Nakalama John
Vets across the United Kingdom are increasingly feeling the squeeze to generate revenue for the large corporate entities that now dominate the veterinary care market, BBC Panorama has been told. This mounting pressure is raising significant concerns among veterinary professionals about the potential for pet owners to face escalating, and sometimes unnecessary, financial burdens for their beloved companions’ care. The welfare of animals and the integrity of the profession are at stake, as many vets fear a shift from purely clinical decisions to those influenced by commercial targets.
The financial strain on pet owners is undeniable. Data reveals that prices charged by UK vets surged by a staggering 63% between 2016 and 2023. This dramatic increase prompted the government’s competition regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), to launch a formal investigation into the pet-care market. The CMA has openly questioned whether the current structure of the market provides customers with genuine value for money, hinting at systemic issues that could be inflating costs for consumers.
One anonymous vet, employed by IVC Evidensia, the UK’s largest veterinary care provider, revealed concerns about a newly implemented internal monitoring system. This system, according to the vet, has the potential to subtly encourage practitioners to recommend a higher volume of costly tests and treatment options to pet owners. The implication is that clinical decisions, ideally based solely on an animal’s needs, might become intertwined with commercial objectives. A spokesperson for IVC Evidensia, however, firmly countered these allegations when speaking to Panorama, stating unequivocally: "The group’s vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care."
The scale of pet ownership in the UK underscores the widespread impact of these issues. More than half of all UK households are estimated to own a pet, fostering deep emotional connections between owners and their animals. This bond often means owners are willing to go to great lengths, and significant expense, to ensure their pet’s health and wellbeing. Over the past few months, hundreds of distraught pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice, sharing alarming anecdotes about their experiences with soaring vet bills. One individual recounted paying an astonishing £5,600 for just 18 hours of intensive vet-care for their pet, lamenting, "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another heart-wrenching testimony described a dog undergoing numerous blood tests and scans, only for the owner to be presented with a bill of £13,000 without a clear diagnosis for their pet’s illness. These accounts paint a vivid picture of the financial and emotional distress faced by many.
Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal ultimately triggered a formal investigation by the government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a comprehensive provisional report released at the end of last year, the CMA identified several critical issues within the veterinary sector. These included a lack of transparency regarding practice ownership, insufficient information on pricing, and difficulties for pet owners in comparing services or accessing independent pharmacies for prescribed medicines. Furthermore, the report highlighted concerns about potential conflicts of interest arising from corporate groups owning both general practices and specialist referral centres or out-of-hours emergency services, potentially steering patients towards their own more expensive facilities. The report also pointed to the rapid consolidation of the market, which has reduced competition and choice for consumers.
‘Hitting targets’
A vet leading one of IVC Evidensia’s surgeries, who requested anonymity due to fears of professional repercussions, provided BBC Panorama with an internal document outlining the company’s new policy. This document details a colour-coded monitoring system designed to compare the performance of clinics across the company’s UK network in relation to various tests and treatment options. While ostensibly intended to "help staff improve clinical care," the vet expressed profound worry about its real-world implications. The system lists key performance indicators (KPIs) in categories such as average sales per patient, X-rays performed, ultrasound usage, and laboratory tests.
The vet explained the intense scrutiny created by this system: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you’re doing." A clinic marked "green" on the chart indicates it falls within the top 25% of the company’s achievers nationwide for that particular category. Conversely, a "red" mark signifies the clinic is in the bottom 25%, potentially leading to demands for a detailed "plan of action." This system, the vet argued, inevitably creates immense pressure to "upsell" services, pushing practitioners to recommend more expensive diagnostic procedures or treatments even when simpler, more affordable alternatives might be clinically appropriate.
For instance, under this new model, IVC Evidensia would reportedly prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to undergo X-rays. With the necessary sedation, this procedure alone could add approximately £700 to a pet owner’s bill. While X-rays are undeniably crucial in certain cases, the vet pointed out that the tell-tale signs of osteoarthritis, such as the thickening of joints, can often be palpably obvious to an experienced practitioner. Such a vet might, in their professional judgment, initially opt for a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment to gauge its effectiveness. The new framework, however, introduces an external factor into this clinical decision-making process: "Vets shouldn’t have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC Evidensia maintains that it is "extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do" and that the data collected is solely to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients." The company also reiterated its commitment to vets’ "clinical independence" and stated that prioritising revenue over care would be a direct violation of both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ (RCVS) code of conduct and IVC policy.
Despite corporate assurances, the anonymous vet believes that this relentless drive to increase revenue is fundamentally undermining the integrity and ethical foundations of the veterinary profession. Panorama’s investigation extended beyond this single testimony, with over 30 vets, both current and former employees of large veterinary groups, sharing similar experiences. One vet recalled being persistently told that "not enough blood tests were being taken," leading to intense pressure to "do more." They expressed their profound discomfort, stating, "I hated opening emails." Another vet described the dramatic shift when their small, independent practice was acquired by a large corporation, remarking, "it was crazy… It was all about hitting targets." It’s important to note, however, that not all large corporate companies operate with the same target-driven monitoring systems.
