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

                • p1 ama on 25/12/2018 - 15:41
                  +5

                  @Craigminns:

                  Ah, I should be grateful for the crumbs I receive. Yes I've heard that before. I believe in some quarters they call it "trickle down economics".

                  That's not what I said at all. That's not trickle down economics at all, that's a completely different concept. Using big words doesn't work when you talk to someone who knows what they're talking about.

                  I know, I know, I must be a communist pinko bolshevist or something. Do you actually have anything to contribute?

                  Well you have the right to have whatever political beliefs you want. The truth is there's nothing illegal about a surgeon being rich. That's the end of the story really.

                  I've contributed heaps if you've bothered to read what I posted rather than just carry on spouting nonsense.

                  • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 15:44
                    -3

                    @p1 ama: Merry Christmas.

                    Don't drop too many crumbs now…

                  • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 15:59
                    +8

                    @p1 ama: I think everyone else can see you're the only person in the whole thread that really contributed anything of value to this person's "ACCC submission".

                    That he couldn't see it for what it is shows the quality of the final submission.

        • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 14:11
          +3

          I'm starting to think your "submission" is more of a whinge about others making more money than you.

          Maybe a communist country where wealth is (supposedly) shared equally would suit you better.

          • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 14:44
            -3

            @CMH: Thank you for your opinion. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?

            • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 15:26
              +12

              @Craigminns: You aren't asking for discussion.

              You're making a rallying call to others, a call to arms to support your tall-poppy-syndrome.

              The only person here with anything to contribute you have knocked down hard, calling them a vet with interest.

              Also, a true submission isn't looking for individual cases to submit, which seems like the only thing you're interested in. You're asking for receipts and stories, both of which would not make an ACCC case, regardless of the number you collect.

              You should be studying the laws and rules surrounding the industry. However given your responses it is clear you're not a lawyer, or someone working within the industry (who would have knowledge of the law and rules of the industry) so all you're going to get is as I mentioned previously: a cookie cutter letter of acknowledgement from the ACCC (because they get sooooo many of these nonsense letters) and maybe a spot on a junk news program.

              Do keep us informed of your progress though.

              • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 15:30
                -1

                @CMH: Thanks very much, I'll give your advice due consideration.

                Would you like to identify your interest in the issue?

                It's so easy to make disparaging comments from behind the mask of anonymity, don't you think? Are you worried that people might think less of you if you identify yourself?

                I would be if I was expressing the sorts of comments you've posted here so far.

                • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 15:36
                  +2

                  @Craigminns: I have no financial interest in the topic, I work a completely different field, and have no family working in the field.

                  Also, I explain my comments. If you disagree would you like to explain why?

                  And you're protected by anonymity as well, or care to tell us who exactly you are, with your mobile number, copy of driver's licence and work details?

                  • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 15:37

                    @CMH: My name is given. What's yours?

                    • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 15:55

                      @Craigminns: Craig Minns? A full identification would require more than a name.

                      My name is Johnny Smith, believe it or not.

                      Hence an address is VERY important.

                      • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 15:59
                        -1

                        @CMH: Oh, of course I'll take your word for that.

                        And what is your interest in the subject Johnny?

                        Do you have a point of view on the actual topic, or are you simply here to do a bit of political trolling?

                        • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 16:01
                          +6

                          @Craigminns: I have put my point of view on the topic as you can see.

                          It's just not what you're expecting.

                          Which really is what "information gathering" is supposed to be.

                          Otherwise, like I said, it's a call-to-arms of like-minded-individuals.

                          Edit: to answer your question, my initial interest was the thought of a large movement against a corporate entity breaking the law. Always makes for good reading.

                          However, this changed when I saw the calibre for the person heading the charge.

                          Now I'm just interested to see how long before you throw in the towel.

                          • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 16:22
                            -1

                            @CMH: I never throw in the towel, mate.

                            I've asked repeatedly for vets and representatives of the RSPCA to respond by putting their arguments. They have not.

                            In general, my experience is that people who think they have a strong case are willing to present it. Of course, sometimes those who don't make a lot of noise and hot air and we've seen a bit of that here from some.

                            I'll respond in kind if people want to make threats or play silly buggers, but it's a bloody stupid way to work out solutions to a problem and it is becoming apparent that there is a problem to be solved.

                            I don't think you have put your point of view. You've made some assertions and attacked my character, but I can't see much else.

                            Speak plainly: do you think the industry is serving the members of the profession well? If so, in what ways? I have been told in the responses I've received that there is a mental health crisis among vets, with a high suicide rate in the profession. Is that just a cost of doing business?

                            Do you think it serves the public well? Is it reasonable that pet ownership should be treated as a privilege of wealth?

                            Do you think it serves the animals well? Is it right that animals should be left without needed medication because the supply chain is a protected monopoly that inflates prices beyond the reach of those on average incomes? Why?

                            Do you think the RSPCA has an obligation to assist in efforts to address the high cost of medications, or does it have a higher obligation to corporate funders?

                            Here's your chance.

                            • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 16:35
                              +4

                              @Craigminns: You ask a lot of tough questions. Many of which I don't have an answer to. But it seems you do.

                              I've asked repeatedly for vets and representatives of the RSPCA to respond by putting their arguments. They have not.

                              I think these guys have better things to do than to comment on a topic that won't go far. Would you?

                              Quite similar to your comment "Do you have anything to contribute?" Which basically means "you're not saying anything I'm interested in".

                              do you think the industry is serving the members of the profession well?

                              I don't know, but it is a problem for those in the profession to figure out. My profession has their own body and we do take reports of suicide/self harm seriously. There's no easy solution, and your submission isn't going to have anything to do with it so why did you ask?

                              Do you think it serves the public well?

                              It is a private enterprise so the public generally will respond quite effectively with their wallets one way or another.

                              Is it reasonable that pet ownership should be treated as a privilege of wealth?

                              It is something that is done within one's own purse-strings. You don't try to keep a horse as a pet when you can barely put food on the table.

                              During times of war or famine pets quite frequently found themselves on the dining table.

                              These days we gets individuals like you suggesting pet ownership should be subsidized.

                              Is it right that animals should be left without needed medication because the supply chain is a protected monopoly that inflates prices beyond the reach of those on average incomes?

                              Check your own Original post. It is not a protected monopoly as you could get a prescription filled in a normal pharmacy.

                              On this alone your submission has just hit a major setback.

                              • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 16:47

                                @CMH:

                                it is a problem for those in the profession to figure out.

                                That's what the bankers said. That worked out well, don't you think?

                                It is a private enterprise so the public generally will respond quite effectively with their wallets one way or another.

                                Sure, they can pay the price demanded or watch their pets suffer. Ain't free enterprise great?

                                You don't try to keep a horse as a pet when you can barely put food on the table.

                                What about a cat or a dog when you're a normal working class family? Are pets to be the exclusive province of the wealthy or those willing to do without every day in order to have the pleasure of a companion animal? Funny, when I was growing up every kid had a pet, sometimes several. My own dog was sourced from the RSPCA, and the RSPCA claims to have the authority to hold me to account for its well-being, yet the RSPCA doesn't want to assist with making its upkeep a reasonable cost, comparable to elsewhere in the world where suppliers of vet medications aren't protected by laws that give them monopoly ownership of brands and ingredients.

                                It is not a protected monopoly as you could get a prescription filled in a normal pharmacy.

                                It is a protected monopoly, because the import of veterinary medications is restricted to the owner of the first import license application under the legislation. Do read the link to the APVMA website I posted.

