Veterinary prescription charges

snowman2_2

The problem is that the RCVS is limited into what it can investigate. Gross misconduct, negligence likely to bring the profession into disrepute and fraud basically. The RCVS are trying to get wider powers but the government (DEFRA) aren't interested. The best thing to do is show your displeasure with your feet and change vets

DaveW007

I have just received an email from my vet stating they are happy to issue a repeat prescription to me!!!

I wonder if the RCVS have leant on them a bit over this?

[Deleted User]

My vet charges £7.50 to issue a prescription for advocate (cat flea treatment).

A pack of 6 from the vet is £29.60.

Online it is £21 ish with free p&p.

I don't mind paying £7.50 for the initial prescription but why can't it be open-ended? The treatment is preventative therefore it's ongoing - therefore why should a repeat prescription be necessary once you need more?

I put this to the surgery this morning and they said they need to see the cat at least once per year.

Not a problem - as she goes there for her annual jabs. Why do I need to stump up another £7.50 for another prescription for what is an open-ended preventative treatment?

Meanwhile - Frontline is now prescription-free - and until recent years was the main product pushed by vets (mine anyway..)

Now it's Advocat being pushed by vets - presumably because of this being on prescription.

Does anyone know whta the difference is between the 2 products in terms of effectiveness?

fatpiggy

I buy an arthritis drug for my horse on-line with a script from the vet. He charges me £7.50 for signing it off, but he also faxes it down to the supplier for me. It is for continous use so I order 5 bottles at a time (about 2.5 months worth), not just 1 at a time. My vet actually encouraged me to get it elsewhere - he charges £50 per bottle plus a dispensing fee of £2 whereas on line it is £31 per bottle, £1 P&P plus the script fee - bargain!!

orlao

Deleted_User wrote: »

Meanwhile - Frontline is now prescription-free - and until recent years was the main product pushed by vets (mine anyway..)

Now it's Advocat being pushed by vets - presumably because of this being on prescription.

Does anyone know whta the difference is between the 2 products in terms of effectiveness?

Aparently there are a lot of reports that frontline isn't as effective as it used to be, that the fleas are becoming resistant to it.
Advocate also worms your cat as well as helping prevent ear mites, if you use it you only need to worm once a year for tapeworm.

I used to have a cat with a severe flea allergy and even 10 years ago I found that FL spot on was useless, the only thing that worked was the FL combo spray which is still prescription only IIRC?

snowman2_2

fatpiggy wrote: »

I buy an arthritis drug for my horse on-line with a script from the vet. He charges me £7.50 for signing it off, but he also faxes it down to the supplier for me.

Technically you are not meant to fax prescriptions, greater risk of fraud. It should be the original script so although good customer service, slightly naughty:silenced:

lazza_w

Deleted_User wrote: »

I don't mind paying £7.50 for the initial prescription but why can't it be open-ended? The treatment is preventative therefore it's ongoing - therefore why should a repeat prescription be necessary once you need more?

By law it is classed as a prescription only medicine, and therefore can only be prescribed by a vet to an animal under their care. A vet can only prescribe enough medication to treat that animal until they feel that re-examination is required.
Although the treatment may be ongoing it would therefore be illegal to write a prescription for 10 years worth of medication. You vet cannot be expected to know what the health status your pet will be in 10 years time or whether they will be on medications that may interact with Advocate

I put this to the surgery this morning and they said they need to see the cat at least once per year.

From the RCVS -
The Veterinary Medicines Regulations do not define the phrase 'under his care' and the RCVS has interpreted it as meaning that:

a. the veterinary surgeon must have been given the responsibility for the health of the animal or herd by the owner or the owner's agent
b. that responsibility must be real and not nominal
c. the animal or herd must have been seen immediately before prescription or,
d. recently enough or often enough for the veterinary surgeon to have personal knowledge of the condition of the animal or current health status of the herd or flock to make a diagnosis and prescribe.
e. the veterinary surgeon must maintain clinical records of that herd/flock/individualWhat amounts to 'recent enough' must be a matter for the professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon in the individual case.

Not a problem - as she goes there for her annual jabs. Why do I need to stump up another £7.50 for another prescription for what is an open-ended preventative treatment?