The high cost of treatment
The financial landscape of pet care in the UK is substantial. According to the CMA, UK pet owners collectively spent an estimated £6.3 billion on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, averaging just over £365 per pet-owning household. However, a significant majority of pet owners in the UK do not have pet insurance, rendering them highly vulnerable to unexpected and exorbitant bills. This situation can leave less-well-off families in an agonizing dilemma, feeling utterly helpless when their beloved pet requires urgent or complex treatment. While transparency regarding pricing has historically been a significant issue, with many vets not displaying costs, the CMA notes that improvements have been made in the past two years.
Rob Jones’s family tragically experienced the devastating impact of these rising costs. When their dog, Betty, fell gravely ill in the autumn of 2024, they rushed her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now. Betty underwent an initial operation that cost nearly £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty’s condition had not improved, and Rob was advised that she likely had a serious infection. He was informed that a definitive diagnosis and a subsequent operation would incur costs ranging between £5,000 and £8,000.
However, on the very morning of the scheduled second operation, Rob was blindsided when he was told the price had dramatically escalated to £12,000. After he voiced his dismay and complaints, a new figure of £10,000 was quoted. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," Rob recounted. "It was like, I don’t believe that you’ve got our interests or Betty’s interests at heart." Faced with such an overwhelming and fluctuating cost, the family made the heartbreaking decision to put Betty to sleep. It was only later that Rob discovered both his local vet and the Vets Now emergency centre, where Betty had been treated, were owned by the same company: IVC Evidensia. While Rob was generally satisfied with the quality of Betty’s treatment, he lodged a formal complaint regarding the sudden and significant price increase. Vets Now subsequently issued an apology and offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture."
Vets Now responded to the BBC, stating that their staff "care passionately for the animals they treat." They acknowledged that "in complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds." The company also assured that they have "reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible."
Value for money?
The rapid consolidation of the veterinary industry has been a defining trend. Dr. David Reader from the University of Glasgow, who has conducted extensive research into the sector, notes that independent vet practices have become highly attractive acquisition targets for corporate investors in recent years. Pet care, he explains, is seen as a lucrative market due to significant opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits." This corporate drive has fundamentally reshaped the industry landscape.
Currently, six large veterinary groups (LVGs) collectively control a dominant 60% of the UK pet care market, a dramatic increase from just 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA. These major players include IVC Evidensia, CVS Group, VetPartners, Linnaeus Group, Medivet, and Pets at Home Vet Group. This concentration of ownership raises significant questions about market competition and consumer choice.
When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it concluded that there was insufficient competition and informed choice within the market. The regulator estimated that the combined cost of these market failures to UK pet owners amounted to a staggering £900 million between 2020 and 2024. Corporate vets, however, strongly dispute this £900 million figure. They argue that their prices are competitive and transparently made available, reflecting substantial investment in state-of-the-art facilities and equipment, as well as the rising operational costs, particularly for essential drugs. These corporate groups also emphasize the high value customers place on their services and assert their full compliance with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) guidelines.
A CMA survey indicated that pet owners generally express satisfaction with the quality of service received from their vets, whether corporate or independent. However, when it comes to customer satisfaction regarding cost, the figures are notably lower for the big corporate companies, with Pets at Home being a notable exception, likely due to its partnership model and often more transparent, accessible pricing structures. Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, part of Unite, articulated a widespread concern: "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they’re owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses." This statement encapsulates the perceived tension between commercial imperatives and professional ethics.
Proposals for change
The CMA’s final report on the veterinary industry is anticipated by spring, though a specific publication date has not yet been set. In its provisional report, the regulator put forth several key proposals aimed at improving transparency on both pricing and vet ownership. Under these proposed reforms, companies would be legally required to disclose whether their vet practices are part of a larger chain. Crucially, they would also need to reveal any business connections with other related services, such as specialist hospitals, out-of-hours emergency surgeries, online pharmacies, and even crematoria.
IVC Evidensia, CVS, and VetPartners, all of whom have extensive networks of connected businesses, would be compelled to provide greater transparency about their service offerings and affiliations in the future. In contrast, companies like Pets at Home, which operates through a partnership model rather than outright acquisition, and Medivet, have consistently made their ownership structures clear through their branding. The large corporate veterinary groups have generally expressed support for moves to enhance industry transparency, provided these new regulations do not impose an excessively high administrative burden on veterinary professionals.
Despite these proposals, Dr. David Reader believes the CMA could have gone further in its recommendations. He suggests there is "good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies," implying that the underlying trend of market consolidation might persist without more robust intervention. The CMA, however, remains confident that its proposals will "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine – without confusion or unnecessary cost."
For pet owners like Rob Jones, however, these potential reforms may come too late. His experience with Betty has left a lasting scar: "I honestly wouldn’t get another pet," he stated somberly. "I think it’s so expensive now and the risk financially is so great." His words serve as a stark reminder of the profound impact that the changing landscape of veterinary care is having on the cherished bond between humans and their animal companions.
atisusanti
George Anjay
Nana Banana