I'm Preparing a Submission to ACCC about The Veterinary Industry. - I Need Your Stories

LCraigminns on 23/12/2018 - 06:41
Last edited 23/12/2018 - 16:46 by 1 other user

I've been invited by the ACCC to prepare a formal submission in relation to breaches of Australian Consumer Law within the veterinary industry. I have asked the ACCC for advice on the anti-competitive nature of regulation in this field and been advised that it has no power to act in respect of Government.

In order to support that submission I need your stories.

We all know that vet fees are high. In my view there are several reasons for this.

  1. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority (APVMA) administers a piece of legislation that expressly protects monopolies on veterinary medications. https://apvma.gov.au/node/1072

  2. The veterinary industry is dominated by a single large corporation, Greencross/Petbarn, which has a strongly integrated supply chain that includes wholesale and importation entities.

  3. Greencross is a large donor to the RSPCA, which supports its activities and benfits from that support both by direct donations and through the sale of high cost pet insurance products which in turn support the high charges made by vets.

  4. The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) is also strongly supported by suppliers to the industry, including medicines,pet food, equipment and services, including insurers. In my view this creates a strong incentive for that organisation to advocate for overservicing.

  5. There is no independent oversight of veterinary practise. It is self-regulated.

  6. Individual vets have a strong incentive to advocate for the use of expensive equipment they have leased or purchased.

  7. The RSPCA has become a large corporation in its own right and frequently acts in repugnant ways in pursuit of financial rather than animal welfare interests.

  8. Both the RSPCA and APVMA operate as regulators for animal welfare and both organisations are driven by a cost-recovery model which creates an incentive for punitive enforcement and in some cases to aggressive enforcement action unjustified by the circumstances.

  9. Governments condone the RSPCA's abuse of powers in order to cost-shift compliance activities.

  10. Veterinary schools, in common with some other vocational professional education schools are training students in risk management practises and business models that create an incentive to overservice.

I'd love to have your stories. If there are any journalists who subscribe to this site I'd be happy to provide you with any information you need.

IF you would like to provide information in confidence you can send it to [email protected]. I give you my word that no identifying information will be used without your permission. I may contact you to discuss things if you are agreeable. Please say so if that's the case.

**EDIT

One of the eagle-eyed contributors to this thread has pointed out that pharmacists are empowered to fill veterinary prescriptions. I'd strongly recommend that people ask their vet for a prescription rather than handing over cash for possibly inflated prices. Thanks wordplay.

Pets

Related Stores

ACCC
ACCC

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 23/12/2018 - 07:35
    +3

    I've been invited by the ACCC to prepare a formal submission in relation to breaches of Australian Consumer Law within the veterinary industry.

    You go on to mention APVMA, AVA and RSPCA. Who is the primary party?

    We all know that vet fees are inflated.

    I'm pretty happy with the fees. I'm not a vet.

    In order to support that submission I need your stories.

    I agree with many things you said regarding monopolies but the use of a analogies may not make a case stronger. In fact, when dealing with policy change, the use of analogies should be frowned upon.

  • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 07:55
    +10

    There are several components to the action. I will be asking the ACCC to investigate the possible existence of a cartel.

    Case studies are a vital component of the submission. I would welcome comments from those who are happy with their service, if they are supported with evidence, just as from those who are not.

    This isn't a witch hunt.

    I should also add that I have been in contact with the RSPCA to invite their contribution to such a submission. They have so far declined.

    • popcornready on 23/12/2018 - 10:02
      +1

      Are you also going to get independent evidence from people not happy with their service? You know, to keep it objective.

      • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 10:13
        +10

        That's the idea. As I said, this isn't a witch hunt. I think there is a strong public interest in having a proper ACCC investigation of this industry. Animal ownership, both pets and companion animals and livestock is a vital aspect of Australian life. It is therefore important that the care of animals is made a properly accountable process.

        Do you have a story you'd like to share? If you'd like to keep it private there is an email address given above.

          • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 10:35
            +7

            @fantombloo: Thanks for your opinion. I am looking for constructive comments though.

