Small animal vet rant

[foggybok]

[QUOTE=luvmywalkers;4223438]
Let’s see: I consider our pets to be family members, my husband sees them as pets, and both of us consider our pets our property - we are, after all, the “owners”. Which group would you place us in? What do you think is the likelyhood of us providing the necessary medical care to our animals? What would be the likelyhood of us paying the bills for that necessary medical care?

Being a pet owner (of any group) is not a black-and-white issue. I know people who see their dog as a family member; when their child should see a dentist they can’t because there is no money - they just hope for the best with regards to their dog. I know people who see their dogs strictly as property, and they’re throwing money at it like it grows on trees. I know poor people who will spend more money on their horse’s medical care than their own and I know well-to-do people who let a horse starve in their backyard.

As for the 45% figure: That had absolutely everything to do with clients not wanting to spend money on their animals, per Dr. J.[/QUOTE]

You are making too much of this… If you see your pets as family members, then thats where you fall… and as I said to JSwan, it doesn’t mean anything regarding you as an individual and what you would do… It’s a statistic, nothing more and nothing less… individual people are not statitics, however as a group, people who view thier animals as family are more likely to seek veterinary care than those that view them strictly as property…

And who ever said money was a part of this? Not me! If you’ve ever been in practice you’ll know that the financial status of a client does not predict what they will do on an individual basis. I remember being paid for a pot belly pig’s care with bags of collected coins…

[foggybok]

[QUOTE=hessy35;4223467]
Well said.[/QUOTE]

As someone who lives in WA, I am glad that they have moved forward in that direction…

My personal stance is that animals don’t understand suffering for a while so they can get better, they live for the moment, not for the future, so often euthanasia is the kindest alternative…

I’m watching a friend put her dog through chemo and he’s having a hard time. I wouldn’t do it, but it’s her choice and I can only be supportive…

[foggybok]

[QUOTE=luvmywalkers;4224169]
Much more realistic.[/QUOTE]

But that is “should”, not what they are…

I know my old boss ran at 20% in an equine practice…

Vet’s are getting better about asking for money up front though, so I imagine things are better these days…

[Anne_FS]

[QUOTE=Pancakes;4224113]
from the 2008 article:

“Accounts receivable should not run more than 2.5% of gross revenue in a small animal practice and 11% in a large animal practice.”[/QUOTE]

luvmywalkers, that’s my point: SHOULD. They SHOULD be that low, but the reality is that often they are not.

Which is why my SA vet has moved to cash/credit up front, no checks. Because their A/R wasn’t anywhere near where it should be.

[JSwan]

I clipped your post not in an effort to quote you out of context, but just to try and respond to points and not make the post too long.

I think I’m inferring a bit differently from those stats. Not having seen the survey and don’t know in what context it was used - I’m inferring that the survey/article is in fact equating money with caring.

What we don’t know is if the people spending more on their pets are taking the pets to the vet for legitimate reasons - or if they are the “pet parent” types who take their animals to the vet for every little thing, including nail clipping, bathing, or non medical treatment.

In human medicine - unnecessary visits are what drive up health care costs. A person who goes to the dr all the time, and for minor boo boo’s is not a Good Thing. But in vet medicine - you seem to be saying that the more a person takes their pet to the vet, the more they spend, it’s an indication that they are a better owner.

What I’m getting at is that what sa practices can’t seem to decide what they want to be. Health care providers? Well - no doubt about it. Health care costs. And it is not charity - it’s also a business and it is a profitable one. I’m ok with that.

But a great many of these costs are not health care related. They’re padding, extras, fees for services not rendered, every vet seems to insist upon special prescription dog/cat food (that they just happen to sell at a huge markup) insistence upon tests or expensive treatments, grooming services, nail clipping, or absolutely exorbitant prices that are not even close to being grounded in reality.

So again - we’re back to square one. What seems to be the good owner from the sa perspective is not the owner who takes good care of their dog - but the owner who is willing to spend the most money on their dog.

That is not the same thing.

