The Guardian view on vets: there is nothing cuddly about this under-regulated market | Editorial

The conclusion of the UK competition watchdog’s investigation of vet chains will come as a relief to millions of pet owners. Last year’s consultation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) produced a whopping 56,000 responses, many of which complained about high prices. As expected, new rules will be focused on making the market work better for consumers, who the CMA finds have overpaid roughly £1bn in fees over five years.
This is a scandalous finding. While the changes confirmed this week are welcome, they are also overdue. Ministers were clearly not paying enough attention as the veterinary sector went through an unusually rapid transformation. In 2013, just 10% of vet practices were owned by large groups, the rest being independents. Now, 60% are wholly or partly owned by one of six large groups – three of which are owned by private equity investors.
Over the same period, pet ownership has exploded. The number of dogs is estimated to be about 13 million – up from 10 million a decade ago – with the biggest jump during the pandemic. There are about 11 million pet cats. (This report does not address work on farms, in zoos or with wild animals.)
Responses to the CMA’s survey suggest a strong preference among pet owners for independent vets. In some cases this could be put down to habit, or long-established personal connections. But research on prices shows that these pet owners are right. Most large veterinary groups (LVGs) charge more for their services. When they have bought small practices, prices have usually risen – giving the lie to oft-repeated claims about consolidation leading to efficiency savings. The CMA heard reports of pressure on staff to “upsell” tests and treatments, and saw documents indicating that some LVGs believe pet owners are “relatively insensitive to price increases”.
Would the market have developed differently if private equity had not spied a chance to make a killing? Almost certainly. Those with responsibility for oversight appear to have been asleep on the job. But at least pet owners can now look forward to an end to the extraordinarily lax regime under which they have been shopping for care. As the CMA points out, decisions about beloved animals are often made in “urgent or emotionally charged situations”. Yet until now, vets have been under no obligation to publish prices, itemise bills or make it clear when a practice is part of a chain. In future the fee for writing a prescription will be capped at £21, which doesn’t cover the cost of medicines. It is disappointing that the CMA didn’t stick with a lower proposed cap of £16, but the higher cap is better than none. Complaints processes will be strengthened.
New laws are also on the way. The Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1966 is out of date. Proposals floated in a consultation include the creation of a new regulator, which would have powers over businesses as well as individuals, and protection of the job title “veterinary nurse”, so that only suitably qualified, registered people can use it.
Stepping back from the veterinary sector, there is a wider lesson here about the way that an old-fashioned market, largely made up of small independent businesses, can be swallowed up by something much bigger, less personal and more profit-oriented. Among the reviews currently being conducted by the CMA is one into private dentists. Bring it on.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.