                                • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 16:58
                                  +2

                                  @Craigminns:

                                  What about a cat or a dog when you're a normal working class family? Are pets to be the exclusive province of the wealthy or those willing to do without every day in order to have the pleasure of a companion animal?

                                  I don't have a pet dog even though I would really want one because I am not willing to spend the money required to give them a good life.

                                  So I stick by my words that pet ownership has to be within one's own budget.

                                  Back in the day nobody paid for medical treatment for pets. They get sick, they died. This is still true in the majority of the world still.

                                  It is something I would stick squarely in the "first world problems" box.

                                  Or maybe you would like to subsidize a dog for me?

                                  Anyway, you have a merry Christmas, I'm off.

                                • wordplay on 26/12/2018 - 12:42

                                  @Craigminns: "Are pets to be the exclusive province of the wealthy or those willing to do without every day in order to have the pleasure of a companion animal? Funny, when I was growing up every kid had a pet, sometimes several."

                                  DO NOT tell this to kids, will end up owning 4 or 5 ponies.

                            • ClarissaO on 26/12/2018 - 21:46
                              +1

                              @Craigminns: Why would vets or RSPCA respond to your comments? They are laughable

                • p1 ama on 25/12/2018 - 16:01
                  +6

                  @Craigminns: I've contributed all I can, so I'll sign off this thread now. But let me finish with this so we're all on the same page.

                  1) I have no ulterior motives. Everything I've said is genuine advice that I believe would help your case. To be honest, if I was a vet (like you said), I would have just kept my mouth shut, because the way you're going about this won't bring about any change.

                  2) You focus too much on people, their motivations and interests, and stories. None of that matters. The meat and potatoes of the matter is what laws are being broken and what evidence is there for that.

                  3) Act professionally or get someone on your team who can do that for you. Assuming that other people have ulterior motives, threatening legal action, becoming frustrated when people don't agree with you are all traits that will make you look like a fool if you ever get the chance to present your findings. Even if you have a vendetta against the industry, at least pretend to be objective and unbiased.

                  4) Disagreements aside, I support what you're doing. When I joined the ACCC, I did so because I believed in many of the things you do - that there are industries which are not following the law, that there is evidence to be investigated and that I could contribute something there. I still believe those things.

                  Anyway, you say "A fair days work for a fair days pay is a long held tenet of Australian culture", I say leaving disagreements behind and having a beer together is another one. Merry Christmas.

                  • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 16:08

                    @p1 ama: Thanks, I'm glad we're finally sharing our views.

                    As you must realise, my submission is still in preparation. This discussion topic is simply to give others who may have an interest in the issues a chance to air their opinions. I'll be doing the same in other forums.

                    From what I've seen here, there are many parties aggrieved by the current situation and to date no serious effort has been made by any of those who seek to defend the status quo to present a cogent argument on their own behalf, which I think is a shame.

                    I have taken your comments on board and will give them due consideration. I'm not prejudging anything.

                    Perhaps we'll run across each other in future.

  • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 15:54
    -8

    You guys are funny. Don't you realise that trying to hide my comments won't help you? Still, if it makes you happy, go for your life.

    Ah, the life of a corporate pr hack must be so intense.

    • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 16:23
      +3

      Are these words yours too?

      The "angry white male" who can't find work because he has "only" a school certificate and even basic jobs require ridiculous and meaningless jumping through qualifying hoops has every reason to be angry. The "angry white male" who has to fund his own legal proceedings (or more likely try and fail to self-represent) in divorce, while his ex-wife is fully funded through legal aid has every reason to be angry. The father who watches his son being left behind by an educational system that has over 40 years been tailored to suit girls has every reason to be angry.

      I see where you're coming from now.

      • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 16:25
        -2

        Overtime, eh? Sweet…

        • CMH on 25/12/2018 - 16:37
          +1

          I love doing my research.

          On my phone though so I'm quite hobbled.

  • kgbhouse on 25/12/2018 - 19:08
    +7

    Why are you doing this? Let me guess - you've been charged a hefty fee for service to your pet and you think you've been scammed somehow.
    You want an actual regulatory body controlling vet fee nation-wide? You'd want to actually rethink your position. If vet pricing was regulated we'd actually be seeing a much higher veterinary fee. It'll be very similar to the private health insurance industry - there will be a minimum 4 to 5% price rise each year. Read up on how private health insurance premiums have gone up 50% in a matter of 8 years between 2005 and 2013. Just swallow your pride and pay your vet bill (or don't pursue false justice).

    • Craigminns on 25/12/2018 - 20:30

      Thanks for that.

      Yes, an actual regulatory body that actually regulated might be a nice idea, actually.

      Are you a vet or associated with the industry?

      • Baghern on 28/12/2018 - 00:57
        +1

        So you want another regulatory body funded… so I assume you vote for Labor and Big government right… because the Libs don't do this..

    • euk on 25/12/2018 - 22:18
      +2

      There will be no regulatory body to control Vet fees. The simple fact is that it isn't a necessity. Keeping animals alive and healthy is a want, not a need. Unlike keeping humans alive and healthy, which is a definite need, hence medicare was developed in Australia.

      Dentists on the other hand though, that's an interesting area yet to be explored.

      While we're at it, we should talk about the construction and building industry. One of the most poorly regulated industries in Australia; their watchdog is a toothless tiger. There is no way apart from going through the courts/VCAT when faced with conflicts against a builder who is not budging on their work/initial quote that has suddenly changed.

      • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 00:56

        The biggest problem that I can see is that it has a pseudo-regulator in the RSPCA that has become coopted with the promise of riches.

        The decent volunteers and dedicated vets who work for it have been badly let down by their leaders. Get rid of it and replacee it with a proper regulatory authority. Make the large conglomerate comply with consumer law, that's all I'm suggesting and from the response here that scares the hell out of them. Good, it should on the evidence available to me.

    • Nads2407 on 27/12/2018 - 07:38
      +2

      hes doing this because hes really bored with his life and has nothing else to do with it.

  • Mrgreenz on 26/12/2018 - 00:00

    Hope you can get some answers to what you are searching mate.

    I have a little input on the matter I am currently thinking about.

    I adopted a RSPCA cat around 18 months ago, and gave it it's FIV and Felovax 5 vaccinations.

    The boosters are now due now (12 month). This to me doesn't really make sense, seen as I don't know of any human vaccines that require annual boosters. Seems like an overserving they are asking for $120 for the boosters and a checkup.

    I feel like $120 isn't a bad price really. I think the initial vaccines were about 250 ish total. Which again I thought was ok seen as it involved 3 trips to the vets.

    But yeah, is annual boosters really required, I doubt it IMO

    • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 01:04

      According to the manufacturer's product sheet it's recommended, mate. I haven't looked up the research that's based on, of course.

      http://files.boehringer.com.au/files/CMI/Fel-O-Vax%205%20Au.…

      Immunisation is a good idea, it doesn't just help your cat, it helps all the rest by stopping the disease from spreading.

      EDIT:Actually, I'm wrong about that:

      "This vaccine does not prevent infection or
      shedding."

      Good to hear you're happy with the service from your vet, I'm sure there are lots of people who are.

  • misspep on 26/12/2018 - 14:39
    +15

    You are a hypocrite. Despite your call for both sides to come forward with evidence, when users such as p1 ama and CMH provide an alternate point of view, you have disregarded good honest advice and presumed them to be a vet or somehow related to the industry. I would agree with many here that you appear to be someone who has faced a high vet bill and therefore are dissatisfied. Your arguments and so called evidence merely points to high costs of your vet visit. You need to prove that someone is breaking the law, not have a list of XYZ vets and situations that charge $500 for their surgical time or $50 per pack of antibiotics (as an example).

