Vet medicine costs rip off!!

Shoshannah

albacookie wrote: »

Yes, I understand that fine. They're not allowed to be used in animals if a branded version exists.

In several cases vets have used the generic for years then the drug companies have put a branded version in a fancy box and charged 10 times more for it - we then have no option but to use it - for example cimetidine now sold as Zitac or spironolactone now sold as Prilactone. Selling the generic version rather than the branded one now would be breaking the law. Stupid but true.

Case in point - cimetidine has been proven in studies to be ineffective in dogs, yet ranitidine and famotidine (no veterinary versions available) are effective, at the right doses.

Yet vets are supposed to use cimetidine first. Sigh... :undecided

Energize

albacookie wrote: »

Yes, I understand that fine. They're not allowed to be used in animals if a branded version exists.

In several cases vets have used the generic for years then the drug companies have put a branded version in a fancy box and charged 10 times more for it - we then have no option but to use it - for example cimetidine now sold as Zitac or spironolactone now sold as Prilactone. Selling the generic version rather than the branded one now would be breaking the law. Stupid but true.

I'd like you to cite the legislation where it says that, along with the one saying vets cannot prescribe off-label. Because all the prescriptions I've been given have INN's not brand names listed.

Shoshannah wrote: »

Case in point - cimetidine has been proven in studies to be ineffective in dogs, yet ranitidine and famotidine (no veterinary versions available) are effective, at the right doses.

Yet vets are supposed to use cimetidine first. Sigh... :undecided

That's a completely unrelated issue, you are comparing different medications, that's not the same thing as branded vs generic. And off-label prescribing is the foundation of good medical practice, if my vet were to prescribe ineffective drugs in favour of proven drugs I would no longer do business with them after such malpractice.

jaylee3

Some people are going on about how high vets bills are, but isn't that what pet insurance is for? :huh: Why have they not got pet insurance?

Some people will say they can't afford the pet insurance, but in my experience, the people who say this will happily fork out for fags, booze, scratchcards, sky tv, iphones etc etc. I've met this kind before.

Energize

jaylee3 wrote: »

Some people are going on about how high vets bills are, but isn't that what pet insurance is for? :huh: Why have they not got pet insurance?

Some people will say they can't afford the pet insurance, but in my experience, the people who say this will happily fork out for fags, booze, scratchcards, sky tv, iphones etc etc. I've met this kind before.

Actually people are complaining about the mark up on medications vets charge. Pet insurance on average costs more than paying for treatment yourself and pre-existing conditions will not be covered.

Shoshannah

Energize wrote: »

That's a completely unrelated issue, you are comparing different medications, that's not the same thing as branded vs generic.

I never said it was the same issue, I was merely expanding upon the restrictions imposed by the Cascade in response to albacookie's comment. Apologies for the digression...


As for the legislation, it really does exist. Honest. We're not making it up for s**ts and giggles.


From the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013:

Administration of the product

8. No person may administer a veterinary medicinal product to an animal unless—

(a)the product has a marketing authorisation authorising its administration in the United Kingdom, and the administration is in accordance with that marketing authorisation; or

(b)it is administered in accordance with Schedule 4 (administration of a veterinary medicinal product outside the terms of a marketing authorisation) or Schedule 6 (exemptions for small pet animals).

And this is from the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, by which vets in the UK must abide:

Choice of medicinal products

4.14 The selected product should be authorised for use in the UK in the target species for the condition being treated and used at the manufacturer's recommended dosage.


4.15 If there is no suitable authorised veterinary medicinal product in the UK for a condition in a particular species, a veterinary surgeon may, in particular to avoid unacceptable suffering, treat the animal in accordance with the 'Cascade'.

More information here: http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/mswd/cascade.aspx

The use of human or generic medications is not banned in veterinary medicine, but vets must use a veterinary branded product (where one exists) as a first line, unless they can justify otherwise.


You missed my question asking whether you have knowledge of the inner workings of veterinary practice with which to back up your comments. I assume, by your ignorance of the Cascade, you do not - please correct me if I am wrong.

Shoshannah

Energize wrote: »

And off-label prescribing is the foundation of good medical practice, if my vet were to prescribe ineffective drugs in favour of proven drugs I would no longer do business with them after such malpractice.

Your idea of malpractice is different to the VMD's then.

Off-label prescription is allowed. But not as a first line option, and only with justification.

You're going to have to accept, like it or not, that in some circumstances vets' hands are tied.

jaylee3

Energize wrote: »

Actually people are complaining about the mark up on medications vets charge. Pet insurance on average costs more than paying for treatment yourself and pre-existing conditions will not be covered.

No, the OP was complaining about how high the vets bills are. So that is what I am responding to.

