I would be interested to read views whether based on experience or informed opinion of whether you feel that vet fees are quoted at a different rate depending on whether or not the client has insurance.  This would be specific to treatment rather than consultation costs not requiring further meds/assesment, routine health checks, vacs etc.

Do you think/know vets charge a higher rate for insured pets than those not covered?

If so do you think this is because
(a) when insured, there is more scope to perform further tests when not such a strictly controlled budget?
(b) they're trying to save possible unnecessary to uninsured clients?
(c) other reasons - could you expand?

Discuss ....... :)
Teri

when I took my sick GSD in to the vet she listened to his heart and decided all was not well. She then asked if he was insured, when I said yes she suggested a load of tests that needed to be done.

I always wonder if she would of suggested them if I had said no. Or would she of given me the option knowing it was going to be pricey. She didnt actually give me the option she just said this is what we are doing.

I have to say though regardless of insurance he would of got the treatment and tests needed. I would not allowed him to have gone on any longer just because I was not paying the bill and when it was obvious he was not going to make it I asked for him to be put to sleep.

His bill was rather high and I do feel some of the things on it were ott. A very exspensive phone call for one.

A friend went to the same vet got even more treatment for a very elderly cat including bloods taken and rushed back on New years eve, and her bill was a fraction of mine, she wasnt insured. She wasnt charged for any phone calls either.

I would be interested to read views whether based on experience or informed opinion of whether you feel that vet fees are quoted at a different rate depending on whether or not the client has insurance. 

YES YES AND YES. Without any doubt.   Don't you just love the " Petplan awards"  on the vet walls :-D

Whenever I have needed anything done when they are quoting me a price they ALWAYS ask if I am insured.

I have found over the years the " additional" testing is now getting out of control and the costs for them crazy.

The bottom line is £.   It is amazing ( I am sure someone will come along to discredit it ;-) ) how in my experience when someone has some major problems with a dog when not insured it costs hundreds, when insured it always seems to reach thousands.  :-)

Some years ago when I had cats, one was run over and we took her to the vet badly injured.  First question was "is she insured?"  I said yes and the cat was whisked away and to the vets credit was saved, despite having a leg amputated and huge amounts of care and treatment.  Had I said the pet wasn't insured I'm sure she would have been put down.  The cost went over £1000.

Another cat I had was seriously ill and not insured.  The vet and I agreed to put him down as he had cancer.  He could have been investigated etc but the advice was that he was terminally ill and any money spent would be in vain.

Now, my dog recently had a growth/tumour and the vet suggested it be removed.  The insurance paid for all but excess. 

If the vet knows you are insured they will always suggest treatment.  It's their job and income after all.  My vet has always suggested that it could cost me wads of money if I'm not insured before she goes ahead with any treatment.  Insurance costs but fees are more.

CG

I honestly don't think you are all right -I don't think vets are the money grabbing awful people they are so often made out to be. If a dog is insured, it just means they CAN do a lot more, play extra safe (and what really is the problem with say a few extra blood samples?) WITHOUT it costing the client any extra, and that has to be a good thing as far as I am concerned.  I have no insured animals and my vets always discuss options with me, always bearing in mind there will be some limit as to what we can pay. There has been many a time I wished I could just have said that yes, let's go ahead and do all the possible options, regardless of cost -but we just can't do it when we are talking huge sums and therefore we do what MUST be done, not what would also be useful. That's essentially the price we pay for having a lot of animals.

A lot of the time when vets suggest something really pricey it will involve a referall as well -and in that case the vet himself/herself will of course not get any of the money involved.

I have come across many vets I don't like, but I don't think any of them ever was driven by money.

If the vet knows you are insured they will always suggest treatment.

I think a vet could find themselves in hot water if they didn't outline the options for either insured or not.   

Where I work the vets do always ask the client if they have insurance before we give them a quote BUT this is so they can gauge how much can be done by ourselves before a decision has to be made to go on or whether referral is an option.

Of course, some clients(and this does happen alot!) aren't insured but money is not an issue to them and they tell us 'do everything you have to do'.

I'm sure that some vets that hear a client is insured means they don't keep an eye on the ever-mounting bill but the client should always be kept informed of costs. Even with insurance the bill still has to be settled once the animal is discharged! Some insurers can arrange direct claims but in our experience they don't like too!