    I work in consultant human health and I have friends who work in varying health sectors from dentistry to optometry to veterinary. My veterinary friends earn a pittance - new graduates start at 45-50k, an experienced vet will earn $80k if they are lucky. All start out with crippling student debts.

    There is a supply chain - costs of medication will be determined initially by pharmaceutical companies (for example, Novartis in human health, Zoetis in animal health) who sell to a distributor who then sell at a mark up to the vet. Vets need to earn a living as does anyone else and therefore there is further mark up passed down to the end consumer, in this case, you. Mark ups are not illegal. You will find that there is a mark up on any item that you buy at retail level. This goes for human medicine too - except it is all largely subsidised by Government schemes. Remember that many vets are small businesses, just like many pharmacies are individually owned and also small businesses, therefore they cannot compete with online retailers or corporates that may sell medication cheaper. Online retailers buy in enormous bulk and can also therefore pass discounts on to end consumers.

    Surgery and anaesthetic is also not easy and not cheap. I am not a surgeon, however, I have friends who are anaesthetists. A vet friend of mine charges $210 for a general anaesthetic (this involves intubation and maintenance on an anaesthetic machine); an anesthetist friend of mine charges $605 for IV anaesthetic (this involves a canula and intravenous medication) during a wisdom tooth removal. Firstly, the level of anaesthetic is different, and secondly the vet is a bargain in comparison.

    You mention prescriptions. My optometrist charged me $65 for a consultation and a 1 year prescription for my contact lenses. This was covered by Medicare. I was more than willing to pay her for her time but we live in Australia where we are blessed with Medicare. The vet charges $15-25 for a prescription. There is no Medicare for your pet. This again is not illegal. Perhaps you should therefore petition your local MP for a Pet Medicare service. Alternatively, consider insurance. I have pet insurance for my dog and it has saved me about $6000 now.

    Moreover, you claim that vets aim to purchase expensive equipment. Of course they are! Medical equipment is not cheap. Equipment such as an X ray machine will cost in the hundred thousand in human medicine. This cost is again subsidised by Government in a hospital setting. Someone has to pay back the cost of the X ray machine. X rays are a BASIC imaging device and are necessary for simple diagnostics. Imagine what consider what an MRI or CT would cost! If your vet does not have an X ray machine, how will they diagnose your dog’s broken leg? And who is paying for this expensive machine? Do you expect them to pay out of pocket for this machine and NOT make money from it? How can you expect a service to be provided if there is no equipment?

    Let me also put forward another view - dosages for human antibiotics will not be the same as animals. Humans may require 500mg Amoxicillin/125mg Clavulanic Acid twice daily; a large breed dog will require 1000mg Amoxicillin/125 Clavulanic Acid twice daily. There is no such available medication. The closest is 875mg Amox/125mg Clav. Sure, go ahead, get the script and underdose your dog.

    Another thing to add - how can you suggest that there is price fixing particularly when the health of an individual varies so much? Consult fees, sure, but surgical fees? Your dog’s dental work may be vastly different to your neighbour’s dog’s dental work. The equipment one vet uses may be different to another, the standards of care may be different, medications and pathology machines will be different from practice to practice. This is why quotes are provided. This is why we sometimes shop around.

    At the end of the day, I am strongly of the opinion that pet ownership is a luxury, a privilege and a responsibility. Ensure that you have the financial capability to own and care for your pet before you get one.

    • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 15:09
      -1

      Thanks for that.

      • Ozbargainlyf on 26/12/2018 - 17:20
        +1

        You suffer from observation bias. You know that right?

        • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 18:48

          Do I? Thanks, I'll watch for that.

          Just out of interest, what makes you say that?

          • SydStrand on 27/12/2018 - 13:53
            +3

            @Craigminns: It means you see what you want to see. Stop pretending this is an honest discussion; no matter how much you claim to want balanced feedback, any attempt to explain expenses are met with deflection, obstinacy, and accusations that users are part of the industry, getting paid, or protecting their friends.

            Your feelings on the matter are plain as day, and you're obviously looking for negative outcomes to confirm your suspicion of foulplay. That is observer bias.

    • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 18:03
      -5

      I've read through your rather lengthy post and you make some good points, although my being a hypocrite isn't one of them :).

      I don't disagree with much of what you say, although I think what you've done is illustrate the overhead costs for vets are out of control, and that the industry could be a great deal more efficient.

      The commitment to expensive machinery, for example, may provide a strong incentive for overservicing, since if the machine isn't being used, then it is a simple cost centre that eats into the practise profits. Medical practitioners don't generally have xray machines on site, for example and I'm not sure that there is a need for them to be in every vet clinic, although the AVA does seem to be promoting their purchase quite assiduously. Is there any reason that such equipment could not be centralised in specialist facilities, as has been suggested by others?

      Similarly with the cost of medication. I can see no good reason that vet meds should be protected by anti-competitive legislation, any more than human meds are. Any pharmacist will ask if a generic alternative is suitable, although as I recall there was a great deal of teeth-gnashing when that particular reform was being discussed. Don't you think that vets have an ethical obligation to inform their clients that a cheaper source of meds is available than their high priced option? Looking at the trocoxil example I gave, it seems likely that the vet is simply purchasing the product from Pet Chemist and applying a 100% markup plus a handling fee. Sure, it may not be illegal, plenty of small shops go to Coles or Woolies rather than wholesalers, but vets are in a position of trust and I would have thought that professional ethics require the best advice to be given. Certainly that's the case for engineers or doctors or lawyers or accountants and there are strong penalties for those who abuse that trust, although getting professional bodies to act can be hard.

      Sure, individual animal health varies, but it is not as if the likely prognosis for any given condition or set of conditions is a mystery. Vets have been looking after animals for a long time, the science is largely solved.

      I haven't suggested price fixing, that's a complete misrepresentation and does you no credit. I have said that the single large entity in the market establishes a market price. The same thing occurs wherever there is a dominant player. Smaller practises can choose to discount, but since there is no advertising of prices there is little competitive advantage in doing so and since the same large entity is apparently the most significant supplier to vets they are compelled to cover the costs it charges and so the price remains fairly constant across the industry.

      I understand that employee vets are not well paid, but how well does the taxable income reflect the gross income and how much variation is there in salaries? I have been told that junior vets are very poorly paid. Does that push the average remuneration across the industry down?

      I'm sorry, but I remain unconvinced that the industry is not in need of some further investigation. If there are good reasons for costs and it can be shown that the dominance of one player is not driving costs and charges up, then surely that's a good outcome for the industry? On the other hand, if, as seems to be the case on the evidence I have been given, there are issues which need to be addressed, then surely it's good for the industry that they are?

      I'm very uncomfortable with the model of regulation of animal welfare used by the RSPCA as well, which I believe is not unrelated to the high cost of care and carries a high risk of dysfunction due to conflicts of interest.

      Do you have any association with them? Your final sentence reflects their own position quite closely.

      • misspep on 26/12/2018 - 23:30
        +7

        Block-quote Medical practitioners don't generally have xray machines on site, for example and I'm not sure that there is a need for them to be in every vet clinic, although the AVA does seem to be promoting their purchase quite assiduously. Is there any reason that such equipment could not be centralised in specialist facilities, as has been suggested by others?

        Veterinarians are what I call generalists, not to be offensive to the profession. They are your GP, your radiologist, your pharmacist, your surgeon all in one. Without an X-ray machine on site, you would have to see a specialist. A specialist veterinary consultation will set you back a minimum of $250. I am a human doctor with a fellowship - you would never be able to afford my consult fee without Medicare. A set of X-rays done at your GP veterinarian may set you back $500-800. A set of X-rays done at your specialist will set you back >$1000. I have had my 9 year old cat seen by a specialist and have seen and understand first hand the different costs. Moreover, a specialist has studied many more years, has passed several excruciating exams and has significantly more expertise to justify their fees. Go ahead and enforce that only specialist veterinarians have X-ray machines. You will only increase the cost of veterinary care for the general public. I can afford it; can you?

