honest, I had no idea what I was interested in as a young man.

            A fair days work for a fair days pay is a long held tenet of Australian culture.

            Do you really think that a doctor made enough to pay for an $8m property out of medicare? Perhaps it's time to take a look at that as well.

            What's your profession? I think it's possible for some of us to make a pretty well-educated guess…

            • p1 ama on 25/12/2018 - 14:57
              +8

              @Craigminns:

              Not at all, it's a fair question. I didn't become a medical practitioner because it's not a field I was interested in as a young man.

              Then it's all fair, he's doing what he wants, you're doing what you want. Everyone enjoy!

              A fair days work for a fair days pay is a long held tenet of Australian culture.

              I agree. Are you being underpaid for your work? Are you having trouble making ends meet? If you are, I would completely support any action which brings about an improvement for you.

              I support higher minimum wages, social safety nets such as Medicare, public education…etc. to make sure everyone has a fair shot and are being paid fairly for their work.

              None of this has anything to do with how much the surgeon makes.

              Do you really think that a doctor made enough to pay for an $8m dollar property out of medicare? Perhaps it's time to take a look at that as well.

              He might have investments, he might have made a killing in the stock market, he might have private patients, he might have rich parents…etc.

              It's a bit ironic that you're working on his property. Perhaps you should be grateful that he's giving you a job rather than shitting on him, hey?

              What's your profession? I think it's possible for some of us to make a pretty well-educated guess…

              Was an economist at the ACCC, now I'm an economics and maths teacher. Happy with my job, happy with my pay, don't give two hoots how much the orthopedic surgeon makes.

              • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 15:01
                -6

                @p1 ama: Ah, I should be grateful for the crumbs I receive. Yes I've heard that before. I believe in some quarters they call it "trickle down economics".

                I know, I know, I must be a communist pinko bolshevist or something. Do you actually have anything to contribute?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join