Veterinary prescription charges

orlao

That does seem harsh:eek: now that your cat has had a consultation.
My cat has been on felimazole for the last 3 years with twice a year consultations and an annual bloodtest with no problems until her last check up when the BT showed really low thyroid levels so was tested again a month later when everything was normal again so IMO the the check ups are required especially as your cat is elderly.....but to only issue a months prescription is unfair, to say the least .....and at £11.50 script charge:eek:

Are you sure that it wouldn't be cheaper to buy from the vets? But I think that I would be looking at the further away vets, after all what most cats object to is being put in the basket, rather than the journey IYSWIM.

snowman2_2

They shouldn't be only doing 1 month at a time unless they can justify it on grounds that the cat is unstable and needs checking. We would normally do routine checks every 3 - 4 months and if you want a prescription, you can have one for that amount of medicine. Blood samples are fair enough to monitor a hyperthyroid cat but not usually monthly.

simontheiceman

What's a written prescription? I have written NONE (for stocked Vet products) since we were able to charge in October.

I write a regular one for Viagra (for a dog - I mentioned it before). The pharmacist who dispenses this Viagra has been questioned by Pfizer (manufacturer) as he is ordering more than the average for his kind of pharmacy!!

hotpot1000

If you are asking me - a written prescription is a prescription that has been written out.

simontheiceman

/facepalm - sarcastic pose not noted for what it was...

snowman2_2

simontheiceman wrote: »

What's a written prescription? I have written NONE (for stocked Vet products) since we were able to charge in October.

I have only written a handful in the past few years. We have had a few people ask for them only to come back to us when they discover the hassle isn't worth the very small savings. Maybe the vets that charge reasonable prices in the first place are also the ones who don't charge for prescriptions and vice-versa? Just a thought, probably a load of rubbish but we haven't had many requests at all. i like to think we offer good value and our clients are happy with our service. Happy clients come back, spend a lot of money anyway and tell all their friends. We have lots of families come to us where we will see all their pets for 3 generations.

red_bertie

I know a vet, he works in a practice that grew from 4 vets/4 ancillary staff to 10 vets/16 ancillary staff, including 1 'office manager', who has no veterinary experience. Obviously overheads have rocketed and have to be covered by their 'customers'.

So he now [+ his colleagues] finds that target 'sales vs time' have been set and aggresively reviewed by a non-vet bod every month. This is difficult in terms of professional and diagnostic integrity.

I am also aware that this practice is not unique in our area in gilding the lily in regard to various tests, procedures, vaccinations [new and yearly], meds and prescription foods. A really good money spinner for all of them is the slightly less expensive review consultation.

I think the growing number of clients with pet insurance has a marked effect on these overly keen procedures, etc. Of course, this in turn has led to us paying increased premiums.

Yes they charge for issuing prescriptions.

I have no problem in paying for veterinary expertise and diagnostic tests, both of which I appreciate have adanced in more costly skill levels and type or even a small charge for issuing prescriptions, but there is no excuse for blatant [to an wily MSE'r, but probably not to the uninsured pet doting little old biddy, who doesn't know any different] profiteering and rip off charges for what I would classify as basics. Unetheical?

I use them less frequently than before and no longer buy exorbitantly priced special foods, flea, worm and other stuff from the practice. So they no longer even make a small profit on these from me [I'm sure other people do this and I think this shows a total lack of foresight on the practice's part] but generally, in company of others, feel I am between a 'rock and a hard place' and can do very little.

They will continue to charge and responsible owners or insurers will continue to pay. If they mess-up/misdiagnose we pay again. It's a win-win situation for them.

I agree with poster who suggested a set prescription charge be introduced. However at present it would appear any charges can be levied.

Athough I do completely trust my own vet and would allow him to undertake anything [a necessary expense] to benefit my pets' health, I think a lot of people now distrust their vets because of the above.

hotpot1000

Sorry Iceman, I wasn't being sarcastic I was pointing how kind the vet was to hand write the script for free.
It was for Protopic, my dog has PF.

hotpot1000

I agree that pet insurance makes a difference to charges. I live in the south, every vet I have registered at -the 1st question is whether you're insured or not.
Any vets Ive seen up north where I am a lot of the time(who gave me free script) has never discussed insurance with me.

LusciousLuce

red_bertie wrote: »

I know a vet, he works in a practice that grew from 4 vets/4 ancillary staff to 10 vets/16 ancillary staff,

I have no problem in paying for veterinary expertise and diagnostic tests, both of which I appreciate have adanced in more costly skill levels and type or even a small charge for issuing prescriptions, but there is no excuse for blatant profiteering and rip off charges for what I would classify as basics. Unetheical?

I work in a 12-vet mixed practice, and I feel I should point out that in a multi-vet practice you are likely to see an assistant (ie not a partner) who will be paid a salary & therefore has little knowledge of or interest in profits. In my 7 years at our practice I have worked with dozens of vets, and have not yet met a single assistant who prescribes on the basis of maximising profit. Admittedly the costs of in-house lab work might have contributed to rises in consult fees, but the alternative would be more referrals to second opinion practices, and the costs there would be much, much higher.