        Block-quote Don't you think that vets have an ethical obligation to inform their clients that a cheaper source of meds is available than their high priced option? Looking at the trocoxil example I gave, it seems likely that the vet is simply purchasing the product from Pet Chemist and applying a 100% markup plus a handling fee.

        I would agree that perhaps there is an obligation to inform clients that alternative medication is available, like pharmacists can offer a generic brand compared to the well known brand. However, to refute your second point, I have already said that veterinarians will source medications from a distributor which then sources medication from a pharmaceutical company. A "Pet Chemist" will similarly source their medication directly from the pharmaceutical company, however, because they purchase in bulk, their prices are discounted and they are able to forward those discounted prices on to their end consumer. This is not just happening with the veterinary industry. This is also happening within optometry, pharmacy, dentistry etc. Have you heard of Clearly Contacts, for example? The brick and mortar store optometrists simply cannot compete with online giants, who ultimately can source medication and product at a much cheaper rate. I wish you luck in going after the entire supply chain and the big pharmaceutical companies.

        Block-quote Sure, individual animal health varies, but it is not as if the likely prognosis for any given condition or set of conditions is a mystery. Vets have been looking after animals for a long time, the science is largely solved.

        As a medical professional, this is completely insulting. This entire sentence proclaims that you are NOT a medical professional and have no idea how medicine works at all. Medicine is NOT straight forward. Why do you think we study a minimum of 5-6 years for a bachelor degree, suffer through internships, brave physicianships, loose sleepless nights over fellowship exams?
        When a human comes in with a cough, it is not simply always due to an infection. In a span of 5-10 minutes, every GP doctor needs to ascertain a "differential list" - this is a list of every possible thing wrong with you. Where does this cough come from? Upper respiratory? Lower respiratory? What kind of infection? Is it viral? Is it bacterial? Is it fungal? Is it inflammation? Is it asthma? Is it an obstruction? Is it cancer? Is this an emergency situation? Do you need to be referred to a hospital or a specialist immediately? Do we need to take an X-ray? Do we need to perform an MRI?
        Substandard medicine is when we pattern diagnose or presume - when a cough is ALWAYS just one thing.
        Please don't speak of things you do not understand.

        Block-quote I have said that the single large entity in the market establishes a market price. The same thing occurs wherever there is a dominant player. Smaller practises can choose to discount, but since there is no advertising of prices there is little competitive advantage in doing so and since the same large entity is apparently the most significant supplier to vets they are compelled to cover the costs it charges and so the price remains fairly constant across the industry.

        Again, going back to my previous point in my earlier post, how can you advertise a price when individual health varies? The cost of extracting 12 teeth in your 11 year old dog's diseased mouth will be different to the cost of cleaning your neighbour's 1 year old dog's mouth.
        There has always been large players in a set market. What about 1001 Optical or Specsavers in the optometry field? What about Chemist Warehouse in the pharmacy field? Are you now going to attack all these industries because they have larger corporate companies supposedly dominating the field and establishing a market price? By all means, if this Greencross is truly the largest entity in the veterinary market and is coercing all the other players to collude on pricing, then this is the ultimate issue. You need to prove this, you need to state which law they have broken, not just collect receipts from various people stating how high vet costs are.

        Block-quote Do you have any association with them? Your final sentence reflects their own position quite closely.

        Lol.

        You have accused many users here of being either a vet or associated with the veterinary industry, especially when their advice or response is negative or against your vendetta. My "final sentence" reflects my ethics and morals - that I believe pet ownership is a gift and a responsibility, NOT an entitlement. If you cared to read my initial post properly, I state clearly my position.

      • SydStrand on 27/12/2018 - 21:23
        +10

        At first, I wasn't gonna bite but consider this a blanket correction for some of the more acutely stupid comments I've skimmed.

        Medical practitioners don't generally have xray machines on site, for example and I'm not sure that there is a need for them to be in every vet clinic

        I love it when someone who's so obviously not a medical professional, makes broad statements on how they feel industries should be run. As mentioned above, vets aren't GPs, we perform many roles including radiographer and radiologist. Secondly, there's a relative over-reliance on imaging compared to human medicine because animals don't talk.

        Vets don't have the benefit of patients who can recall their health history to help narrow differentials. Our patients can't tell us exactly where it hurts, or just how many rat pellets or golf balls they scoffed. Here's one of the most common presentations: vomiting cat. Causes? Practically everything, some life-threatening, so imaging +/- bloods are mandatory, which adds to your bill. Compared to a doctor, a vet workup is much broader (parasites, foreign bodies, etc. factor less in human health), murkier (animals are variably stoic), and physical exams are less rewarding, so X-rays are a core tool for diagnostic workup. But you're 'not sure there's a need for them in every clinic.' Cool!

        Don't you think that vets have an ethical obligation to inform their clients that a cheaper source of meds is available than their high priced option?

        Yes and no. Firstly, vets will recommend what products they're familiar with, off-label usage is on you. Secondly, most clients will often take home drugs for convenience and peace of mind, anyway. Lastly, most vets I've met have no problem recommending a cheaper alternative. Just today, a colleague told a client to pick up a few boxes of Telfast at Chemist Warehouse and split pills. Oh and in case you were wondering, the boss didn't chew her out for not squeezing blood from a stone.

        Vets have been looking after animals for a long time, the science is largely solved.

        I would love for some supporting material for this. Of all your comments, I find this the most presumptuous and ignorant.

        I understand that employee vets are not well paid, but how well does the taxable income reflect the gross income and how much variation is there in salaries?

        All consults, price lists, and charges are recorded, all drug and equipment orders are backed up by suppliers, and all incomes lodged. So WHERE exactly do you think vets can wiggle on taxes? Genuinely curious. Or do you think we're doing off-hour gunshot surgeries on cartel hitmen or cooking the books a la Breaking Bad?

        To answer the second part: as much as any other industry. Lots of people at the bottom of the pyramid, and at the top, famed horse vets who work with multimillion dollar cup winners and clients with bottomless pockets. If you're wondering what the median income is, it's much closer to the former. You'll also find that practice owners tend to drive Toyotas rather than Mercedes.

        Do you have any association with them? Your final sentence reflects their own position quite closely.

        I actually do. But it's deeply hypocritical for you to allege bias while feigning impartiality.

        What about a cat or a dog when you're a normal working class family? Are pets to be the exclusive province of the wealthy or those willing to do without every day in order to have the pleasure of a companion animal?

        If you're a working class family with a working class income: 1) don't own a pet, 2) own a pet but be prepared to forego expensive vet care and surgeries if and when they come, or 3) budget for rainy days.

        Funny, when I was growing up every kid had a pet, sometimes several

        When you were a kid, the notion of CT scans for dogs or insulin for cats was unthinkable. Oh, and they didn't live past 10. Now, they're pushing 16-20. Why? Because of increased willingness to spend on companion animal health. While I'd LOVE to bulk bill and put vet meds on the PBS, pet ownership is a privilege so vet care isn't a right like healthcare or electricity and shouldn't be subsidised by taxes paid by non-pet owners.

