As a devoted pet owner, I am extremely aware of the cost of looking after my dog. So, I was intrigued by the report from the Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) that was released on March 12. For a long time, users have complained about the cost of veterinary services and the lack of transparency over fees and availability of services at veterinary centres.
What was also interesting to read was the growth over recent years of the so-called multiple organisations as independent vets sold their practices on to the corporate sector. This means some 60% of veterinary practices are now owned by large, often multinational, corporations. The more I read this report and the more I listened to public reaction to it, the more I found myself looking at direct parallels within our sector.
The two areas where I noted major similarities were in the availability of useful information around services and fees within a practice and then the cost of products in that setting versus outside settings, especially on-line outlets. Looking at this second area, I was struck by some obvious parallels.
It would seem from the reaction of the public that it is this area that gives rise to the greatest concern. Many people were not aware that they could buy their pets’ necessary medication somewhere other than their home veterinary practice, despite being aware that the very same medication as they required was available to them through online pet pharmacies up to 80% cheaper than at their vets. I personally can attest to this being the case.
For those who were aware of this, they were often shocked at being charged £30 or more for the prescription to take away and use elsewhere. As you read this you may be starting to see why I say there are some obvious parallels between our two professions.
Many people, on being charged a large amount for the necessary prescription, unsurprisingly, form the opinion that this is just another example of the professional looking to make money wherever possible at the expense of the consumer.
They also see it as that professional effectively punishing them for having the audacity to go somewhere else to get their medication. Our profession has, for years, been obsessed by this same situation. How many times have I read articles on whether we should charge for contact lens specifications if patients want to buy their lenses online, or whether we should charge for duplicate prescriptions following an NHS sight test, or even a private eye examination?
Still the opinions remain divided. Indeed, it was highly refreshing to read Francesca Blackmore’s Viewpoint article (Optician 23.02.24) in which she tells us her approach to patients wishing to buy contact lenses online is to actively encourage this, and that she has actually ‘shown patients how to order their lenses online’.
The key to doing this lies a few lines down where she says the patients ‘have been truly appreciative,’ but here is the bit that matters when she says: ‘As long as they are paying appropriately for clinical time spent doing their aftercare checks, I’m happy.’
Turning to spectacle prescriptions and looking at the duties required within the Opticians Act 1989, I wonder how many practices follow the Acts requirements fully. The Act states: ‘Immediately following the test to give to the person whose sight he has tested a written statement.’
Furthermore, the act states: ‘A person shall not be required as a condition of having his sight tested (a) to undertake to purchase from a specified person any optical appliance the testing of his sight may show he requires to wear.’ Therefore, the prescription must be issued prior to any form of dispensing being undertaken and the patient must be aware that they have a right to take that prescription elsewhere if they wish.
But how many times does this happen? I don’t wish to argue the rights and wrongs of this here, but the point is that the requirements in law are very clear and what we can see from the CMA findings in the world of veterinary care is that the rules and regulations around pet care are, in their findings, clearly being interpreted in favour of the vet and not the service user. Indeed, their final finding was that: ‘The regulatory framework is outdated and may no longer be fit for purpose.’
Given the obvious parallels that clearly exist, should we be asking ourselves whether our current practises are benefitting the service user and whether the information and outcomes we supply them are fully transparent and give them the opportunity to make fully informed decisions? Or should we wait until the spotlight is shone on us by a government body?
The CMA findings on vets gives us a truly clear steer on what we should be doing. We should be looking at its findings very closely and ensuring we do not fall into the same hole as vets now find themselves in.