News Limited does a number on general practice vets

News Limited does a number on GP vets 


News does a number on vets, canon fodder when the enemy here should be specialist fees plus we get spurious advice from Choice.com.au about pet insurance.


(link to article - http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/sick-as-a-dog-as-vet-bills-soar-by-500/story-e6frfmd9-1226148801851)

With amusement I read an article by news.com.au yesterday about vet fees rising 500%. 


Clearly a headline to grab attention regardless of accuracy or not. 


What the article failed to present was that the treatments and surgeries they were referring to were extreme cases in Specialist Veterinary Centers. This rise was apparently also the cause of decreasing pet ownership. It went on to provide rather poor advice to pet owners consider pet insurance. 


 So once I am past the amusement (or perhaps we are still incredibly great value (wonder how my clients would respond to a 500% increase over 2 years?) let me examine some of the points in the article 

 "Veterinary bills for cats and dogs have blown out by as much as 500 per cent in the past two years because of medical advances, reported the Herald Sun." 

Don't worry, these are specialist fees, because of the rapid adoption of technology such as MRI, CT scans, laproscopy etc. General vets are not charging rates as described in the article by and large. Certainly Animal Doctors has also adopted new technology such as laprosopy, but it is a choice to make, there are ALWAYS alternatives. 

Choice reveals owners are being charged more than $25,000 for some treatments to save their four-legged friends.

Misleading - Wow, the average transaction in most general veterinary clinics is less than $100....... the last Pet Insurance newsletter indicated that only a very few number of cases had even reached the $10,000 mark, as later stated here in the article

A Choice pet insurance comparison uncovered highest claims of $25,700 for cancer, $16,865 for diabetes, $11,035 for a snake bite and $8760 for an ear infection.

Dare I say these were in fact the 4 highest claims? Does this then validate the above claim? Makes for a nice 500% increase though doesn't it.

Next

"Overall, pet insurance can provide value, but if it doesn't suit your budget, consider putting money aside in a special account to save for the bigger bills," Ms Just said.

"The most important thing is to have a financial plan to cover expenses."

Finally some sense.  


Then we get into some spurious advice

PET INSURANCE TIPS

* Take your pet for a check-up before taking out insurance. This helps avoids complications if you make a claim.
* Once your pet turns nine, no new insurer will provide cover. Before age nine, any previous illness becomes excluded as a pre-existing condition unless you have it waived by a vet.
* Pet insurance will not cover your pet for illnesses that can be avoided by vaccination, so have these up to date.
* If you have more than one pet, find a provider giving a discount for extra animals.
* Most providers require a co-payment on any claims. The lower your co-payment, the better the value in many cases.

Source: choice.com.au

Ok so why is this bad advice?


Let's deal with this one comment

* Take your pet for a check-up before taking out insurance. This helps avoids complications if you make a claim.

You need to be very clear. Pet insurers will not have a waiting period for pre-existing illness or disease. This means ANYTHING that is picked up at an exam or is in their medical history PRIOR to insurance will never be covered.  
This point in the news article frustrates me the most at deceiving clients. What would be more appropriate is to ASK YOUR VET prior to insuring, what are the likely pre-existing illnesses that I won't be covered for. Or even more simply, just think back to what presenting problems have you taken your pet to the vet for?


Coughing, sneezing? - won't cover respiratory issues
Limping - struggle getting cover with subsequent lameness
Diarrhoea, vomiting - may exclude many upsets simple or complex down the track


My point is, insurers are there to make money. They also need to protect themselves. I have had many people ask after I have given a diagnosis whether they should take up insurance now. People either innocently or otherwise want someone else to pay for their problem. But this also means the insurers are very sharp on pre-existing problems.


Another point is that all bar one insurer is underwritten by one company. Hollard Insurance. You need to look through what appears to be choice amongst the insurers and really get to the finer details.


Insurers can change their policies on you - WHAT!
Recently a long time insured patient had their claim reduced. The client rightly concerned rang and discovered that the insurer had changed the terms and conditions of the policy at the end of the year. UNLIKE human insurance or say life insurance, companies start a new policy every year, so can change the benefits every year as they choose. This I consider deceptive behaviour. Additionally by changing pet insurance if dissatisfied, you then have significant pre-existing issues with a new insurer, even though they are underwritten by the same company.


So there are pitfalls with insurance, but also consider the benefits, it could mean the difference in getting high end diagnostic and specialist treatment and not being able to afford it. alternatively you can just self insure and put money aside each week.
we do see many client with insurance and it gives them peace of mind in times of crisis, you just need to be aware of the pros and cons.


Hope this article has helped you