        While most vets will generally prefer you elect for that life-saving (but expensive) surgery, it's because we care about your animals, and no vet will criticise you for stopping within your budget. We have the lowest graduate salaries given the length and cost of our degrees, and you're already aware of the mental health problems in this industry. I understand the frustration of high vet bills because I felt them for years prior as a client ('$70 consult fee?!'), but if you actually bothered to understand this industry instead of fishing around this board for comments that fit your narrative and shooting down those that don't, you might learn a thing.

        I know this is OZB and we're all cheapskates of some flavour, but this thread is embarrassing. I honestly shudder to think what this forum would be like if we didn't have single-payer healthcare in Australia. It's obvious that you got stung by some vet bill and have been carrying this grievance for a while.

        • misspep on 28/12/2018 - 22:06
          +3

          You raise some good points :) How difficult it must be when animals can’t tell you their symptoms!

          • SydStrand on 28/12/2018 - 23:13
            +7

            @misspep: Thanks! I worked on the human side previously, so have some basis for comparison. The science is still the same, but the process is completely different. A human patient can tell you what they had the last 72 hours, recall symptoms and family history, point out new lumps or bumps, describe pain, etc. which all narrows differentials and excludes unnecessary tests.

            A dog comes in that's off-feed, vomiting, or lethargic, and the owner expects a definitive diagnosis from a physical exam. Seriously? Good luck even starting that without diagnostic tests. But suggest imaging or bloods and you have people like the OP complaining about costs. Recommend vet-specific drugs and get accused of being a corporate shill who's profiting off grief. Then listen to some wild conspiracy theory about how vet clinics buy X-ray machines (invariably refurbished units from human practices fyi) to boost profit margins.

            No one does this to make money and angry talks about cost are an unpleasant but unavoidable part of the job, but this thread offends me professionally. Any negative comment gets an immediate, encouraging invite to get in touch, while positive experiences are accused of being advertisements (I don't like what Greencross does to this industry so I don't exactly agree with who he's attacking, but I find his reply disrespectful). The OP pretends this is a balanced fact-finding mission, but it's obvious that he only wants those comments that fit his agenda. It's intellectually dishonest, then he shockingly asks what observer bias is. Investigative reporting worthy of Today Tonight. Maybe they'll squeeze him in between 'have dodgy builders rorted YOU?' and 'welfare cheats next door' expose.

    • whooah1979 on 26/12/2018 - 19:50
      +5

      Do you have any association with them?

      What Op meant to ask is "Are you a vet?".

      Surely someone that has an opinion or an experience that doesn't favour a formal inquiry must be vet or an agent for one the entities being targeted.

      • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 20:18
        -2

        Not at all, the people who have offered criticisms have identified their interest and it seems reasonable to ask those who are offering supportive views their own affiliation. So far none have been willing to disclose it.

        What's yours? All you seem to do here is try to tear my character down, you haven't offered a single constructive comment.

        The usual term for that sort of person is a "troll". Perhaps you've heard it before?

        • whooah1979 on 26/12/2018 - 20:47
          +3

          You've taken the time to read my posts. My opinion is rather clear.

          Every dollar the government spends on cases like this is one dollar less to spend on prosecuting other entities that's violating the ACL.

          The ACCC is currently going after a company that has been misleading their customers for years. It's estimated that they've profited millions of dollars because of this.

        • p1 ama on 26/12/2018 - 21:06
          +4

          Not at all, the people who have offered criticisms have identified their interest and it seems reasonable to ask those who are offering supportive views their own affiliation. So far none have been willing to disclose it.

          No, you have asked and everyone you have asked has disclosed that they have no affiliation. That just doesn't suit your narrative so you continue to say that they are not disclosing it. Be honest with yourself.

          • Craigminns on 26/12/2018 - 21:51
            -2

            @p1 ama: No, they haven't. Apart from yourself.

            When someone is offering a lengthy and glowing reference for the industry it is reasonable to ask them to disclose their interest, just as those who have offered criticisms or their own stories have done.

            Please don't misrepresent things, it does you no credit, whoever you are. There are enough trolls in this world.

            Anyway, I do believe I have everything useful likely to be offered here, so I'll bid you farewell.

            • misspep on 26/12/2018 - 22:38
              +1

              @Craigminns: Craigminns, did you bother to read my post? I have stated very clearly that I work in human health and that my only “association” is that I have friends working in the veterinary industry. I have not given a “glowing review”, I am offering you a comparison between human health and animal health, particularly government subsidy is often the reason why human health care is so affordable compared to animal health care. If you cannot afford care for your pets, then you do not deserve to have them.

              If you lived in Hong Kong, you would not benefit from a Medicare scheme and would be expected to fork out money directly for any kind of medical care or procedure. A colonoscopy here could cost you $500 (and this is expensive!); it would cost you $15K in Hong Kong.

              Your vet bill is nothing compared to the true cost of health care.

              • Craigminns on 27/12/2018 - 05:27
                -1

                @misspep: OK, so you are defending your friends. Fair enough, so am I. My best friend happens to be unable to defend himself and it seems that the people who claim to be the Protectors of those like him are more concerned about protecting their commercial arrangements.

                If I cannot afford to care for my pets simply because I am unable to access a competitive source of medication to the protected monopolised supply chain here in Australia and their care is of vital import, as you have said, then what is the next step? Euthanasia "in their best interest"? Does the veterinary profession not have a duty of care to ensure that the best care is available, or is that not a professional obligation they wish to take on? What about the RSPCA?

                You can't have it both ways.

                • misspep on 27/12/2018 - 08:32
                  +4

                  @Craigminns: Antibiotics will not fix your broken leg. Just pain relief alone will not fix your cancer. Again, you are clearly not a medical professional so therefore you do not understand that medication is not the end all of medicine.

                  Euthanasia is a whole other can of worms. It is considered an option in other countries, not in Australia and not for humans.

                  Vets have a duty of care as do human doctors. However, do you mean to then guilt trip vets into giving you medication and services for free, because you cannot afford it? If you are in the building industry, I have no home, I have no income, will you build me a house for free? Out of the goodness of your heart? You don’t need to make money, right?

                  • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 08:07
                    -3

                    @misspep: I have made an assessment of the advice and service my dog has been the beneficiary of and I am not impressed.

                    Please don't try to misrepresent my position. Seriously, it makes you look stupid.

                    • misspep on 28/12/2018 - 10:06
                      +5

                      @Craigminns: So by your above statement, ultimately your submission to the ACCC is driven by your dissatisfacfion with your vet and the high cost of treatment for your dog. Despite your claim that this is not a witch hunt, it blatantly is. Your dissatisfaction with your vet is not the ACCC’s problem. Thank you for pointing out my stupidity, I only studied and slaved 10 years and passed several exams to do what I do now :)

                • wordplay on 27/12/2018 - 10:39

                  @Craigminns: but what is the best care? Chemotherapy for all pets with cancer, should they be working on heart transplants for dogs and cats?

  • CMH on 26/12/2018 - 22:20
    +3

    I've just thought of one more thing:

    This is supposed to be "information gathering" for a submission to the ACCC in relation to breaches of the ACL within the veterinary industry. It sounds very official and noble, yet

    I am seeking evidence from all sides of the debate, that's the only way to arrive at the truth.

    So what are you trying to do? Are you:
    a) making a submission to the ACCC regarding a breach of law that you noticed so they can investigate and bring those responsible to justice; or
    b) playing judge in a case between the Veterinary industry vs The Public on OzBargain?
    c) writing an opinion piece for 60 minutes.

    You seem quite undecided. Did you, or did you not notice a breach of the ACL? Do you understand the ACL, the role of ACCC, the rules governing the vet industry? Exactly what rules have been broken here?

    At least a witch hunt has a clear charge against their victims (although their methods of procuring evidence is less than satisfactory).