          • EightImmortals on 23/12/2018 - 12:05
            +4

            @fantombloo: So my dog and my tropical fish are 'persons' now?
            As for being voiceless my dog knows quite well how to communicate his wishes, sometime vocally, somtimes not. The cows do the same and we can tell what the different 'moos' mean. The fish, not so much.

            Got token militant vegan?

              • belongsinforums on 24/12/2018 - 15:02
                +2

                @fantombloo: One you can fornicate with. The other?

              • johnno07 on 24/12/2018 - 17:53
                +1

                @fantombloo: I'm confused. What is your argument? That animals should be persons (in the legal sense)? I.e a dog should be able to own a hotdog stand?

                • fantombloo on 24/12/2018 - 19:03
                  -2

                  @johnno07: No. Persons demand only the basic right that they are not treated as chattel. If an animal, human or otherwise, is able to operate a vegan hotdog stand that's their own business.

                  • johnno07 on 24/12/2018 - 19:05

                    @fantombloo: So buying pets is not ok?

                    • fantombloo on 24/12/2018 - 19:06
                      -3

                      @johnno07: Is buying people OK? (it was considered OK until only recently)

                      • downbythecreek on 24/12/2018 - 19:24

                        @fantombloo: Time to come down from that high horse, its back must be killing it.

                      • johnno07 on 24/12/2018 - 19:57
                        +1

                        @fantombloo: I can't actually tell if you're joking, or you're equating pet ownership to human slavery?

                        • fantombloo on 24/12/2018 - 21:33
                          +1

                          @johnno07: Not me, history.

                          The comparison is moot for me; the issues are different but the root of both is the idea of being able to own another sentient being with their own interests.

                          • whooah1979 on 25/12/2018 - 20:06

                            @fantombloo: Animals are property. They've no rights and may be breed, sold, purchased, killed and eaten when they're are no longer useful. Many societies recognises this with the exception of a few animals like dolphins and cows with their limited rights in some cultures.

                            • callum9999 on 26/12/2018 - 07:32
                              +2

                              @whooah1979: That's an equally stupid argument to theirs. What the law (or social convention) says is completely irrelevant when it comes to morals - unless you're also saying it was 100% moral to own slaves back when it was legal?

                              To address their point, they are technically correct in that both practices involve owning sentient beings. Though we of course make exceptions when "owning" said sentiment being is also in their best interests. E.g. you have the right to veto your 6 year old wanting to go and live in the woods.

                              Owning pets is similar. Their life is generally better when in a loving home than it would be as a stray. If it's not then the law should (and generally does, though isn't good enough in my opinion) remove them from your care.

                              • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 08:43

                                @callum9999: Very well put. Of course, under the current model there is a financial incentive for removing them from your care that creates a moral dilemma.

                                Unfortunately, in some cases that dilemma is resolved in favour of the money, rather then the caring imperative.

            • cameldownunder on 22/09/2019 - 20:13

              @EightImmortals: My cat has priority over me. In fact both our cats have priority over me. I walk around with a crooked foot since 3 month, and have not been taken to the doctor. My cat has a sneeze, and we are off to get her checked out.

          • freakatronic on 28/12/2018 - 16:18
            +1

            @fantombloo: Hold up The Lorax is here. Ready to speak for the trees.

      • nicksinternet on 24/12/2018 - 16:50
        +1

        Username checks out. You know, to keep it objective.

  • anglais on 23/12/2018 - 08:45
    +4

    I would specifically target this complaint towards the company from which you have been affected. This sounds far too broad. You might as well go after 'big pharma'.

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 08:53
      +6

      Thanks for your advice. I don't see any purpose in such a course, since the problem is industry wide and derives from the conditions of the industry. Quarantining it to a particular example simply allows the conduct to continue elsewhere.

      There are many good vets, dedicated to giving good care and advice and there are many good people in the organisations mentioned. I hope some of them will step forward.

      I do agree with your "big pharma" analogy. The RSPCA in particular is strongly affiliated with offshore variants of that organisation, some of which seem to have similar business models.

      Never underestimate the power of a grassroots movement to create change.

      • EightImmortals on 23/12/2018 - 12:06

        Hmm I hadn't considered that aspect before, I was putting the exorbitant fees done to the ludicrous costs of education these days and the need for graduates to pass the costs on (more taxation by stealth).

        • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 12:08

          Yes, that is no doubt a contributing factor, aligning with the other incentives mentioned.

    • chumlee on 23/12/2018 - 20:53

      Pharmacies operate in a similar way and are supported by weak federal government's that continue to let the pharmacy guild lock out coles & Woolworths from entering the market

      • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 08:44
        +1

        Yes, I understand there are restrictions on pharmacists opening competitive outlets within a certain range of an existing store. The pharmacy profession is one that will contract a great deal over the next few years due to automation.

        It's also strongly dominated by a few players. One of the things that the professions understand very well is the value of creating barriers to entry as a tool for maximising profits. In a previous career I attended one of my firms annual technical seminars in which the keynote talk was specifically about the value of barriers to entry into a market. That was back in 96 or 97.

  • Randxyz123 on 23/12/2018 - 09:35
    +13

    Is there a specific example where you were over charged ?

    My local vet is expensive but I don’t think they would be making a lot of money once they covered rent,staff fees and other bills.

    I

    • geoffs87 on 24/12/2018 - 11:49
      +1

      The cafe next door manages to pay their rent, staff and other bills and probably doesn’t generate $120 every 15mins per staff member, I imagine their cogs are higher also!

      What it does mean is salaries for vets are likely high, and if they were lower, intelligent people who go on to become vets would study something else, subsequently lowering the entrance requirements for vet science, likely lowering the quality and service of your vets…

      I don’t like the vet bills, but I do like that they look after my doggo, and if it’s a few hundred a year vs dead doggo, I’ll take the few hundred a year. I don’t think the worming/flea treatment prices can be substantiated though, I reckon there’s some form of collusion happening there…

      • megasaur on 25/12/2018 - 17:16
        +3

        Just FYI - common misconception, but salaries for vets are actually quite low in Aus, relative to the other medical health professions (eg dentists, doctors etc) despite having to go through similar courses (difficulty, time & cost wise) at uni, and for the work that they have to do on a daily basis (medicine, surgery, pathology, radiology etc all in one). In general, usually the only way a vet can make significant money is if they own their own practice, specialise, or work in industry/academia.

        • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 17:27
          +1

          Thanks, that is what I've been told by others.

      • Musing Outloud on 26/12/2018 - 12:55
        +1

        Comparing Vets to the medical profession would be a better basis to assess business costs, rather than using other retail.

      • ClarissaO on 26/12/2018 - 21:28

        Why do you think a cafe would have higher overheads? Do you run a business?

  • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 09:39

    You may be right. I'd welcome comments from vets detailing their practise costs.

    • popcornready on 23/12/2018 - 10:05
      +3

      That would be a great start for you .

      It would be good to get a basis of understanding before you even embark on what you are doing.

      • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 10:15

        I have already done significant research. I believe my understanding is sound. The purpose of this article is to gather proper evidence from people on both sides of the issue so that a properly balanced submission can be made to the ACCC. All contributions are welcome.

  • Oakok on 23/12/2018 - 09:44
    +1

    Charging $25 per medication script to encourage buying their medication which is way overpriced from what it would cost to purchase it online or from an animal pharmacy.

    • popcornready on 23/12/2018 - 10:04

      Do you buy your human scripts online? If so, which ones?

      Or do you go to a pharmacy?

      Just curious.

      • Oakok on 23/12/2018 - 10:41
        +3

        Buy it from animal pharmacy … pain killers and anti seizure medication. Also have to pay for a blood test every 6 months - $200. I protested at the price and now the vet does it in house for $100.

        • rompastompa on 23/12/2018 - 10:56

          Thanks for the name of that store, it's good to be able to compare online pharmacy and vet costs. I wish I didn't have to get a prescription, though (already diagnosed for a yearly prescription) :/

      • 2jzzzz on 23/12/2018 - 11:10
        +1

        I also get my script and buy from The Animal Pharmacy. They charge $50 for 100ml Meloxicam, my verts wanted $120ish from memory. My vet charges $20 to write script.

        • Rescue 26 on 23/12/2018 - 11:27
          +1

          My vet also charges $20 to write the repeat prescription. My GP charges $5 for the same service. I get the script filled online from The Animal Pharmacy. $160 for 2 months supply. The vet charges $350 for the same supply.

          • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 12:06
            +1

            @Rescue 26: It would be good if you folks could send me an email with that information. I suspect there may be plans by some of the parties involved to try to have this page removed and I'd like to try to preserve your evidence.

          • wordplay on 23/12/2018 - 20:57
            +3

            @Rescue 26: my GP does scripts for free - have to have a v. quick consult, but bulk billed so no cost to me. but they then get the medicare payment, not sure what that is worth to them though.

            • BartholemewH on 26/12/2018 - 18:08
              +1

              @wordplay: Wow, bulk billed. GP's in our area charge $77 - $86 for a short consult. No scripts without consults. Even our infant is $85.

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 10:19

      I see this as a significant part of the problem, which along with the anti-competitive regulation leads to costs of vet meds being in some examples I'm familiar with up to 350% higher than the same medication prescribed to humans after the effect of the PBS subsidy is removed.

      Please feel free to give a detailed explanation of any experiences you have had on the email address provided.

  • whooah1979 on 23/12/2018 - 10:32
    -3

    Overcharging veterinarians
    We all know that vet fees are inflated

    The expenses is about right for maintaining a high maintenance property.

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 10:37
      +1

      Thanks again, if you have any evidence to support your assertions please feel free to send an email to the address given.

      • whooah1979 on 23/12/2018 - 11:07

        We just had one of our vehicles services for $150 plus parts. The last time we had our animals checked was $120ea to $150ea plus medications.

        • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 11:12
          +1

          How long did the checkup take and what was done? What was the diagnosis requiring medication? What were the medications prescribed and how much did they cost? Were there any recommendations for further services or products that you didn't take up? How often do you have your animals checked and are these checkups due to some problem you've observed with your animals or are they done in order to comply with insurance requirements? Do you have insurance and if so, how much do you pay? What sort of animals do you own and how old are they?

          Those are the sorts of questions I'd like to drill down to.

  • Diji1 on 23/12/2018 - 11:22

    and been advised that it has no power to act in respect of Government.

    That's an odd statement given that it's a government department that makes recommendations for Government to follow.

    No it has no direct power, it just makes recommendations that are usually followed.

    Even if the recommendations are completely ridiculous provided you still believe in neoliberal economic theory. For example eg. it recommended that it should set the price of electricity itself after the privatised sector raised prices so high it threatens large business viability.

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 11:41
      +1

      this is the request for advice I submitted to the ACCC

      I would like some advice in relation to the anti-competitive nature of the regulations surrounding the import of veterinary medicines. The APVMA website contains the following advice

      https://apvma.gov.au/node/1072

      which states that it is illegal to import a veterinary medicine if there is an existing product or similar product available in Australia. This is having the effect of maintaining artificially high prices, in some cases up to several hundred percent higher than prices available from reputable suppliers overseas and in some cases several hundred percent higher than human-approved packaging of the same medication when purchased without medicare subsidy in Australia.

      Some examples are:
      Amoxicillin, for which I have been charged in excess of $3.50 per 250mg tablet, when a typical cost overseas is 30c for a human approved pharmaceutical and about $1 when purchased over the counter at a pharmacy.

      Trocoxil, for which I have been quoted $177 per dose of approximately 100mg, when a typical price in the UK, for example, is less than $50 Australian.

      How does this restriction of competitive imports fit with the competition framework and how does it benefit the consumer? What is the effect on pain and suffering for animals that need the medication but whose owners cannot afford the inflated prices and how does this impact the mental health of the owners?

      I would appreciate a swift reply

      I will be asking the RSPCA for their advice on these matters as well.

      This is the ACCC response.

      Infocentre Public Mailbox <[email protected]>

      Thu, Dec 20, 3:05 PM (3 days ago)

      to me
      Dear Mr Minns

      Thank you for writing to us about the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. We can offer you information about the how the laws we administer apply to other government departments.

      The Australian Government and the laws we administer

      The laws we administer apply to the Australian Government only when it is carrying on business activities. When it is conducting its normal functions – like imposing taxes or issuing licences – the laws we administer do not apply.

      If you feel that a government body has acted inappropriately, you should try to resolve the matter with them directly. You can use the australia.gov.au website to find out how to contact a government department.

