I have been a vet for the last eight years and feel I should weigh in on this topic.
This thread makes very depressing reading for a veterinary professional. The prices vets charge are not "a disgrace" and I don't know a single vet who chose the career for the financial gains.
Medical care is inherently expensive - you need vets, nurses, reception staff, expensive equipment (ultrasound machines, endoscopy etc.), drugs, insurance, etc etc. Because of the NHS, people in the UK are understandably completely blind to the real costs of medical care. Colleagues of mine who now work in the US say clients are very rarely surprised by bills and more often comment on how cheap it is rather than the opposite.
It is enormously demoralising being constantly accused of being mercenary and exploitative. I spent five years at vet school, racking up 70k in student debt in the process, I have post-graduate qualifications and I like to think I'm a good vet. My annual salary if 43k a year and I average a 55 hour week, with one night a week on call on top of that.
To get into vet school you need top grades which would get you in to study anything from medicine to economics which would lead to far better paid jobs (average GP salary 80-120k for comparison) but every year a few hundred kids sign up to study veterinary medicine because they want to help animals, knowing that you'll never make a lot of money but having the naive hope that you'll ease animals' suffering and help your community's pets.
Then you qualify, work a 55+hr week for the same starting salary as a teacher, trying to do your best for the patients presented to you and all the while being accused of overcharging. For this reason, amongst others, retention of vets is appalling in the UK, with over half of vets managing just a couple of years before packing it in and changing career.
Of course there are a few wronguns out there and the pet insurance industry has a lot to answer for but please take it from me, vets are not doing it for the money.
Joking aside @Yorkshireaddick TV’s supervet practice in Guildford took 9k off me after our Bailey was referred after seeing 6 different vets, he was piling on the pounds, lethargic, dragging his feet until his nails bled.
He had ct scans, mri scans, X-rays, more bloods taken while I watched sky in a beautiful lounge type waiting area with coffee and biscuits on tap. After being told he was coming round from his GA, I was asked to settle up and the vet would explain what they found.
This I duly did and was promptly joined by a vet ( not the man himself) he briefly explained what had gone on and added one blood sample will be flown to the USA for testing, but all tests they had run were inconclusive, asking what would happen if the results were the same from the states. ”What would you like us to do” was the reply To say I was a little angry was an understatement, putting my dog under GA was risky enough in my eyes but taking 9k off me and then asking what do you want to do was insulting.
I don’t have a negative opinion on vets in general but I do on most of the ones I’ve dealt with.
@se9addick - sorry, just to clarify 43k is my salary as an 8 year qualified vet. Starting salary was 27k.
And no idea how I made the whole thing bold! 🤣
I don't know if you are country vet or a city vet, the problem in London is most of the vets practices are run by conglomerates, where the vets seem to under the age of 30 and only want to work 9-5, any problems outside of routine they refer you to the conglomerate's animal hospital where the fees are exuberant only to find that after blood tests, scans etc they prescribe a few weeks of medication which an experience independent vet would have prescribed at the initial.consultation. I have a very close relatives who who are/were vets or vets nurses.
@T_C_E, sorry to hear Bailey had to go through such extensive investigations. Did you ever get to the bottom of it? Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of the case to know what they were looking at and what they found but I can understand that must have been extremely frustrating after all that stress and cash to have the onus put on you to decide what to do next. In their defence (possibly!), owners vary enormously in terms of how much say they want to have in their pet's treatment and this can be really hard to judge based on a 15-20 minute consultation. Some owners want you to take charge and tell them exactly what needs to be done regardless of cost, whilst I've had others get cross at not being involved enough in the treatment choices, whether due to financial concerns or their own independent research. Pets are legally, at the end of the day, an owner's posession therefore you have ultimate choice in terms of the therapeutic plan. As I say though, I don't know the ins and outs with Bailey and Fitzpatrick, whilst undoubtedly an outstanding surgeon and unquestionably commited bloke, is fairly divisive in our profession in terms of the ethics of some of what he does at his practice but that's another conversation!
@Dansk_Red. I'm a rural/suburban vet in Yorkshire so inevitably my salary is a bit lower than my London equivalent, as would be the case with any profession I can think of. You're absolutely right and in brief that whole situation is caused largely by one thing.
About 10-15y ago the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons changed the rules so practices could be owned by people who weren't vets. This led to a tidal wave of corporate ownership - in 10 years we went from all practices being independent to over 90% being owned by multinational corporations. This removed any notion of career progression (traditionally you would work at a practice for a few years then buy into the practice as a partner and then eventually retire and sell your share on to the next generation).
This further contributed to the poor retention of vets in first opinion practices - now most vets quit after 2-3 years hence the only vets around are the new graduates. This leads to a decline in the quality of care as they're inexperienced and the seniors they could have asked for advice have packed it in to work in pharma for three times the salary! So these recent grads often refer even the most basic cases in order to not make an error and subject animals to the potential risk of their lack of experience.