    • p1 ama on 26/12/2018 - 23:31
      +3

      I think you're spot on here. When I was at the ACCC, many of my friends and family would approach me with suggestions of things that the ACCC should look into and usually, it's quite similar to what we see here.

      My take on it is that there are three issues:

      1) People don't really understand the role of the ACCC and what they do.
      2) People don't understand what economic regulation is and are generally ignorant about consumer law.
      3) People like to air grievances, much like filing complaints about neighbours.

      To address these points and think about where people go wrong,

      1) The ACCC is basically an enforcer. The analogy that I like to give is that the ACCC are very much like the police. They enforce the laws that are passed by parliament, they do not make their own rules as they go. People might want the police to lock up their next door neighbour, who by all accounts might be an annoying, difficult, unbearable bastard, but unless they have reasonable suspicion that he has committed a crime (which is very well defined), they cannot lock him up. The same thing goes for the ACCC. Just because a business is doing something people don't like doesn't mean they have broken the law (which is, again, very well defined). It's also important to point out that the majority of OP's complaints here are not even the domain of the ACCC. For example, how the AVA treats vets and the fact that vets have high suicide rates are concerning, but ultimately, that's not a competition law problem.

      2) Economic regulation is very well defined. There are very strict regulations that are imposed on certain industries (e.g. industries which are natural monopolies) and regulations imposed are usually rate of return regulations rather than any sort of strict price regulation. There is a lot of research done at the ACCC in terms of the effects that regulations have on markets. It's not as simple as to say that this is 'too expensive', so we're going to put a price cap on it. Many regulations can and do have harmful impacts on the broader economy. Economic modelling can help to answer many of these sorts of questions. Either way, it's not an issue that's taken lightly. Many times these sorts of enforcement decisions do end up in court where you will have expert economists and lawyers on both sides arguing the merits of imposing and not imposing certain regulations. In any case, the general public have very little idea of how to prove that competition law has been broken and how to remedy those situations. The team I worked with at the ACCC were economic specialist, all of whom had PhD's in economics from top Australian (and overseas) universities. The analysis required to substantiate these sorts of claims are very high level. One of the most famous investigations that finished up as I entered the ACCC was price fixing in petrol markets. The data was analysed over a period of many years and the project took almost an entire year to complete with a dedicated team.

      3) Whilst many grievances may be legitimate, the ACCC does not deal with civil cases. Just like you do not go to the police because your next door neighbour borrowed $50 off you and now isn't paying you back, the ACCC cannot help with civil cases where no consumer law has been broken, but you might just otherwise be ripped off. People tend to believe that the ACCC is there to protect them, and whilst that might be true to some extent, they are there to enforce consumer law.

      My understanding of why these issues happen is because people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, as good as their intentions may be. I think what's going on here is what you describe in b) and c). There's a reason why we no longer have public trials like they do in the Colosseum in ancient Rome.

      • CMH on 27/12/2018 - 00:45
        +1

        I think OP's first intention was to start collecting evidence for a submission to the ACCC. Which in itself is fine.

        However I believe OP failed to understand exactly what case he's making, and therefore the sort of evidence he needs.

        You (p1 ama) have tried to explain to him his mistake, and a good post you made too! Unfortunately OP took that as an attack on his quest, rather than as an eye-opener on the depth of his issue because you really opened up the amount of work creating a submission ACCC would take seriously.

        Personally I'd like to see how far this can go, although for the life of me I can't see any problems with the industry as it is (other than the high cost, which imo is fully justified as I've got an insight on the workings of the (human) health industry in general).

        • p1 ama on 27/12/2018 - 01:29
          +1

          I agree, the reason I responded (and still am) is because I do think that OP has good intentions. But it's clear that OP doesn't have the expertise (and perhaps the maturity) to actually flesh this out.

          However, my feeling is that this will not go very far. My experience and intuition tells me that there is that no economic/legal case has been made. I think OP is feeling dissatisfied more than anything, he probably genuinely thinks vets charge too much and the entire world agrees with him. That might be the case, but again, it doesn't imply anything wrong (which is what OP doesn't seem to get).

          The other stuff is all fluff that will be thrown out. Most of the discussion has shifted to the moral aspects of pet ownership and whether it is a right or privilege…etc. All that's an interesting discussion, but ultimately, completely irrelevant to the context of competition law.

          • Craigminns on 27/12/2018 - 05:03
            -4

            @p1 ama: Thank you so much for the concerns about my "maturity". It's lovely to know that someone cares…

            As to competition law, like all other law it is fundamentally about the ethical principles which underlie it.

            Your claim that intent is not relevant is at direct odds with the concept of mens rea. You might look that up for your interest. I really think you should stick to whatever subject it is that you have expertise in. It clearly isn't the Law or economics, but I thank you for your assistance.

            • payton on 27/12/2018 - 16:12
              +4

              @Craigminns:

              Thank you so much for the concerns about my "maturity". It's lovely to know that someone cares…

              You're just proving p1 ama's point, right there on your response
              lack of maturity over something trivial

            • p1 ama on 27/12/2018 - 18:19
              +3

              @Craigminns:

              Thank you so much for the concerns about my "maturity". It's lovely to know that someone cares…

              I care because I'd hate to see for all of your hard work (and also my hard work now, given the time I've spent responding) to go to waste. Your tendency to make very generalising statements (including reducing complex matters to very basic analogies), your lack of knowledge about the law and basic economic principles and your ignorance about economic regulation means that if you were to give evidence in any forum that mattered, you would easily be skewered by a competent lawyer.

              As to competition law, like all other law it is fundamentally about the ethical principles which underlie it.

              You are confusing the political and judicial processes. What the law ought to be and what fundamentally informs the law is a political issue. You vote for the representatives who you believe will enact laws that you agree with.

              The judicial process does not care about the "ethical principles" which underlie the law or what the law should be. The judicial process cares about what the law is. E.g. if you go to court accused of running a red light, whether running a red light is "ethical" or not is not what the judge is basing their decision off of.

              Your claim that intent is not relevant is at direct odds with the concept of mens rea.

              No, the intent of people on a public internet forum has nothing to do with intent when it comes to a criminal case (in the sense of manslaughter vs. murder).

              I really think you should stick to whatever subject it is that you have expertise in. It clearly isn't the Law or economics

              I have graduate level degrees in economics and have been a practicing economist in the public and private sectors. I've taught economics to thousands of students at more than one major Australian university. I've worked alongside people who are world experts in the field of regulation, many of whom I consider to be my mentors, colleagues, and personal friends.

              I have worked in teams where every member holds a PhD in economics from top Australian (and worldwide) universities. I have colleagues who have graduated from universities which are consistently ranked in the top 5 universities in the world. I have worked on cases involving vertical integration, tacit collusion, oligopolistic markets…etc.

              This goes back to misspep's original point. You are a hypocrite. You have demanded that other people reveal their "motivations", their qualifications, questioned other people's expertise, all the whilst not revealing a thing about what background you have.

              • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 08:16
                -3

                @p1 ama: I've repeatedly offered you the chance to get in touch via email. So far you haven't done so.

                The offer stands.

                • payton on 28/12/2018 - 11:10
                  +4

                  @Craigminns: what kind of a cop out is that??
                  he/she doesn't work for you
                  p1 ama already wrote a lot of help for you, and the arrogance in your reply was just at a crackpot level.

                  Apparently you think people should just email you details because you give them your word
                  https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/6763870/redir
                  https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/6762908/redir

                  yet …
                  https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/6768983/redir

                  This goes back to misspep's original point. You are a hypocrite. You have demanded that other people reveal their "motivations", their qualifications, questioned other people's expertise, all the whilst not revealing a thing about what background you have.

