My Vets Advice and Bill

ripplyuk

I think the best thing would be to ask your insurer to confirm that this claim would have been paid in full, if the vet had sought pre-approval. Get their answer in writing (assuming it’s a ‘yes’) and forward it to the vets, along with a letter explaining how you were relying on them after they stated they would take care of everything with the insurance. 

sheramber

 At this point the lady at the vets said to my very upset wife that ‘the practice could take our insurance forward on our behalf as it had a direct portal with the insurers'.  My wife took this advice on board believing that the vets were acting in our best interests and let them do this for us. 

That was the first misunderstanding.  What you wife believed was not correct. They did not say they would take care of everything. they said they would 'take it forward'. That means you do not need to ask for claim forms as the vwet can claim direct.  It does not mean they will waste time finding out if the treatment will be covered.



 I then arrived at the vets.  Nobody made me aware this advice had been given to my wife.  We both went into see the vet and he then showed ME (not my wife) a consent form outlining POTENTIAL treatment (over £2k)

You saw the details of the potential treatment needed. That was when you should have queried if it was necessary as you think you could have done it at home. But instead you agreed to what the vet proposed. 
Rather than the vet giving treatment because it you were claiming on insurance did you agree because you were going to claim on the insurance?

screech_78

I’m very sorry for the loss of your dog. 

I’ve been through this twice in the last year with my dog. My vets also offer to deal with the insurance and claim from them direct. Unfortunately, taking it forward means exactly that. It doesn’t mean that it’s cast iron that your insurance will approve the claim. That solely depends on your policy and what it covers. You say yours covers up to 3k. My insurance covers 15k a year so how could the vet possibly know what yours would cover and what it wouldn’t? 

In the last year, I’ve had the vets claim directly for me twice. The first claim was rejected (as it was something picked up on when my pup was 7 weeks old and before we took ownership of him) and the second claim was successful. 

I was annoyed at our breeder for not telling us of the issues that meant we were out of pocket, however I never for one minute blamed the vet. 

Even if you do take it further, the vet has provided treatment for your pet and I don’t think you can say what was necessary and what wasn’t as you’re not a vet. The vet needs paid now and if your insurer won’t pay, then unfortunately you will have to. Again, I’m sorry for your loss as I understand the emotions involved. 

Lomast

I am not a pet owner so I do not have experience of how their systems work but I would not expect advice on dealing with an insurer to be within the scope of professional advice as a vet that would be limited to animal health and treatment. 

In my opinion the vets should probably of been clearer that it was your responsibility to check the cover you have I would say it falls under misunderstanding or possibly poor customer service rather than negligence.

sheramber

Why would a vet not expect you to know what your insurance covered.  I didn't need to check before any treatment as I had read my policy document and policy schedule and knew what was covered.

If there are specific exclusions they are not4d on the policy schedule. General exclusions are included  in the policy document.

It it beginning to appear that if the insurance had said they wouldn't be covered they would not have proceeded with treating their dog.  

visidigi

adcenv said:

There is one single point here.  That is, can you rely on professional advice that was given (not asked of) only in part and was not clear, at a time of great stress and resulted in confusion and a large bill?  The rest is emotive.

Let me correct that for you because again you're skewed it to suit your argument - lets remove the emotion from it...

"Can you rely on professional advice that was given which resulted in a large bill?"

No. If the advice directly answered your question and was incorrect then no, you should not be liable. But the vet said they would deal with the insurance claim for you. Not that they would only treat your dog to what the insurance was willing to pay out.

The crux here, is your lack of knowledge about your own policy led to incorrect advice from you to the vet that the dog was covered for £3k. So on that basis I can't see why you are trying to pin the whole situation on the vet - remember they didn't come to you, you went to them and asked them to treat your poor pet - so you did ask for the advice you were given.

deannagone

I have had several encounters with vets.., and obviously they are there to treat animals so that includes 'caring' for them.  But I am afraid they are also businesses.  I had a cat who after I brought some dogs into the home developed some sores and looked awful.  Told the vet I suspected the cat was allergic to the dogs as the problem only started after that.  Then received an estimate for every possible test including multiple biopsies of £800.  I felt that was ridiculous and found a nice home for my cat, without dogs, and she recovered. 

Also had a problem with facial swelling on my dog.  It was probably due to a tooth problem (but I couldn't see).  But vet said needed to check for cancer - £800 estimate again. It took a couple of visits to even get the tooth checked (dog is even tempered, I knew he could tolerate a quick look at the tooth but vet just wanted to do it all under general anaesthetic).   I discussed options with the vet and as if my dog had had cancer they felt there was very little that could be done.., I asked they check and remove the suspect tooth.  Cost £400.., dog is fully recovered.  If the op hadn't resolved the situation then obviously it would have been appropriate to do more tests.  But not right at the off.  Unnecessary suffering for my dog, as well as the extra expense for tests that weren't necessary and in my opinion, weren't the most likely cause (although my heart was in my mouth at the thought my dog could have cancer, worrying time).  Once they took the tooth out, it was fairly certain that the tooth was in fact the cause of the facial swelling otherwise I'd have thought again.  BUT if I hadn't questioned their original treatment choices, my poor dog would have been put through some quite nasty tests and biopsy's, just like my cat.  

Also had another problem with the same dog.., bladder stones op needed.  When I looked at the estimate it included £500 just for xrays lol.  So I asked if all the xrays were really necessary and queried the anaesthetic costs (another £500 which seemed to me to be a lot for a half hour op).  We did agree on lower costs for the op by a considerable amount.  I wonder sometimes (apologies to vets if I am wrong) if they sort of charge what they think they can get away with and then see what the owner says.  If all the charges for this op were strictly necessary, I wouldn't have been able to query it.  I was.  I must admit I don't use that surgery anymore.  

I must admit, while I totally appreciate what vets do, I don't think they explain options to you very well.  I know initially the vet I saw about my dog was quite dogmatic about all the tests being necessary.  It was only after several emails and discussions they said, yep, not a lot we could do if it was cancer anyway, so probably best to look at the tooth as the cause first.  

I learned a lot from what happened to my cat.  I will question what a vet says, not in an argumentative way but do think sometimes they can try to hit 'everything' with a hammer when its just not necessary.  Both animals would have been subjected to painful unnecessary tests if I'd have agreed.  

However, having said all that, while I agree Vets are professionals, that only applies to animal care and treatment.  They are not professionals as far as insurance is concerned (and as its the receptionist who would have submitted the insurance documents, even less so).  They were saying they would submit the documents, not that they'd make sure the insurance would cover the treatment for the dog.  I appreciate you were upset.., but I'm afraid one does have to take less of a back seat where treatment of pets is concerned.  

elsien

Deannagone, sounds to me like you need a different vet.
Mine have always been very good at discussing the pros and cons of different options -for example the investigation of recent lumps and bumps they fully agreed with needle biopsies as a starting point rather than full scale investigations under anaesthetic. I’ve never felt that they push for expensive treatment for the sake of it.

sheramber

deannagone, I agree with  elstien. None of the many vets I have dealt with have pressurised me to have excess treatment. 

My forst vet actually told me he could do allergy tests on my dog but they would ne a waste of money as they would only tell me she was allergic to everyday things which I could do nothing about. But , if I wanted, he would do them.
He was always willing to tell me all that could be done but point out what he thought would be money wasted.

A vet should tell you all treatment that is available but it is wise to remember that just because you can doesn't mean you should.