I mentioned government oversight not because I believe it is a solution, but because I think some of these practices may be unethical or a conflict of interest. Charging what you want because it is a free market may be fine if you are selling chairs and toasters, but thought profit is a factor in human medicine - there are controls that hopefully prevent gouging, price fixing or monopolies.

As pertains to the euthanasia subject, I think I phrased that as delicately as I could - and that is saying something because I’m a bit of an Ice Queen.

That is one subject that is difficult and complex no matter what - but I was pointing out that again - the owner is often placed in an untenable position. While a shelter may be a good and cheap place to euthanize a dog - I shudder at the thought of any owner being forced to dump their dog at the shelter because no vet in town will put it down. Owners are not permitted to be with their pets - they must surrender them and leave.

Still - I do appreciate the moral and ethical struggle that vets deal with but my pity would lie with the owner. Especially since animal owners, both large and small, are told that euthanasia is a better choice than divesting ownership through auction or the shelter.

Increasingly - owners may be place in untenable positions because more and more sa practices are turning into these spa like resort destinations for dogs and cats - with the bills to match. Shopping for a decent price isn’t an option if all the clinics in town are becoming like that.

@foggybok;4224184

Since I’m the person that made the comment on people that think animals are property, I’ll respond. It is a statistic, and just a statistic. I does not in any way mean that any one perosn who holds this belief will act in a certain manner. But the stats say that people who consider their pets as family spend 3.4 times more than people that consider their pets property.
As for euthansia, it is an issue.

I feel for all of you that want quality medicine but don’t feel like going to the boutique kinds of practices, I’ve been there myself…even now, I don’t do all my SA work, so I shop for vets to neuter my dog etc…I have taken him to a vaccine clinic becasue all I wanted was the shots. There is no shame in that, it’s smart shopping… But before you lump all vets into unfeeling and money grubbing categories, or call for government oversight of the entire field, walk in their shoes…

[JSwan]

[QUOTE=Anne FS;4224291]
luvmywalkers, that’s my point: SHOULD. They SHOULD be that low, but the reality is that often they are not.

Which is why my SA vet has moved to cash/credit up front, no checks. Because their A/R wasn’t anywhere near where it should be.[/QUOTE]

Um - a good business owner manages his business so that delinquent accounts stay at an acceptable figure.

If a business owner is allowing that many accounts to go unpaid he’s just a bad businessman. Plain and simple.

Every business has this problem and takes steps to minimize it. Sounds like your business didn’t do that - or wasn’t aggressive enough. That’s a shame.

[luvmywalkers]

[QUOTE=foggybok;4224228]
You are making too much of this… If you see your pets as family members, then thats where you fall… and as I said to JSwan, it doesn’t mean anything regarding you as an individual and what you would do… It’s a statistic, nothing more and nothing less… individual people are not statitics, however as a group, people who view thier animals as family are more likely to seek veterinary care than those that view them strictly as property…

And who ever said money was a part of this? Not me! If you’ve ever been in practice you’ll know that the financial status of a client does not predict what they will do on an individual basis. I remember being paid for a pot belly pig’s care with bags of collected coins…[/QUOTE]

Didn’t you ask “Guess which group is least likely to pay for care?..”?

[Anne_FS]

[QUOTE=JSwan;4224373]

What I’m getting at is that what sa practices can’t seem to decide what they want to be. [/QUOTE]

Maybe because they have to be so many different things for so many different people.

I need my vets for rabies vax and for severe injury/illness. But I’m probably the poorest person in my office (I don’t make much money and I live alone, so even the mail clerk, because he’s married, has a much higher household income).