                  OP, please address the key issue which you've avoided for so long

                • CMH on 28/12/2018 - 11:50
                  +2

                  @Craigminns: Can you explain the difference between responding here, where others may share in the knowledge learnt, and responding via email?

                  There's also the added advantage that if the advice is wrong people will quickly come to correct it

                  • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 13:54
                    -3

                    @CMH: Sure, I've tried to make the discussion as open as possible, but an email response may be appropriate in discussing matters of law to facilitate a more open and honest discussion. Most of what has been posted by those claiming to want to discuss the legal aspects has been little more than polemic and smear, using some old familiar techniques, like the so-called "Gish gallop".

                    I set the thread up to gather evidence, as I have made clear. I set out some aspects of the legal situation as I see it in order to establish some context for the request.

                    I'm open to being persuaded the arguments have no merit, but not as a public display. One of the best ways to scare people off coming forward is the presence of a self-described expert playing Aunt Sally.

                    • p1 ama on 28/12/2018 - 14:53
                      +4

                      @Craigminns:

                      Sure, I've tried to make the discussion as open as possible, but an email response may be appropriate in discussing matters of law to facilitate a more open and honest discussion.

                      This is at odds with what you are doing. All throughout, you've repeatedly said that you are transparent, that you wish to learn about stories from the public, that you wish to make your report publicly available, that you have nothing to hide…etc.

                      I've tried to stick to those ideals because I believe in them as well. Anybody on this forum can read my posts and can agree or disagree with what I've said based on the merits of what I'm saying. The truth is the truth.

                      Most of what has been posted by those claiming to want to discuss the legal aspects has been little more than polemic and smear, using some old familiar techniques, like the so-called "Gish gallop".

                      Not really, you haven't laid out any legal case. I'll ask a simple question you haven't been able to answer.

                      Which vet is breaking the law and which law is being broken?

                      If you cannot answer that question, you have no legal case. You cannot accuse the "veterinary industry" of something, that's the equivalent of accusing "black people" or "men" or "homeless people"…etc.

                      I'm open to being persuaded the arguments have no merit, but not as a public display.

                      You haven't laid out any arguments for anyone to persuade you that they have no merit.

                      One of the best ways to scare people off coming forward is the presence of a self-described expert playing Aunt Sally.

                      Come on Craig, be honest with yourself. Don't play this victim complex. Nobody is trying to scare you off from coming forward with anything. It's a public internet forum where people are throwing around ideas. Don't pretend like anybody here can stop you from submitting whatever it is you wish to submit.

                    • CMH on 28/12/2018 - 15:46
                      +3

                      @Craigminns:

                      an email response may be appropriate in discussing matters of law to facilitate a more open and honest discussion.

                      This sentence contradicts itself.

                      How is a private email that cannot be seen by anyone else be more open than a public forum?

                      Or is it more honest because you can then hide your responses?

                      Or do you think others are hiding their true thoughts because it's on an open forum, and they fear reprisal?

                      One of the best ways to scare people off coming forward is the presence of a self-described expert playing Aunt Sally.

                      I can agree with this. People might not post if they think they will be open to criticism or ridicule.

                      However you're asking people who are already posting to contact you via e-mail. Why?

                  • misspep on 28/12/2018 - 22:20
                    +2

                    @CMH: Just a thought - maybe yourself and p1 ama should copy and paste your posts and email them to craigminns. Then let us know the difference between his response via email and on this forum. 🤣

        • Craigminns on 27/12/2018 - 04:59
          -5

          Thanks for imputing my motivations, I do believe I've made them quite clear. As I have explained several times, this is an evidence-gathering exercise, not a witch-hunt and I believe I have been even-handed.

          Look at it this way: when the police are investigating an incident, they want to understand if any witnesses may be providing tainted evidence because of their association with the accused. The source of evidence provides a "discount" factor on its credibility. Anonymous tip-offs are assessed on the balance of probability as to their usefulness in the light of information already known. Similarly, a reluctance to provide evidence is itself a source of information. It may not be conclusive, but it is a factor that must be analysed as to significance. Criminal gangs are adept at intimidating witnesses, for example.

          I appreciate p1 ama's efforts to "educate" me, although if s/he really wanted to assist my email address has been widely advertised. An attempt to publicly discredit my case, not on the basis of the evidence or even the reasoning, along with an unsupported claim of special expertise is not convincing.

          My advice to those who may have an interest in preserving the status quo is to demonstrate, with evidence, that my claims are baseless and that the current model is at least as good as a properly externally regulated model might be. I wish them the best of British luck in their efforts.

          • misspep on 27/12/2018 - 15:48
            +7

            @Craigminns: Did you want p1 ama to produce a copy of his degree in economics? P1 ama’s initial advice was well worded, intelligent and made plenty of sense. I am not a lawyer or economist but even I can see that he offers constructive criticism, which was for your benefit. Whether you take that on board is entirely up to you.

            • CMH on 27/12/2018 - 18:46
              +4

              @misspep: If you check every single post up, he only asks for "motivations", qualifications, etc if you disagree with him.

              If you agree with him those things don't matter.

              • p1 ama on 27/12/2018 - 20:33
                +1

                @CMH:

                If you check every single post up, he only asks for "motivations", qualifications, etc if you disagree with him.

                The funny thing is I don't even disagree with him!

                • CMH on 27/12/2018 - 20:51

                  @p1 ama: Actually I neither agree nor disagree with him, but as noted in another post I think he's just going about it all wrong.

                  I'm still here because trainwrecks like these tend to be quite fun to follow.

                  • ankor on 28/12/2018 - 08:50
                    +1

                    @CMH: When you combine a severe educational deficit, hypocrisy, a big ego and irrational paranoia it's quite the spectacle.

                • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 14:06

                  @p1 ama: Well, get in touch. Or do so even if you do, I'd like to learn more either way. Stand up and be counted.

              • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 14:02

                @CMH: Not at all. I've asked those on both sides to offer their evidence with support. I'll look at all of that evidence and make up my own mind, then publish the results for comment before submission. If anybody has constructive critique at that point, I'll revise the submission. This isn't a committee.

            • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 13:59
              -1

              @misspep: I'd simply like a chance to discuss the matters fully. If the person had sufficient courage of their convictions to stand in the open, rather than behind a wall of anonymity, it would add some credibility and off a cogent defence I'd be happy to engage. Anonymous defenders of a questionable status quo aren't the best advisors. Who are you, for example, what's your interest?

              I'm glad you think the advice is constructive. I'm not yet convinced.

              • misspep on 28/12/2018 - 15:14
                +5

                @Craigminns: You go round and round in circles. We’ve said who we are and our interests. Who are YOU? What’s your background? What field do you work in? This, too, goes both ways.

                Although, at the end of the day, the ACCC won’t give two hoots about who you are, your pay check, the context of how/why you were dissatisfied with your vet bills and the fact that you couldn’t afford your Trocoxil for your dog. They will only care, as many have already told you here, if you can prove which vet is breaking consumer/competition law and how.

                • p1 ama on 28/12/2018 - 18:41
                  +8

                  @misspep: Haha, you're too patient. But you're spot on - the question that needs to be answered is exactly which vet is breaking the law and how.

                  Let me replay an analogous situation:

                  Craigminns: I want to file a report about person X.
                  Police: What did person X do?
                  Craigminns: Person X is very poor, there's an incentive for him to rob from me.
                  Police: Did he rob from you?
                  Craigminns: Who are you? What interest do you have? Why are you defending the status quo?
                  Police: So did he rob from you?
                  Craigminns: I'd just like to discuss the matter fully. I'm just gathering evidence.
                  Police: Evidence for what? What did he do?
                  Craigminns: I gave him a chance to defend himself, but he didn't say anything.
                  Police: …
                  Craigminns: As I have explained several times, this is an evidence-gathering exercise, not a witch-hunt and I believe I have been even-handed.