With insurance it can sometimes just mean an extra blood test, or some extra plates...and this can soon add hundreds onto the bill, and most people who state the pet is insured also add on the end 'so it doesn't matter what it costs'.....sometimes they change their tune when at the desk to pay:D

I've been on both sides, faced with a bill to pay and claim back and also now seeing what happens behind the scenes :)

Will be interesting to hear peoples personal experiences with this :)

Edited to say, most vets didn't become vets because they saw £££s in their eyes but because they care about animals and their treatment and when an interesting case comes along they want to be able to do everything in their power to help the animal and money is the only way sometimes.

>I don't think vets are the money grabbing awful people they are so often made out to be

I haven't suggested they are Marianne (I don't think anyone else has - so far anyway LOL)  I just wanted to open a discussion :)  And it's interesting to hear your views even though you don't have insurance.  Have you ever used pet insurance?

> I think a vet could find themselves in hot water if they didn't outline the options for either insured or not

I'd certainly have thought so Pam :)

therefore we do what MUST be done, not what would also be useful.

Exactly what I was trying to say, just in a more round about way!!! lol

> most vets didn't become vets because they saw £££s in their eyes but because they care about animals and their treatment

Completely in agreement with you there Emily Rose - except I'd go so far as to say I believe all vets became so because they care about animals :)

I wonder how many people assume because they are insured that every and any test or procedure should be done to save an animal even if it may not always be in the best interest of the animal in the long term.

Teri asked:Have you ever used pet insurance?

In the past, when I just had a few animals. My dogs in Sweden were always insured. When I had around 2 cats and 2 dogs then yes, they were insured. When it got more, it just wasn't a good idea any longer, as the premiums would cost more than the bills and we'd never know WHO to insure. :)

Having said that, I MUST get round to insuring my Papillon pup -because she isn't legally MINE. She lives with me, is shown by me, will stay with me for life and have pups here, but she is registered in the breeder's name and will remain so until she has finished breeding -I have not paid anything for her. She's worth a small fortune LOL and with her I want to be certain that should anything ever happen, I can do absolutely anything for her without having to worry about cost and without needing to discuss what is necessary or not.

Very true - there we can but hope that the attending vet or consultant would advise the client what was in the animal's best interests but even so, the owner(s) could insist on further treatment or experimental procedures being carried out :(

Insured or not IMO we need to think carefully, should things be serious or bleak, about when it's the best time for the individual pet to be given peace - much as we naturally wish we could keep them forever. 

I agree completely that most vets will for sure become vets because they do love animals.  They could have became a doctor as quick :-)  BUT it is a business at the end of the day.

Blue pondered:I wonder how many people assume because they are insured that every and any test or procedure should be done to save an animal even if it may not always be in the best interest of the animal in the long term.

Thankfully I think it is rare here for this to happen -but look at what is done in the US, not because their animals are insured (few are), but because the vets have the ABILITY. Cats and dogs that are kept alive long past what is reasonable, just because they can be kept alive, not because they have any quality of life left. I've come across this a lot of times. I often have to bite my tongue when American friends keep their animals long past what I myself would consider right.I don't think this is the case here, and when it comes to insurance, it's usually a case of tests being carried out that otherwise would not be done. Simple example: I have an epileptic dog. We don't know WHY, (his  seizures are not your average epileptic seizures at all) he may have a brain tumour, he may not. An MRI scan would have been interesting, but it would have cost close to £2000 and as our vet said that whatever a scan found, it would not be able to HELP the dog, so we opted not to have it done. However if we had not needed to consider the cost, we'd have had it done, just to find out.

> it would have cost close to £2000 and as our vet said that whatever a scan found, it would not be able to HELP the dog

Hi Marianne, perhaps in those circumstances an insurer wouldn't pay out???  I don't honestly know if that's the case or not but I would have thought that might be a bit of a grey area and possibly one which a client could be sorry they gave the go ahead to if they only agreed to do so because of insurance cover.....   A scan or any other type of test, surgical procedure etc to determine what treatment was next or *determining* no treatment was available would (IMO) be a different matter but not in the circumstances you describe.

I wonder if anyone knows what would happen there?  Or could insurance cover hinge on how the vet filled in the claim form?

I've no idea Teri.......but would imagine the vet would just say it was recommended testing, not go into details.

This is a bit of a minefield one Teri? :-D :-D

I have always wondered if there was anything to stop an overzealous vet from frontloading the cost of a procedure simply because the animal is insured.  The insurance company will query unreasonable costs anyhow but how can we determine if the same procedure at the same vet's would have cost less to an uninsured animal? 