      If you cannot resolve the matter with the government body, you should contact the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Commonwealth Ombudsman deals with complaints about Commonwealth government departments and agencies.

      Not ACCC: issue outside of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010

      From the information you have provided, the concerns you have raised appear to fall outside of the laws we administer. The Australian Consumer Law provides Australians with broad consumer protections including the right to truthful and accurate representations, fair treatment and consumer guarantees. You can read more about consumer rights our website. If you have information that you believe may indicate a breach of these laws, we welcome you to submit it to us.

      We hope the information we have provided today will help you to resolve your dispute.

      Edit
      I should note that I forwarded the above request to the APVMA for advice at the same time as I contacted the ACCC and have not yet received a reply. I also sent it to the RSPCA and received the following response:

      Hi Craig

      Thank you for your email.

      Unfortunately we are unable to assist in this matter and advise that you direct your concerns to the APVMA (https://apvma.gov.au/).

      • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 15:31

        I've just been contacted by a lady who gave me this very interesting link. It's in relation to the US situation, specifically in Maryland, but it's quite informative. I wonder if there are any vets or vet nurses who could fill us in on the Australian situation.

        https://www.sheknows.com/living/articles/1084880/costs-to-pu…

        • ClarissaO on 26/12/2018 - 21:29

          why would they?

      • canyoudoitcheaper on 23/12/2018 - 20:10
        +6

        It makes no sense at all to draw comparisons between human and animal medications. First, the economies of scale between the two markets are vastly different. Second, many human medications are subsidised under the PBS.

        The reply you got also makes no mention of being "invited by the ACCC to prepare a formal submission"?

        To keep it simple, if you can't afford to take care of your pet/s, then don't get one. It is not a 'right'to own a companion animal.

        • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 20:43
          +7

          The comparison is between the unsubsidised cost of the same medication when supplied by vets and supplied by others.

          Thank you for your contribution and yes, I can do it cheaper.

          If you really care about animals, perhaps you should be looking at ways to make it cheaper for those who love their animals to care for them properly instead of trying to make it only accessible to the wealthy.

          It's not a "right" to be in a position of power.

          • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 20:54
            +3

            @Craigminns: A simple comparison.

            https://www.vetuk.co.uk/pet-meds-prescription-only-trocoxil-…

            95mg Trocoxil is £29.12, or $52

            https://petchemist.com.au/products/trocoxil-chewable-95mg-2-…

            Same product is $128.95.

            It's not a "right" to profiteer.

            Under the legislation I am prohibited under threat of confiscation from importing the cheaper alternative and the wholesaler has the unfettered right to a monopoly.

            • Fiximol on 23/12/2018 - 23:39
              +5

              @Craigminns: The UK link is for 1 tablet. The Australian one is for 2. The price isn't that different.

              • bringbring on 24/12/2018 - 00:11

                @Fiximol: Lol nice one

              • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 05:45

                @Fiximol: D'oh, completely missed that, well done. I appreciate people checking my work, it's easy to make mistakes as I'm sure everyone understands.

                Nonetheless, the vet I took my dog to recently quoted a cost of $177 for a single dose of 105mg, consisting of a 95mg and a 20mg tablet. The same dose in the UK is equivalent to $68.35 and at Pet Chemist it would be $173.90 for 2, or $86.95 a dose, still some 27% dearer than the UK. The vet's price is nearly 105% that of Pet Chemist.

                I'll be contacting Pet Chemist today, just the same. My old mate needs his meds and they look like the best option locally.

                Don't you think the vet has an ethical obligation to inform his clients of the best options for treatment? In this discussion I have learned that pharmacists can dispense vet medications - never been told that by a vet: that vets can write prescriptions to be filled by others - never been given that option by a vet.

                If a doctor poorly advises his/her patients he is liable for action by a review board; ditto for an engineer and clients; dentists, even lawyers are held to account for unethical conduct. Does anybody know if such a body exists for vets and if so, what are the criteria it uses in making determinations. Does it have any authority to administer sanctions to those found to have acted in breach of ethical standards and what are those sanctions if so?

                • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 14:59

                  @Craigminns:

                  D'oh, completely missed that, well done. I appreciate people checking my work, it's easy to make mistakes as I'm sure everyone understands.

                  When you're making such elementary mistakes, it casts doubt on your overall competence and intelligence, and especially your claim that your "understanding of the issue is sound."

        • minotaurian on 24/12/2018 - 12:45
          +7

          You hit the nail on the head. Economy of scale and PBS/safety nets are big factors. If you are able to sale more of a product, you can afford to reduce profit margins to maintain a business. PBS and government subsidies also obscure our reality of how much medication really costs.

          There a lot of complaints of over-inflating medicine prices. If there was such thing a bricks and mortar vet pharmacist, medicine prices will not be over inflated due to competition. The issue is, if prices were lowered, the prices for vet services provided will be jacked up to compensate.

          Veterinarians are essentially surgeons for animals, and yet, their salary is less than the supposed Australian "average" wage. Spending 5 years studying at uni is not worth their remuneration. The vet pricing model "over inflating prices" doesn't seem to add up to what is happening in reality.

          I see the vet maybe twice our of my whole life time for 1 pet(15years). In the same time, I had my car checked by a mechanic over 15 times and been to the doctors over 20 times in the same time period, bought medicine from a pharmacy >100 times. With simple maths, you can see why vet services are charging more.

          Another factor is high overheads, I view a vet as running a medical practise while paying the upkeep of a dental surgery. A large building is needed for surgical room, reception desk, consultation room, sterilisation, space to store medication. Then staff expenditure, 2 nurses needed per vet as well as a reception staff/manager.

          After my first pet, I chose to not get another because I knew I could not afford one, and I do not blame vets for charging what they charge. Owning a pet is not a compulsory, it is a choice.

          I am surprised there hasn't been any formal submissions on why lawyers charge bucket loads to look at a 1 minute email ($20) or pick up the phone ($5). However, luckily using a lawyer is also a choice.

          • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 12:49

            @minotaurian: Thanks very much for that. Are you able to quantify the sorts of costs involved? Do you have any suggestions as to how things could be improved?

            • minotaurian on 24/12/2018 - 14:12
              +4

              @Craigminns: Educating members of the public about utilising compounding pharmacist, which are readily available throughout Australia to purchase vet medication.

              There are things that could be done and are unorthodox; lobby to reduce minimum wages(pay staff less),reduce commercial rent costs, fix the housing crises (which is driving the econmy and hence everything up), increase immigration for skilled labour (pay vet less), encourage Australians to own pets and utilise vet services (More pets means economy of scale, vets charge less), agree to pay more for vet services or even reduce the minimum requirements to run a veterinary surgery (I can't give you numbers, I am just making assumptions based on other health businesses). These are all hypothetical and I do not support any of it, but I assume their is a reason why the prices are they way they are other than due to monopoly.

              Comparing prices between online (not much overheads) to brick and mortar stores or even overseas is unfair. If you compare anything overseas, it is cheaper, Australia is just an expensive country. I can buy video games oversea from America for 20% of the cost then it is here, even for the same digital copy. I can buy the exact same human medication in Asia for $1 versus in Australia for $15. If that wass the case, that means pharmacists are ^prices 1500%, but from what I understand is that the supplier determines the wholesale price based on where it is sold. Novartis sets a wholesale price in Asia a fraction to what it is in Australia. I don't think the vet is solely to blame, but maybe the whole supply chain. Any markup are just passed down the line, just like consumers are footing the bill for GST

              • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 14:22

                @minotaurian: Thanks. I agree that there are additional costs for bricks and mortar over online and if that is a problem, then perhaps a predominantly online distribution model is the answer for medications. Vets could maintain a small stock of meds for acute presentations, and order the rest of the course for online delivery in a suitable timeframe.

                I'll have to go through the rest of your post, there are some interesting implications. As always, any course of action can have unintended consequences.

  • pais on 23/12/2018 - 11:26

    What outcome are you looking to achieve?

    • wordplay on 23/12/2018 - 11:32
      +2

      cheaper vet visits and cheaper medications for beloved family pets (and for farm animals)

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 11:38
      +1

      I'm hoping for the ACCC to investigate and make recommendations that can inform legislative reform. If there is cartel conduct found to have taken place I'd like proper punitive action taken against the perpetrators and the cartels dismantled.