Johnb44 wrote: »

My 12 year old lurcher has been diagnosed with a heart condition, no surprise due to her age and a poor start in life ( she was a rescue dog) I noticed she was short of breath and coughing and her gums were not very pink (a fair indicator for congestive heart failure) took her to the vets who after £400 worth tests said she has congestive heart failure!! they did offer to send her to a cardiologist for confirmation for another £2-3000 I passed on this and she was prescribed Pimobendan and frusemide one helps with load on the heart and the other is a diuretic to prevent fluid build up. She is not going to get better but the medication has proven to prolong life for some months and above all keep her comfortable.
The killer is the cost one months supply £155 !! so i did a little research the same medication from a reputable online supply company ......
£55 and they are making a healthy profit on that,

He got a 12 year old rescue dog that had known health issues, and is shocked that she needed veterinary treatment?! He should have insured her. The current treatment AND the ongoing treatment would have been covered.

If he could not get her insured, and he could not afford high vet bills, then he should not have had her.

As for your last sentence (where you said "Pet insurance on average costs more than paying for treatment..." ) I disagree. This has never been my experience.

chucknorris

jaylee3 wrote: »

Some people are going on about how high vets bills are, but isn't that what pet insurance is for? :huh: Why have they not got pet insurance?

Some people will say they can't afford the pet insurance, but in my experience, the people who say this will happily fork out for fags, booze, scratchcards, sky tv, iphones etc etc. I've met this kind before.

I don't have pet insurance because I think that it is not good value, because as well as the cost of medical care you also pay for the overheads and profit of both the company selling the insurance and the insurance provider. I don't particularly go on about vets bills being high, but I do buy his worm and tick/flea treatment online rather than from my vet. But my dog will never want for anything, when I thought that my last dog needed an MRI (my vet said it would be a waste of money) I did end up agreeing to pay just under £2k, even though it did not help it was still well worth it because I had to explore every possible avenue before he was put to sleep.


Of course insurance is important if you might not be able to pay for the worst case scenario, but that isn't a factor for my dog.

bugslet

jaylee3 wrote: »

Some people are going on about how high vets bills are, but isn't that what pet insurance is for? :huh: Why have they not got pet insurance?

Some people will say they can't afford the pet insurance, but in my experience, the people who say this will happily fork out for fags, booze, scratchcards, sky tv, iphones etc etc. I've met this kind before.

I can't afford pet insurance, or my take on it is the same as chucknorris' viewpoint. Take your pick.

I have 5 dogs, 2 resuce, 3 from pups. I have had a multi-dog household for over thirty years and all those years, only once had an expensive bill from a vet for a tumour removal that came in under £1700.00. That is the only time where pet insurance would have put me ahead of the insurer.

I may of course have been very very lucky, but as I have savings, little debt and decent job that will continue for the forseeable future, I am prepared to cover any vet costs that may arise.

BTW, I don't smoke, spend about £5-7.00 p.w. on alcohol., have no TV so no Sky type packages, never bought a scratchcard and my mobile is supplied by work.

People who don't pay for pet insurance don't necessarily conform to a type.....;)

rustyboy21

Bugslet and Chucknorris, I don't think anyone on here is saying you MUST have insurance. If you have the means to pay for any medical intervention, without causing hardship to yourself, then that is fine.

But there are many people ( Like the OP possibly) who would find a £1700 bill impossible to pay without dire financial hardship. The monthly payment makes it easier to deal with, makes the choice of getting the animal helped settled and keeps the animal, hopefully alive. That is the most important thing here, getting the animal to the vets as fast as possible for treatment, to stop the suffering.

I have always had insurance for my pets. Rusty had his life saved twice by our vet, once with a dog attack, the other, rushed in with Parvo, after a stay in a kennels, even though he was inoculated for it. Both times the bills came in over £1000 and it was covered by insurance, so I was not facing a large bill and he was sorted. Yes you can use places like the PDSA, but unless you fit the criteria and travel to the place, which may be quite a distance away, you will have to pay to see a vet. If there was an NHS for animals, then this wouldn't happen, but as our Vet network is all private, as Human healthcare is in some countries, then the need for Insurance for a lot of people is needed.

But at the end of the day, a vet is a private business, they have invested heavily into their business and as the equipment they have to use, is almost identical, if not identical to what is used in the NHS, then the costs are high and has to be recouped. I watched a documentary on Netflix the other night, about a brain surgeon, who goes out to Romania to do surgery for poor people, who would otherwise die. The welfare state there is horrendous. He showed a clip of him collecting tools and bits from the theatres here, that can only be used once over here, but could be sterilised and reused over there. One was a drill bit which opened a 2p size hole in the skull. They cost the NHS £400 each and could only be used once ! Vets will most likely be buying from similar places to the NHS, so everything is at an inflated price, you could get the same bit in a DIY shed for around £10.

Until the suppliers to human healthcare start to reduce prices, which will then cascade down into the Vet sector, we are all going to have to receive High vet bills. It is not necessarily the Vet making big bucks, but the cost passed on for the equipment he has had to purchase to be able to treat the animal involved.

Anyone that remarks that this cost shouldn't be passed on, really does need their own head seeing to. No work sector would do this, you have to factor in your costs always.