Our receptionist makes a little less than I do, but her husband makes well into 6 figures. Her little doggies go to the vet for toenail clips, go to the groomer faithfully every 3 weeks, and no joke, if she thinks they “look funny” or “seem tired” she makes a vet appt. and in they go. Vet says nothing’s wrong, but the point is she wants that professional opinion and is more than happy to pay for it, and to request (REQUEST) every shot and test (Lyme’s, HW, etc.) and preventive. She wants the full gamut of professional care and opinion - because of her financial situation it’s not in the least a burden, and she doesn’t really know anything about dogs & doesn’t care to learn, so she relies on the doctor for everything. There’s nothing wrong with that. Me? I had an elderly cat begin to fail last week and I sadly had her euthanized. My friend also has a cat a year older than mine and I know she would do cancer-removal surgeries and chemo for this cat that I wouldn’t do for the CAT’S sake, even if I had the money. So the vet sees her pets very often and sees mine one time a year, but the vet has to please both of us. The practice has to adapt to suit our two opposite styles. It’s not that they “can’t seem to decide,” it’s that they have to be both. Now that they know me, they know my situation and appreciate the good care I provide and know that I’m pretty knowledgeable about what is needed and what I want, but the Receptionist would be outraged if she wasn’t presented with a full menu of options from which to choose.

Until the practice knows which one you are, they don’t know how to serve you.

[foggybok]

[QUOTE=luvmywalkers;4224397]
Didn’t you ask “Guess which group is least likely to pay for care?..”?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I did, and that is still true as a group.

however, it was a poor choice of wording, as I should have written, “is less likely to seek veterinary care” There is no data saying that group is less likely to pay for care they receive.

And you are not in that group, but your own admission (nor is your husband)

THat group comprises a very small portion of pet owners (< 2%).

[luvmywalkers]

[QUOTE=foggybok;4224487]
Yes, I did, and that is still true as a group.

however, it was a poor choice of wording, as I should have written, “is less likely to seek veterinary care” There is no data saying that group is less likely to pay for care they receive.

And you are not in that group, but your own admission (nor is your husband)

THat group comprises a very small portion of pet owners (< 2%).[/QUOTE]

I haven’t taken any of this discussion personal - nor have I complained about my vets

[foggybok]

JSwan in blue portions deleted

I think I’m inferring a bit differently from those stats. Not having seen the survey and don’t know in what context it was used - I’m inferring that the survey/article is in fact equating money with caring.

Nowhere did anyone equate money spent with caring, or even level of care. It is what it is, a collection of numbers gathered from a survey.

What we don’t know is if the people spending more on their pets are taking the pets to the vet for legitimate reasons - or if they are the “pet parent” types who take their animals to the vet for every little thing, including nail clipping, bathing, or non medical treatment.

In human medicine - unnecessary visits are what drive up health care costs. A person who goes to the dr all the time, and for minor boo boo’s is not a Good Thing. But in vet medicine - you seem to be saying that the more a person takes their pet to the vet, the more they spend, it’s an indication that they are a better owner.

I am saying nothing of the sort, never did never will. I actually might think the people that are seeing a vet 3 times a year are going too much, however since it doesn’t say why they are going I can’t even make that conclusion.

What I’m getting at is that what sa practices can’t seem to decide what they want to be. Health care providers? Well - no doubt about it. Health care costs. And it is not charity - it’s also a business and it is a profitable one. I’m ok with that.

But a great many of these costs are not health care related. They’re padding, extras, fees for services not rendered, every vet seems to insist upon special prescription dog/cat food (that they just happen to sell at a huge markup) insistence upon tests or expensive treatments, grooming services, nail clipping, or absolutely exorbitant prices that are not even close to being grounded in reality.

Some people want those services, if they didn’t they wouldn’t be offered so commonly…

So again - we’re back to square one. What seems to be the good owner from the sa perspective is not the owner who takes good care of their dog - but the owner who is willing to spend the most money on their dog.

I’m not sure where you get this. I don’t care if an owner trims his dogs nails or wants to pay someone else to do it, it is no reflection on whether the owner takes care of his dog or not. You do not have to have your nails clipped, you can decline, but if my Mom wants to have a vet clip her evil cats nails (cause I certainly will never do THAT again :eek:), why shouldn’t the vet provide that service.

That is not the same thing.

I mentioned government oversight not because I believe it is a solution, but because I think some of these practices may be unethical or a conflict of interest. Charging what you want because it is a free market may be fine if you are selling chairs and toasters, but thought profit is a factor in human medicine - there are controls that hopefully prevent gouging, price fixing or monopolies.

Veterinarians compete against each other, so the monopolies thing isn’t an issue (unless you believe they are all in cahoots to take your money).