My vets know my dogs are insured and to be honest no I can't say I've noticed any difference but I probably wouldn't because I haven't got uninsured experiences to compare it to.  :-D

When we went to the AMC for Spenders disc; they asked if we were insured and this was before they did anything.  I got the feeling that this was more about sussing us out as to whether we could pay.  What I did notice was a big sign, no cheques accepted; payment must be received on the day.  They didn't undergo any procedure without discussing it with us first and the tests consisted of 1 MRI.  I found the cost reasonable when compared with similar treatment elsewhere.

>Or could insurance cover hinge on how the vet filled in the claim form?

Oh yes, very much so.

We also have to remember their is a " partnership" type situation with some insurers and vets now, the Petplan awards are a perfect example. In one of our local vets the walls are covered in every corner with Petplan literature and awards.  " you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

For sure Teri , I have not really read many of the insurers disclaimers but unless it was written in that treatment would not be covered for what could be classes as a terminal type situation I think they would have a fight on their hands not covering it.  

The form my vet has to complete for the insurance company has a line on it before the part where the vet signs that is a declaration that the vet has charged the same fees as he would for an uninsured pet so I think some insurance companies are considering the fact that this may in fact happen. Our vet reception always asks if the animal is insured.

Last year I had to take both my son's cats to the vets, at different times, for the same reason. Interestingly the one that is insured cost £26 more for treatment than the uninsured cat - both are the same age and the itemised bill would indicate that both received the same treatment and medicines. The insured cat was treated three months before the other cat so it wasn't a price increase due to a rise in costs.

I have wondered if the insurance had anything to do with it :)

>I would be interested to read views whether based on experience or informed opinion of whether you feel that vet fees are quoted at a different rate depending on whether or not the client has insurance.  This would be specific to treatment rather than consultation costs not requiring further meds/assesment, routine health checks, vacs etc.

Absolutely not - not at the practice I work at, anyway. The vet will ask if the animal's insured, not because he can then charge more, but because he doesn't have to get the client's express permission for each additional test (if it costs) because he knows it'll be covered.

>Do you think/know vets charge a higher rate for insured pets than those not covered?

Not as such - the final bill will work out more expensive because of your points (a) and (b). But if an insured client and an uninsured client had pets which had the same treatment, the bills would be the same.

The more I think about this, the more I think it would be foolhardy to do it and it quite simply is fraud.  The declaration on our claim forms are 'The fees charged are normal practice fees'

>Last year I had to take both my son's cats to the vets, at different times, for the same reason. Interestingly the one that is insured cost £26 more for treatment than the uninsured cat - both are the same age and the itemised bill would indicate that both received the same treatment and medicines. The insured cat was treated three months before the other cat so it wasn't a price increase due to a rise in costs.

The itemised bill should show where the cost varies; I think I would have queried it if everything was the same; there must have been a variation in something?

The fees charged are normal practice fees'

And I suppose that would depend if it was normal practice to differentiate between charges for insured and uninsured pets.

The itemised bill should show where the cost varies; I think I would have queried it if everything was the same; there must have been a variation in something

We did compare both bills and the differences were a lower charge for the medicines, although both were the same brand and dosage, and no charge for the follow up visit for the uninsured cat but a charge for the insured cat.

My son didn't bother to query the differences - just made sure he insured the second cat :)

> I don't think vets are the money grabbing awful people they are so often made out to be

i am sure some vets are, i am equally sure many vets are not and are genuinely dedicated to the job not the pay cheque.

however i would say that charging massive amounts for the likes of phone calls, in fact even just the levels they charge for consults or treatments at all, is what gives this impression. i've never come across a poor vet.

>We did compare both bills and the differences were a lower charge for the medicines, although both were the same brand and dosage, and no charge for the follow up visit for the uninsured cat but a charge for the insured cat.

Were both cats seen by the same vet each time? Sometimes a more senior vet can waive a charge and give an unofficial discount where a junior vet can't.

>i've never come across a poor vet.

Oh I have; 6 years post-qualification they're usually still paying off their massive student loan.

I've had unofficial discounts and freebies from my vet and both dogs are insured. :-)

oh god please don't talk about student loans!

I have my pup insured, but my old dog isn't. I don't find any difference between the cost of treatment for an uninsured pet compared to an insured pet. I always have an itemised bill. I've even been to the vets for a follow-up and incured no consultation charge even though the pup was insured.

My dad is with the same vets as I am, they recently had to take thier uninsured cat in (very ill, weeing out blood), the recomended treatment had nothing to do with insurance - everything possible was done for the cat including xrays, stay at the vets, blood tests etc... they couldn't have done any more if he was insured. (the cat is OK now :) )

My vet has never once mentioned insurance when treating any of our animals. Dont think it should make any difference.