The Competition Comission has ruled that it is illegal, for the purposes of charging, for vets to differentiate between clients who purchase drugs from the practice and clients who ask for a written prescription. Whether you've just had a check-up or not your vet is legally obliged to charge their normal prescription charge in addition to the consultation fee.

Meanwhile - Frontline is now prescription-free - and until recent years was the main product pushed by vets (mine anyway..)

Frontline was entirely Prescription Only Medicine untill recently. The standard Frontline Spot-On it now classed as 'NFA-VPS' so can be sold without prescpription bet vets and suitably qualified persons. Frontline spray and Frontline Combo remain Prescription Only. Frontline was the main product sold by vets for many years (it's been around about 15 years or so) but as new products come to the market that treat parasites other than fleas, and global warming plus increased animal importation from Europe etc, that recommendation is beginning to change. You wouldn't expect a TV shop to recommend the same products to you that they did 15 years ago and vets are no different. Keeping up to date is one of the reasons that people go to their vets for advice.

Now it's Advocat being pushed by vets - presumably because of this being on prescription.

It is prescpription only, but so is Frontline Combo. In addition Frontline does not treat ear mites, intestinal roundworms, heartworm, lungworm, sarcoptic and demodectic mange plus takes up to 24 hour to kill fleas compated to 3 minutes.

Does anyone know whta the difference is between the 2 products in terms of effectiveness?

Yes. Advocate is more effective, treats a wider range of parasites and avoids the need to treat worms seperately. The only place it falls down on is in the treatment of ticks (although Frontline isn't great at that unless you use the spray monthly)

MrsE_2

I am happy enough to pay vets prescriptions charges & medical checkups for medicines BUT I really do think the who flea & worm treatment on prescription is a big money spinner.

If a child needed nit or worm syrup I could buy it from the local chemist & administer, why is it different for animal flea & worm treatments?
These are not one-off medical needs, they are routine things, much like a human taking vitamin pills or children being doused it not lotion. Is it because the doctor & prescriptions are free for children:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
No money to be made on it:rolleyes:

Flea & worm treatments being POM is ridiculous:mad:

lazza_w

It's not your local vet who decides what legal category a medication should be (be it heart medication or a flea treatment). That is done by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

I agree that it seems strange that some products can only be sold under prescription (Frontline Combo would be a good example, as the insect growth inhibitor in it that differentiates if from the normal Frontline is inert in mammals and therefore has no seperate safety issues) whereas other products can be bought over the counter (eg Bob-Martins spot on for dogs which is extremely toxic to cats and pretty ineffective in dogs). The bizzare result is that you can buy a dangerous and ineffective product from a supermarket, but need a prescription to buy a safe and effective one.

Part of it is historical. Products that have been around for donkeys years before the medicine prescribing laws came about just remained non-prescription even if they are potentially more dangerous. Newer products have to undergo strict licencing safety and efficacy tests and any that have a pharmacological effect are generally licenced as POM by default. A a pharmaceutical company pays has to pay extra to try to get it reclasified as NFA-VPS or lower (and it costs millions just to get a product classified as POM in the first place)

I very much doubt that if a company produced a new flea treatment as dangerous as the permethrin based products (such as Bob Martins Spot On) it would be clasified as a General Sales item. In my view it only remains General Sales because permethrin based products have been general sales in the past, not because of their safety or efficacy.

Advocate, mentioned above, very effective, but misuse (overdoseage or combining its use with another avermectin based product) could be dangerous, so I'd view it's designation as POM-V as sensible.

lazza_w

MrsE wrote: »

If a child needed nit or worm syrup I could buy it from the local chemist & administer, why is it different for animal flea & worm treatments?

It isn't - go to any pet shop and there will be an array of over-the counter flea and worm products for you to purchase. Unfortunately they're probably not highly effective.

If you want more effective products you will need to got to a merchant, a chemists or a vet (or somewhere else with a suitably qualified person) to purchase Panacur, Drontal or Frontline Spot-On.

If you want prescription only products (Frontline Combo, Advocate, Program etc) then you need to get a prescription. For that you need a vet.