To try and aid retention, corporates then farmed out all of their out of hours cover to other corporately-owned night practices and advertised working for them as '9-5 with a good work-life balance', compared to the traditional 7 days a week vocational approach. This is obviously appealing for a burnt out vet but, in my opinion, leads to a break down in treatment continuity, worse relationships with clients/pets and fewer opportunities for recent graduates to learn (emergencies almost exclusively happen between 5pm-8am for some reason!).
In short, the industry is in an absolute state at the moment and that is due to a number of factors (e.g. corporates parasitising the profession, brexit exacerbating the vet shortage, insurance companies inflating costs, a shift in care from largely palliative to human-standard care, taking in the most academic not the most resilient vet students etc etc etc..) BUT these factors do NOT include vets trying to exploit clients and their pets. I'm sure there is the odd exception but we do what we do because we want to help. If we didn't we'd jack it in and earn 150k working for Bayer!!
Interesting to have a vet's perspective! From a position of complete ignorance (never a pet owner, so no direct experience of vets, but have friends and family that do), it would seem that the change of ownership rules by your industry body (RCVS) has some responsibility for the current woes. So what were the reasons for the change? And did anyone forsee the dis-benfits that have arisen from the change? Seems to me that some of those in the higher echelons of the industry saw some money and decided to chase it. Or is that unfair?
@T_C_E, sorry to hear Bailey had to go through such extensive investigations. Did you ever get to the bottom of it? Obviously I don't know the ins and outs of the case to know what they were looking at and what they found but I can understand that must have been extremely frustrating after all that stress and cash to have the onus put on you to decide what to do next. In their defence (possibly!), owners vary enormously in terms of how much say they want to have in their pet's treatment and this can be really hard to judge based on a 15-20 minute consultation. Some owners want you to take charge and tell them exactly what needs to be done regardless of cost, whilst I've had others get cross at not being involved enough in the treatment choices, whether due to financial concerns or their own independent research. Pets are legally, at the end of the day, an owner's posession therefore you have ultimate choice in terms of the therapeutic plan. As I say though, I don't know the ins and outs with Bailey and Fitzpatrick, whilst undoubtedly an outstanding surgeon and unquestionably commited bloke, is fairly divisive in our profession in terms of the ethics of some of what he does at his practice but that's another conversation!
@Dansk_Red. I'm a rural/suburban vet in Yorkshire so inevitably my salary is a bit lower than my London equivalent, as would be the case with any profession I can think of. You're absolutely right and in brief that whole situation is caused largely by one thing.
About 10-15y ago the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons changed the rules so practices could be owned by people who weren't vets. This led to a tidal wave of corporate ownership - in 10 years we went from all practices being independent to over 90% being owned by multinational corporations. This removed any notion of career progression (traditionally you would work at a practice for a few years then buy into the practice as a partner and then eventually retire and sell your share on to the next generation).
This further contributed to the poor retention of vets in first opinion practices - now most vets quit after 2-3 years hence the only vets around are the new graduates. This leads to a decline in the quality of care as they're inexperienced and the seniors they could have asked for advice have packed it in to work in pharma for three times the salary! So these recent grads often refer even the most basic cases in order to not make an error and subject animals to the potential risk of their lack of experience.
To try and aid retention, corporates then farmed out all of their out of hours cover to other corporately-owned night practices and advertised working for them as '9-5 with a good work-life balance', compared to the traditional 7 days a week vocational approach. This is obviously appealing for a burnt out vet but, in my opinion, leads to a break down in treatment continuity, worse relationships with clients/pets and fewer opportunities for recent graduates to learn (emergencies almost exclusively happen between 5pm-8am for some reason!).
In short, the industry is in an absolute state at the moment and that is due to a number of factors (e.g. corporates parasitising the profession, brexit exacerbating the vet shortage, insurance companies inflating costs, a shift in care from largely palliative to human-standard care, taking in the most academic not the most resilient vet students etc etc etc..) BUT these factors do NOT include vets trying to exploit clients and their pets. I'm sure there is the odd exception but we do what we do because we want to help. If we didn't we'd jack it in and earn 150k working for Bayer!!
Gilbert the dog is now 12, still very active, though he picked up a strain to his left leg or shoulder, Vet, not 100% sure.
£133.00, which included medication of £48.87. I forgot to ask if it was available on prescription! To be honest I kind of just except that this is the norm, of course I wish it wasn’t.
He is insured with Direct Line, monthly premium £102. I feel a bit pissed off with the insurers because I’ve claimed very little if anything since I’ve had Gilbert and yet it goes up year on year. The excess I think is about £175 so invariably I never claim.
I think they’re companies that will insure older dogs but I’m always inclined to think there’s a catch!
Anyone got any experience of older dog Insurers at reasonable rates?