    >i've never come across a poor vet.

Oh I have; 6 years post-qualification they're usually still paying off their massive student loan.

(Sorry, quoting two people at once! :) )

Also I don't see why they SHOULDN'T be allowed to make a decent salary? Why not? They have studied hard for years and they CERTAINLY work hard. Somebody sitting in a bank or an office or whatever making lots of money won't do half of the things that a vet has to do (and don't even START me on footballers!!), or put in the same kind of hours -including getting up in the middle of the night -sometimes for no reason at all, such as when a client decides that remembering to worm their dog is an emergency that they MUST sort out at 3 am... And they get bitten, and scratched, and also often have to put up with less than friendly owners as well. I think they do earn every penny.

"I think they do earn every penny."
Hear hear. My vet does. Worth his weight in gold....dont begrudge paying him at all.
But then after reading some posts on here i feel incredibly lucky that i have a good vet. Saying that i wouldnt trust anyone but the best and nicest to take part in my dogs health and care

>i've never come across a poor vet.

Oh I have; 6 years post-qualification they're usually still paying off their massive student loan.


Like the rest of the qualifed people who have had to pay for their advanced education but that wouldn't be an excuse for the quality of work. I/they would be fired :-)

I would agree Marinanne that 75% of vets do earn their wage and deserve it BUT there are always the exceptions and vets fees are becoming increasing higher and higher far greater than Inflation anyway.

I moved a year or so ago away from my previous vet , I can't fault their work but they were really taking the mick with the fees.   My current vet is more modest, excellent all round.  So overall I get the best value for money from them without sacrifices quality of care.  They are only 2 miles apart. One charges nearly twice the price for everything..

The vet will ask if the animal's insured, not because he can then charge more, but because he doesn't have to get the client's express permission for each additional test (if it costs) because he knows it'll be covered.


Sorry to nit pick your post JG BUT I have to point out that this isn't exactly correct.  Whether consent is granted on intial examination or on going several times progressing through a series of tests a vet should consult and seek permission from the owner exactly the same whether insured or not.   Whether they are insured or not should not matter.  Perhaps at " your" practice permission is sought at the beginning BUT it should be sought the same for the insured and uninsured.

Hi Blue

>a vet should consult and seek permission from the owner exactly the same whether insured or not

I would certainly expect to have explained to me all treatment proposed at the time of examination and be kept appraised of any chages or additions re tests, procedures or medications.  I have had extremely high fees to pay both for an uninsured pet and later an insured one and in each instance have had all treatments and suggested tests gone over with me in detail beforehand.  This IMO I would have thought was a professional obligation rather than just a mere courtesy but either way I would expect and accept no less.

Even in the exception of a consent form being rquired as an emergency stand-by surely every client regardless of insurance/personal status should have the possibilities of any surgical procedure or one requiring GA explained at the time as well as likely costs (even if only estimates) to be incurred?  Let's hope so!

I was told by the previous practice owner that the main advantage of insured pets was that the vet didn't legally have to ask the owner for permission for each test. Further consent would be required for surgery of course, but not for additional blood samples or x-rays.

Hi JG,

I have always given my vets the go ahead to do whatever blood, faecal or urine analysis s/he has seen fit whether the pet is insured or not but under no circumstances would I expect an x-ray to be done without my express permission as this is likely to incur a GA and that would not be a consent given without further discussion with me.

>First question was "is she insured?"

This seems to be a regular question vet's ask, 'is the animal injured'?

I don't think it's unreasonable in view of; what happens in the event that a vet treats an animal and the client can't pay? 

> Sometimes a more senior vet can waive a charge and give an unofficial discount where a junior vet can't.

This has happened to me, so I agree with Jeangenie.  I have far too many dogs to insure them all.  I do use a pretty expensive veterinary practise, and have my favourite vet, as he's the most qualified and experienced.  The owner of the practise is more involved with the large animal side of things, and he leaves the vet I use to run the small animal side of things.  I booked a bitch in with this vet, she had an Inguinal Hernia.  I do know people on here quote much less than I paid.  I was quoted £460 and didn't know until after surgery that she actually had two.  Being in charge, the small animal vet said, I did both, but only charged you for one.  (I do spend a huge sum there annually.)

Hi Spender

> What I did notice was a big sign, no cheques accepted; payment must be received on the day

Each of the practices near me display similar notices - although I would hope that if someone without pet insurance had a seriously sick animal needing expensive treatment that a payment plan could be arranged, but who knows.