As pertains to the euthanasia subject, I think I phrased that as delicately as I could - and that is saying something because I’m a bit of an Ice Queen.

That is one subject that is difficult and complex no matter what - but I was pointing out that again - the owner is often placed in an untenable position. While a shelter may be a good and cheap place to euthanize a dog - I shudder at the thought of any owner being forced to dump their dog at the shelter because no vet in town will put it down. Owners are not permitted to be with their pets - they must surrender them and leave.

Still - I do appreciate the moral and ethical struggle that vets deal with but my pity would lie with the owner. Especially since animal owners, both large and small, are told that euthanasia is a better choice than divesting ownership through auction or the shelter.

I would have no problem helping a responsible owner with a difficult decision, however I will not be the dumping ground and executioner for people who consider animals disposable. I think we’re probably pretty close to agreement in this area…

Increasingly - owners may be place in untenable positions because more and more sa practices are turning into these spa like resort destinations for dogs and cats - with the bills to match. Shopping for a decent price isn’t an option if all the clinics in town are becoming like that.[/QUOTE]

Fear not, when the competition in those clinics gets to be too much, some enterprising practitioner will see the unmet market of which you speak…

Really, I’m pretty certain our overall thoughts are much more closely aligned than it appears on this message board. You want quality care at a reasonable price and that’s what I’d strive to provide, should I make that leap back into fulltime practice…My only purpose in posting here at all was to try to shed some light on some misconceptions people might have, try to get people to look at the overall picture… Some was successful, some clearly not, but that is what it is…I hope you all find a practice you are happy with and I wish health and longevity to all you animals be they family, pets or just plain property…And with that, I’ll say farewell to this thread…really…especially since the last three days of rain appear to be giving way to a fabulous day…

[JSwan]

[QUOTE=foggybok;4224565]
I’ll say farewell to this thread…really…especially since the last three days of rain appear to be giving way to a fabulous day… [/QUOTE]

I hope you have time to throw a saddle on your horse and have a great ride.

[Anne_FS]

[QUOTE=JSwan;4224389]
Um - a good business owner manages his business so that delinquent accounts stay at an acceptable figure.

If a business owner is allowing that many accounts to go unpaid he’s just a bad businessman. Plain and simple.

Every business has this problem and takes steps to minimize it. Sounds like your business didn’t do that - or wasn’t aggressive enough. That’s a shame.[/QUOTE]

(Sigh). I’m really surprised that you don’t get it, JSwan. You’re usually so astute about just about everything (LOL). It seems the deadbeats aren’t the routine customers, the deadbeats are those who usually don’t go to the vet, SA or equine, but one day Fido is sick because he ate some pantyhose, or got clipped by a car, or got a wound or infection or is throwing up. They go to the vet, vet doesn’t turn them away even though the “who’s your regular vet?” question has been answered with “no one” and that’s a red flag, but there is the sick animal, so…vet patches up pet, and away goes owner and either leaves a bum check, or works out a payment plan and then they never ever send in any of the payments. In some cases the vet now has a new, grateful, paying client, but in LOTS of other cases the owner merrily goes on its way and neither they nor their money is ever seen again. Both my kids worked as vet techs while in college, and my daughter is a 3rd year vet student now, and they’ve seen it over and over and over again.

Of course if 6 months later they call to come back with another problem, the vet will turn them away, but they’ll just go pull the same stunt with a different vet then. You have no idea how many, many, many people do this.

[JSwan]

[QUOTE=Anne FS;4225567]
(Sigh). I’m really surprised that you don’t get it, JSwan. You’re usually so astute about just about everything (LOL).

Of course if 6 months later they call to come back with another problem, the vet will turn them away, but they’ll just go pull the same stunt with a different vet then. You have no idea how many, many, many people do this.[/QUOTE]

I’ve owned two small businesses, both successful - and have been stiffed. Small businesses cannot absorb or deal with losses like that - they just can’t.

I think I have an inkling of how many dirtbags there are out there - oh - if you need some work done on your chimney I’ll give you the name of a guy NOT to call. :mad: (*!@)#(%

My point was not that dirtbags do not exist, but that as business owners we have to be aggressive about collections. A distasteful but necessary part of being a business owner.