      I'd also like to give ethical practitioners the chance to be heard without fear of retribution.

      It would be nice to think that there could be some compensation available for people who've been ripped off, but I suspect that would be too difficult to administer.

      This isn't a witch hunt. Fundamentally it's about trying to reform an industry that has, in my view, lost sight of its reason for existence and is, for various reasons acting at times counter to the best interests of both animals and owners. It is low-income people who bear the brunt of high vet bills and in some cases have to make the decision to either not have the companionship of an animal, or euthanise a loyal companion that could be saved if costs were at a more reasonable level, comparable with prices overseas. The effect on those owners can be terrible.

      People are animals too…

      • wordplay on 23/12/2018 - 12:09

        which overseas countries have cheap vet bills?

        • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 12:12

          I'm referring to the cost of medications, I haven't researched costs of veterinary services as yet. If anybody can provide information it would be helpful.

          • wordplay on 23/12/2018 - 12:26
            +1

            @Craigminns: you are not obliged to purchase medications from the veterinary practice, you can ask for a script and get it filled at any pharmacy. or is it just the cost of drugs in general in australia compared to overseas?

            • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 12:39
              -2

              @wordplay: To my knowledge pharmacists are unable to fill scripts for animal medications. If you have information that differs from that I'd be pleased to hear it. It might be a good idea if that were the case though, at least for medications which are used in both humans and animals.

              In the case of Trocoxil (mavacoxib), the issue doesn't go away even if what you're saying is correct, since it is specifically an animal medication and hence not available except through the veterinary supply chain. The same applies to livestock medications.

              • wordplay on 23/12/2018 - 14:11

                @Craigminns: you are mistaken.
                https://www.vpb.nsw.gov.au/2017-june-vets-scripts-written-au…

                I am sure there are dispensing guidelines that pharmacists need to follow.
                you seem to know more about the drug supply chain than me, so I can't really comment on that - but mavacoxib is still a schedule 4 drug (as far as i can tell) so would need a script from a veterinarian anyway, can you ask a compounding pharmacist if they can supply it to you once you have a script. I would still have your pet monitored by a vet for any condition they are receiving treatment for.

                I'm not sure which livestock medications you mean, many (non-perscription products) seem available at ag. supply stores.

                • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 14:28

                  @wordplay: Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder whether it applies in other states as well?

                  If there are any pharmacists or vets out there, perhaps they could advise of their understanding of this?

                  Good work wordplay

                  • wordplay on 23/12/2018 - 14:59

                    @Craigminns: shouldn't matter about individuals understandings, I am sure its all in legislation in regards to perscribing and dispensing of scheduled products. you can look it up online.

                    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 15:07

                      @wordplay: I agree that it shouldn't matter, but if vets are not aware of the legislation or choose not to advise their clients of the option and if pharmacists don't advertise the service then consumers are uninformed and hence subject to the inflated prices in vets' offices.

                      I am a reasonably well informed consumer and have never been aware of this till now, despite owning dogs for most of my 55 years. I've certainly never been told by a vet that the option existed. Perhaps an enquiry to the AVA ethical standards people is in order.

                  • HighAndDry on 08/01/2019 - 15:00

                    @Craigminns:

                    Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

                    You seem to be unaware of a great many things, for someone who, again, claims:

                    Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 10:15
                    I have already done significant research. I believe my understanding is sound.

              • Rescue 26 on 23/12/2018 - 17:16

                @Craigminns: My dog is prescribed Sildenafil (Viagra!) by the vet. I was buying it from the vet until I realised he was just picking it up from the chemist up the street and then doubling the price to on-sell it to me. I then asked him for the prescription and bought it direct from the chemist. The pharmacist was obviously happy to fill the scripts from a vet. Did this a couple of times with different pharmacies before I switched to the Animal Pharmacy (online).

                • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 17:31

                  @Rescue 26: Thanks. I've just checked with a couple of local online pharmacies, including Animal Pharmacy for the price of Trocoxil (mavacoxib). Animal Pharmacy doesn't appear to stock it and the Pet Chemist does, at roughly the same price as my vet quoted, which tends to support the argument that the price level is driven by the high wholesale cost being propped up by a monopoly on distribution. I'm going to ask Pet Chemist for their take on the subject.

