Higher veterinary bills are due to more expensive treatments, not bigger profits
You report on the growth in pet insurance
fraud, including cases where, you allege, "cats, dogs and horses are
facing deliberate injury – or even paying the ultimate price – as owners
seek payouts" (Conman's best friend? Pet insurance fraud rises fourfold, Money, 19 November). While, as president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, I am unable to comment on the figures from the Association of British Insurers, as a veterinary surgeon for some 41 years I can say most owners I have met care passionately about their animals.
You say that, alongside the pressures of recession, "rising vet bills are another factor behind soaring claims". Part of the reason for this, you say, is that "unlike GPs, vets are not required to choose the cheapest drug. A vet could choose more expensive drugs than necessary if they are aware that the animal is insured." In fact, vets are not free to choose the cheapest medicine available, as they operate under a cascade system laid down by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. This states that the medicines tested and licensed for use in any particular species of animal, whether cat, dog, horse or cow, must be used in preference to a human generic equivalent to ensure safety and efficacy.
But there is a broader point here. Are annual vet bills increasing? Yes. Is it because vets are making bigger profits from doing the same thing, or charging more to insured clients? Probably not.
Pet insurance has been available since just after the second world war. It's not a new phenomenon, although more people are taking it out. The rising costs of vets' bills are a function of several key factors. Veterinary science, technology and novel medicines are advancing apace and this has extended the range of complex diagnostic techniques and treatments available to animal owners. The "veterinary inflation" quoted by insurers mostly reflects this price rise and not that veterinary surgeons are inexorably increasing fees or, worse still, acting fraudulently. I fully appreciate the role that companion animals play in the lives of their owners and that, with or without insurance, they are prepared to strive to do the very best for their animals. This, of course, comes at a price: there is no NHS for animals.
You say that "unlike human medical records, veterinary records do not follow the animal if the owner moves to a new practice" and that changing this would help reduce fraud. This is not the case. The RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, which sets out veterinary standards, states: "A veterinary surgeon should not knowingly take over a colleague's case without informing the colleague in question and obtaining a clinical history" unless there is a genuine emergency.
The RCVS has a duty to investigate complaints about veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses (RVNs). We also attend regular meetings with the ABI and work with the police in any complaint involving alleged fraud. If any member of the public has information about individual veterinary surgeons or RVNs being involved in alleged insurance fraud, we would be keen to look into it.
You say that, alongside the pressures of recession, "rising vet bills are another factor behind soaring claims". Part of the reason for this, you say, is that "unlike GPs, vets are not required to choose the cheapest drug. A vet could choose more expensive drugs than necessary if they are aware that the animal is insured." In fact, vets are not free to choose the cheapest medicine available, as they operate under a cascade system laid down by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. This states that the medicines tested and licensed for use in any particular species of animal, whether cat, dog, horse or cow, must be used in preference to a human generic equivalent to ensure safety and efficacy.
But there is a broader point here. Are annual vet bills increasing? Yes. Is it because vets are making bigger profits from doing the same thing, or charging more to insured clients? Probably not.
Pet insurance has been available since just after the second world war. It's not a new phenomenon, although more people are taking it out. The rising costs of vets' bills are a function of several key factors. Veterinary science, technology and novel medicines are advancing apace and this has extended the range of complex diagnostic techniques and treatments available to animal owners. The "veterinary inflation" quoted by insurers mostly reflects this price rise and not that veterinary surgeons are inexorably increasing fees or, worse still, acting fraudulently. I fully appreciate the role that companion animals play in the lives of their owners and that, with or without insurance, they are prepared to strive to do the very best for their animals. This, of course, comes at a price: there is no NHS for animals.
You say that "unlike human medical records, veterinary records do not follow the animal if the owner moves to a new practice" and that changing this would help reduce fraud. This is not the case. The RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, which sets out veterinary standards, states: "A veterinary surgeon should not knowingly take over a colleague's case without informing the colleague in question and obtaining a clinical history" unless there is a genuine emergency.
The RCVS has a duty to investigate complaints about veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses (RVNs). We also attend regular meetings with the ABI and work with the police in any complaint involving alleged fraud. If any member of the public has information about individual veterinary surgeons or RVNs being involved in alleged insurance fraud, we would be keen to look into it.
No comments:
Post a Comment