I think a boarding stable owner can commiserate. Lots of horse owners abandoning horses or failing to pay boarding bills, leaving the BO to pay for the horse’s care, asserting the ag lien, and then hopefully recouping the losses at auction. My state has a similar process for a vet asserting a lien for a boarding bill.

But if you’re a business owner - this is part and parcel of owning a business. One of the ‘cons’ or risks. I think it’s horrible but other than being aggressive about collections, using telecheck type services, I’m not sure what else to suggest. All business owners have this trouble - including doctors and hospitals.

[Anne_FS]

[QUOTE=JSwan;4225611]
All business owners have this trouble - including doctors and hospitals.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Except I’d say ESPECIALLY doctors and hospitals (human & animal).

[ESG]

Agreed. And on that business about “33% of your equine clients will never pay you - get used to it.” - WTF?!?!? :eek: What idiot would teach a class with garbage “facts” like that? Unless I’m totally missing the point of the class, they’re supposed to teach you how to succeed with a veterinary practice, not fail. Teaching someone that a 33% nonpayment rate is “just part of the deal” is not ony incorrect, it’s downright fraudulent. No business could possibly survive under those conditions, veterinary or otherwise. Amazing anyone would have the stones to put that in the curriculum notes. :no:

[Anne_FS]

You misunderstand, ESG. That’s the point of the class: to teach veterinarians that if they don’t deal with this stuff, that’s what will happen to them. The 1998 Brakke study found that a lot of veterinarians simply didn’t have the necessary business skills to deal aggressively with deadbeats and other issues, so the VBMA (Veterinary Business Management Association) was born.

Yes, a lot of the students are shocked to find out how many people want their services for free. Like many on COH, it simply never occurs to them that people never intend to pay, so they need to learn. The VBMA class is offered outside of regular class time. No idiots, no garbage facts. Just unpleasant truth about a lot of “animal-loving” human beings.

[Pancakes]

[QUOTE=Anne FS;4225944]
You misunderstand, ESG. That’s the point of the class: to teach veterinarians that if they don’t deal with this stuff, that’s what will happen to them. The 1998 Brakke study found that a lot of veterinarians simply didn’t have the necessary business skills to deal aggressively with deadbeats and other issues, so the VBMA (Veterinary Business Management Association) was born.

Yes, a lot of the students are shocked to find out how many people want their services for free. Like many on COH, it simply never occurs to them that people never intend to pay, so they need to learn. The VBMA class is offered outside of regular class time. No idiots, no garbage facts. Just unpleasant truth about a lot of “animal-loving” human beings.[/QUOTE]

Amen… most of the people in my class are SO ignorant about the necessities of the business aspect of practicing veterinary medicine. I personally take interest since it will be my livelihood, but there are SO many people in my class that would rather remain ignorant about it and never want to own or co-own a practice. These are the people that, when forced to make business decisions, will be poorly informed and manage their practices poorly.

Add to that financial stress of “how am I going to get compensated” panic the added pressure of a client who can’t afford the treatments her pet needs (even reasonably-priced ones) and throws at you accusations that “you don’t care about animals!”. It gets terribly overwhelming, and it’s unfortunately encountered a lot more than people realize. Our school’s ER is inundated with people like these, thinking that because their pet is dying or in dire illness they are entitled to reduced pet care because “vet should just care about animals.” It’s enough to drive your head in the sand when it comes to the finances, and as a result, many vets are NOT good business owners.

In my economics and financial literacy vet class, it was unbelievable how uncomfortable most of my class became when it came to talking about billing, overhead, markups, managing resources, etc… Most of the students are thinking, “this is NOT what I bargained for!?” Yet if you run a practice, you run a business, and to make a living, you have to make a profit…it’s inescapable. The ugly truth is that we have to charge for our services and it really makes you feel like crap as a vet to charge for it, especially when it’s visible the person can’t afford a lot of it.

The VBMA is a magnificent resource that many vets are now using – I hope more continue to in the future since well-run veterinary practices make for better quality and availability of care for pets and their owners.