Certainly I was extremely distressed one time when inevitably having to let go a very much loved pet my OH was called outside for a few moments as we were preparing for the worst.  He didn't advise me until later that he'd been called from the treatment room, just moments before saying our final goodbyes to pay the bill  It was disgusting and so much more stressful at what seemed like the worst day of our lives.  Needless to say we terminated all dealings with that practice.

"Procedure" may vary from practice to practice but whether consent is giving at initial consultation or on giving/sought during up dates to the owner they would both need to be the same.  Some practices may have a client sign to say they agree to all tests at the beginning or through regular updates but for sure without approval from the owner nothing legally can be done without some sort of consent just because insurance is in place.  I am pretty sure of this.

This is where I think things can get a little wrong, It is great that vets can have a direct input and invoice directly to insurance companies etc great benefits of course to the client at this stressful time BUT the vet is acting on behalf of the client not the insurance company. Everything and anything requires the approval of the owner.  I would imagine most people sign off consent half the time without even knowing but it is still in place.

There is obviously no discrimination act that covers an insured or uninsured person BUT there is legal protection for someone who pays for professional services, that protection is that they should get "equal" quality of service as the next person or previous person has.  Although the insurance is coughing up the money they are only the financial agent of the owner that is where it ends.

Don't want to drag the thread down the what is legal route but just wanted to point it out that everything should be the exact same.

> what happens in the event that a vet treats an animal and the client can't pay?

Hi Spender, I can see your point but if the animal hasn't been treated before and the vet unaware of it's status re insurance, who's to say the owner would need to tell the truth if they suspected a large bill?

I have always had to pay bills before having the animal released back to me in two different practices yet when attending the Vet hospital they were happy to post bills out or send direct to the insurance company when they started to get very expensive over a short period.

My vets are fantastic :) The practice has 6 full time vets (one of them is an eye specialist) + nurses and several receptionists, they also have a cardio specialist in regular attendance. They offer a free full time nurse consultation for all pets for minor things (scratches, worming, flea treatments etc). They also have an animal ambulance to pick up emergency cases. I do think that they may be a little dearer than some other vets but they really are fab :) Everybody who works there always appears to be caring to both pet & owner.

The practice is strict with payment on the day as a rule, but I have always found them to be very good. My sisters pup needed to have her eye removed, she wasn't insured, the bill ran close to £1000 with all the follow up treatment etc.. but they had no problem offering her to pay a bit as & when she could afford to.

My pup has ED, the surgery required for this would be carried out by a specialist which the vet say require payment up front (and then we can claim back off the insurance), the vet said if we were to go ahead with the surgery, but couldn't afford it, then they would sort something out for us :)

The vet normally asks if the condition you are in there for will be claimed for on the insurance, but that is so they can put a note on the pets file, as you can't get past the receptionist without paying unless the vet has OKed it first.

>I was told by the previous practice owner that the main advantage of insured pets was that the vet didn't legally have to ask the owner for permission for each test.

I find this very hard to believe; I don't know how your vet works JG but here the client has to pay up front.  So even if the vet felt he doesn't legally have to seek permission to do additional tests, x-rays, etc, etc, the client could end up facing a starting bill. 

I can understand not seeking permission for blood, faecal, urine analysis as Teri says, or maybe even in life or death situations where time is of essence and the client have given their express permission to do what they can upfront. 

Does the client not still need to sign a form to give consent to a GA?  I can vaguely remember signing a form for Spends' op.

In any event, each insurance claim is subject to an assessment and a vet should never make a forgone conclusion that this is going to be automatically accepted and paid. 

Hi mastifflover,

my current practice benefits from having specialists from the vet hospital cover illnesses and holidays and students in their final years regularly attend too which keeps everyone up to speed with newly developing procedures etc (not implying that other practices don't, simply that this one seems to be particularly advantaged :) )

All payments to the practice must be made in full before leaving the surgery - regardless of the pet being insured - so nowt difference insofar as getting by the receptionist goes LOL.

Hi again Spender

> In any event, each insurance claim is subject to an assessment and a vet should never make a forgone conclusion that this is going to be automatically accepted and paid.

Exactly!  One of mine had a very poorly (health) and costly (finances!) weekend over Easter, starting on Good Friday and Sat morning at my own vet and finishing Sat afternoon through to Easter Monday afternoon at the emergency vets.  Because it was two different practices treating, I had to have two separate claim forms signed and when contacting the insurance company they advised they should both be submitted together to avoid paying two excesses HOWEVER they also stated "not that we are saying we will settle the claim as it will be looked at individually by our assessors" ...... so never a foregone conclusion that the money (or most of it at any rate) will be refunded ;)