You might struggle if you change company with an older dog or the premium will be very high, most of my pals that have single dogs still insure them use Animal Friends.
ps. Rarely will you be given a prescription for one off drugs, time you’ve paid for it then ordered the drugs online it pretty much do away with the savings.
Comments
it’s the training college for vets.
This thread makes very depressing reading for a veterinary professional. The prices vets charge are not "a disgrace" and I don't know a single vet who chose the career for the financial gains.
Medical care is inherently expensive - you need vets, nurses, reception staff, expensive equipment (ultrasound machines, endoscopy etc.), drugs, insurance, etc etc. Because of the NHS, people in the UK are understandably completely blind to the real costs of medical care. Colleagues of mine who now work in the US say clients are very rarely surprised by bills and more often comment on how cheap it is rather than the opposite.
It is enormously demoralising being constantly accused of being mercenary and exploitative. I spent five years at vet school, racking up 70k in student debt in the process, I have post-graduate qualifications and I like to think I'm a good vet. My annual salary if 43k a year and I average a 55 hour week, with one night a week on call on top of that.
To get into vet school you need top grades which would get you in to study anything from medicine to economics which would lead to far better paid jobs (average GP salary 80-120k for comparison) but every year a few hundred kids sign up to study veterinary medicine because they want to help animals, knowing that you'll never make a lot of money but having the naive hope that you'll ease animals' suffering and help your community's pets.
Then you qualify, work a 55+hr week for the same starting salary as a teacher, trying to do your best for the patients presented to you and all the while being accused of overcharging. For this reason, amongst others, retention of vets is appalling in the UK, with over half of vets managing just a couple of years before packing it in and changing career.
Of course there are a few wronguns out there and the pet insurance industry has a lot to answer for but please take it from me, vets are not doing it for the money.
After being told he was coming round from his GA, I was asked to settle up and the vet would explain what they found.
”What would you like us to do” was the reply
To say I was a little angry was an understatement, putting my dog under GA was risky enough in my eyes but taking 9k off me and then asking what do you want to do was insulting.
And no idea how I made the whole thing bold! 🤣
@Dansk_Red. I'm a rural/suburban vet in Yorkshire so inevitably my salary is a bit lower than my London equivalent, as would be the case with any profession I can think of. You're absolutely right and in brief that whole situation is caused largely by one thing.
About 10-15y ago the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons changed the rules so practices could be owned by people who weren't vets. This led to a tidal wave of corporate ownership - in 10 years we went from all practices being independent to over 90% being owned by multinational corporations. This removed any notion of career progression (traditionally you would work at a practice for a few years then buy into the practice as a partner and then eventually retire and sell your share on to the next generation).
This further contributed to the poor retention of vets in first opinion practices - now most vets quit after 2-3 years hence the only vets around are the new graduates. This leads to a decline in the quality of care as they're inexperienced and the seniors they could have asked for advice have packed it in to work in pharma for three times the salary! So these recent grads often refer even the most basic cases in order to not make an error and subject animals to the potential risk of their lack of experience.
To try and aid retention, corporates then farmed out all of their out of hours cover to other corporately-owned night practices and advertised working for them as '9-5 with a good work-life balance', compared to the traditional 7 days a week vocational approach. This is obviously appealing for a burnt out vet but, in my opinion, leads to a break down in treatment continuity, worse relationships with clients/pets and fewer opportunities for recent graduates to learn (emergencies almost exclusively happen between 5pm-8am for some reason!).
In short, the industry is in an absolute state at the moment and that is due to a number of factors (e.g. corporates parasitising the profession, brexit exacerbating the vet shortage, insurance companies inflating costs, a shift in care from largely palliative to human-standard care, taking in the most academic not the most resilient vet students etc etc etc..) BUT these factors do NOT include vets trying to exploit clients and their pets. I'm sure there is the odd exception but we do what we do because we want to help. If we didn't we'd jack it in and earn 150k working for Bayer!!
From a position of complete ignorance (never a pet owner, so no direct experience of vets, but have friends and family that do), it would seem that the change of ownership rules by your industry body (RCVS) has some responsibility for the current woes.
So what were the reasons for the change?
And did anyone forsee the dis-benfits that have arisen from the change?
Seems to me that some of those in the higher echelons of the industry saw some money and decided to chase it. Or is that unfair?
He is insured with Direct Line, monthly premium £102. I feel a bit pissed off with the insurers because I’ve claimed very little if anything since I’ve had Gilbert and yet it goes up year on year. The excess I think is about £175 so invariably I never claim.
I think they’re companies that will insure older dogs but I’m always inclined to think there’s a catch!
Anyone got any experience of older dog Insurers at reasonable rates?
ps. Rarely will you be given a prescription for one off drugs, time you’ve paid for it then ordered the drugs online it pretty much do away with the savings.