                  • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 18:19

                    @Craigminns: Further to this, an extract from the Pet Chemist webpage:

                    Our Pet Medication

                    Pet Chemist Online facilitates the supply of prescription medications by an Australian registered pharmacist through our website. When purchasing prescription medication through Pet Chemist Online you know that:

                    All prescription medication supplied

                    is sourced from Australian veterinary wholesalers
                    and Australian registered pharmacists,
                    All medication available is registered with the
                    Australian Government (TGA or APVMA)
                    or prepared by an Australian registered compounding pharmacist,
                    All medication supplied is processed
                    and dispensed by Australian-registered pharmacists.

              • TheBean on 26/12/2018 - 11:54

                @Craigminns: Pretty sure you can get them filled at a pharmacy. Maybe not in other countries.

                • jennkei on 28/12/2018 - 22:18
                  +1

                  @TheBean: This is correct. It's somewhat rare but as long as it's stocked by the pharmacy/they can order it in, it's usually not a problem.

                  However, some vets (all of those I've asked, maybe three in the last few years) charge a prescription fee. Combined with the medication cost, it can sometimes be more expensive to get the medication dispensed elsewhere (as well as extra hassle), so don't forget to check for that. I see someone has mentioned the prescription fee above…yeah…I think it was less than $25 in my case but it was still not worth it once when I checked.

  • poohduck on 23/12/2018 - 11:37
    -2

    The ACCC? There are a many ironic government departments; maybe it's all the government? Child welfare, public housing, ACCC, prime minister. I suppose for those who don't need these services (sic) it is comforting to hear that they exist. Personally I'd rather all that funding go to one useful thing, and stop employing the worst possible arseholes in those roles. Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten as well.

    • abuch47 on 24/12/2018 - 11:07

      Then what, free roam sovereign citizens?
      Who is your choice to run the country?

      • Craigminns on 24/12/2018 - 11:09
        -1

        This is a bit off-topic folks. I appreciate your passion for politics, but I would rather we kept this discussion focussed if you don't mind.

  • diceman99 on 23/12/2018 - 12:33
    +12

    I'm not a pet owner nor have I had any dealings with vets, but..
    Good for you trying to get something done.
    It's always worrying when an oversite or regulatory body Moral authority (RSPCA) is funded by the ones they're oversighting (Greencross/Petbarn)

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 12:40
      +1

      Cheers, I hope we can get some action.

      Feel free to pass on a link to this site to your friends who might be interested.

    • ClarissaO on 26/12/2018 - 21:32
      +1

      The RSPCA has no power over vets. This is all very odd. The RSPCA is not funded by Greencross. These few basic facts make this whole thread very silly.

      • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 21:33

        Actually, Greencross is a major sponsor of the RSPCA.

  • Lysander on 23/12/2018 - 12:41

    I have some info but not sure if it will be useful for your purpose. PM me after 27th December to remind me to send it to you please.

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 12:44

      Thanks, I'll do that. Have a great Chrissy.

  • itsdougie on 23/12/2018 - 13:18
    +3

    The vet I use is a bargain compared to the plumber that came over last week to fix a leaky tap!

    • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 14:39
      +1

      That's a whole 'nother story…

      • wordplay on 23/12/2018 - 14:58
        +3

        if you want to start an inquiry into the plubing industry I have a few stories about them.
        Much more expensive than needed and charged 3x more than i could have bought the parts for off the internet.

        • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 15:13

          I recently had a similar experience with one of the large plumbing firms (Fallons). Quoted nearly $2500 for replacement of two toilets and a laundry tap. Bunnings charges $275 per toilet for installation, $300 for the toilet sets and the tap cost $100 through a local guy.

          • wordplay on 23/12/2018 - 15:15

            @Craigminns: is there a plumbers association/liscencing body that can take care of these rouge operators.

            • Craigminns on 23/12/2018 - 15:28

              @wordplay: I'm not sure. Perhaps the Master Plumbers Association would be a good place to start, but I suspect that similar conditions apply as are outlined in the main post.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join