                  If he can't see how ridiculous this is, then I have no hope.

              • p1 ama on 28/12/2018 - 18:36
                +3

                @Craigminns:

                Anonymous defenders of a questionable status quo aren't the best advisors. Who are you, for example, what's your interest?

                I question that - anonymity is a two-edged sword. You bring up one side of it, but on the other side, it allows facts to be stated without being clouded by who is saying it.

                Facts are facts are facts are facts, regardless of who says them. You can completely detest someone and think anything of them you will, but if they say 1 + 3 = 4, they are right.

                I'm glad you think the advice is constructive. I'm not yet convinced.

                If you want to succeed in what you're doing, you need to drop the ego. If this does end up being an investigation and you are involved, you will need to learn to work with people. If you want to succeed, you need to learn off others and take onboard advice where you can. That's from personal experience.

      • Craigminns on 27/12/2018 - 05:20
        -4

        Thanks for an interesting response. There has been no "trial" here, merely an open airing of opinions and experiences. The feedback has been interesting.

        I'm very well aware of the possible implications of flow-on effects, which is why I am considering asking the ACCC to make an investigation in the public interest and for an open enquiry to be held. It's the flow on effects of of unforeseen consequences that have lead to this as I have explained.

        If there is nothing for the industry to fear from such an enquiry, I'm sure they would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the value of their service to the community in clear and unequivocal terms.

        I've offered that opportunity both here and in direct correspondence and the offer has been declined in favour of the smear and some rather juvenile attempts to obfuscate the issues. Perhaps the more experienced crisis managers were away for their Christmas holidays.

        Thank you for the advice, I will, as with all the advice offered, take it into consideration in deciding the best course of action.

        If any of the parties I have mentioned think they have a case to make that I have defamed them they are welcome to try to make it. I should remind them, however, that asking questions is not, in itself, a prima facie cause for action.

        • p1 ama on 27/12/2018 - 12:12
          +4

          If there is nothing for the industry to fear from such an enquiry, I'm sure they would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the value of their service to the community in clear and unequivocal terms.

          People don't prove their innocence. It's up to you to prove their guilt.

          Anyway, make your submission, nobody's stopping you. You said you'd make it public, we haven't seen anything so far.

        • CMH on 27/12/2018 - 13:34
          +6

          a reluctance to provide evidence is itself a source of information

          An attempt to publicly discredit my case, not on the basis of the evidence or even the reasoning

          You are trying to prove they are guilty, not the other way around.

          Thanks for imputing my motivations, I do believe I've made them quite clear.

          Really? I still can't figure it out. You say they're guilty, you're looking for evidence of this, and then you put this next quote down:

          I'm sure they would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the value of their service to the community

          That's not your job to allow them to defend themselves. It's not even ACCC's job. I don't think it's anyone but the community's own purse. If the community doesn't value the service they won't pay for it.

          You want to create a submission to ACCC. NOBODY is stopping you. In fact the worst you could say is we're discouraging, but even then it's a strong word. We point out at every step what you OUGHT to do, and even give our reasoning for it.

          Nobody is saying you're defaming anything. Not even close.

          In fact I'd like to see your final submission to the ACCC. I really do hope you post it up here, together with any correspondence you receive.

  • seefu on 27/12/2018 - 09:01

    Well my one sounds familiar with the pharmacy and vet-prescribed drugs.

    My wife is a pharmacist and every time we go to the vet, they'll prescribe something (usually broad-spectrum antibiotics or something, which are usually very cheap at a pharmacy, ~$10-12). The vet wanted to charge us ~$45 for those antibiotics so wife said we'll pick them up at a pharmacy. The vet then said they'll have to charge a prescribing fee of ~$30 in that case.. We ended up just getting it from the vet to save the hassle of having to go somewhere else afterwards..

  • roofyapple on 27/12/2018 - 09:54
    +1

    One thing that gets me is pet insurance costs are also unbelievably high and coverage is low. There was one year where the pet insurance for one of my dogs when up 3 times! I can't switch due to the pre existing medication condition clause. My pet insurance costs more than my only PHI.

    • whooah1979 on 27/12/2018 - 10:14
      +1

      There is an old ozbargain saying that if one can't afford insurance, then they can't afford to drive it. This may apply to other things.

    • Baghern on 28/12/2018 - 01:00

      not enough people take pet insurance to spread the costs…

      If under 40s could have their own insurance and exclude old people, there insurance would be less than half

  • Geryatric on 27/12/2018 - 14:56

    Businesses charge what the market will support. It’s economics 101. Large influx of minted internationals - same demographic driving up the property prices.

    Know a couple that just paid $50k for a puppy.

  • payton on 27/12/2018 - 16:31

    Hi OP, interesting topic to say the least
    Given the scale of the task, you may be better off contacting consumer advocates eg Choice or journalists to see if they would look into this. I'd imagine some of their members been overcharged by vets, plumbers, vulture tow truck operators, etc thus this would be of interest to them to investigate

    People may be more willing to relay the specifics of their experiences to the above people.
    I feel you'll need a lot of hard details if anything positive is to come out of this.

    edit:
    https://www.choice.com.au/outdoor/pets/health/articles/veter…

    • Baghern on 28/12/2018 - 01:01

      The ACCC has given him a task hoping he would go away

      • payton on 28/12/2018 - 11:27
        +1

        yeah when he wrote "I've been invited by the ACCC to prepare a formal submission" I did a double take and found out ACCC have already said its not a matter for them, and the 'invitation' was a standard reply.

        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.

        • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 14:08
          -1

          Ah, now I've got ideas above my station. Nice…

    • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 14:23
      -1

      Cheers, Choice is on the list. I'd welcome support from anyone interested in getting at the truth, whether they agree with me or not.

  • ClarissaO on 27/12/2018 - 22:24

    We all know that vet fees are high.(NO we don't) In my view there are several reasons for this.

    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 NO

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. NOT TRUE

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. NOT TRUE

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. NOPE

There is no independent oversight of veterinary practise. It is self-regulated. DUH EACH STATE HAS A VET SURGEONS' BOARD

Individual vets have a strong incentive to advocate for the use of expensive equipment they have leased or purchased. NOPE HOW DARE THEY RUN A BUSINESS

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. YOUR OPINION IS NOT A FACT

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. NOPE AGAIN

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

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. IF THIS IS TRUE IT IS BECAUSE OF PPL LIKE YOU M8
    • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 14:22
      -3

      Thanks Clarissa. I'm sure that for some the fees are not questioned. For example if your next big consumer decision is the new BMW vs the Mercedes, then a piddling few hundred isn't much. On the other hand, if you think it would be nice to be able to afford to buy a 10 year old Hyundai, then spending even a couple of bucks extra on vet bills is a serious imposition.

      If people don't contextualise their responses, especially those saying they are happy for some reason, they come across as advertorials. Context matters.

  • mattyman on 28/12/2018 - 01:38

    Did you create an account in here just to drum up support for your cause? Wouldn't change.org be a more appropriate forum for this sort of thing?

    • Craigminns on 28/12/2018 - 14:15

      If need be.

      • CMH on 28/12/2018 - 15:50

        I would also suggest change.org. It's definitely a more appropriate site designed to get people who think alike to join your cause.

        In a site like OzBargain or Whirlpool you're going to get a lot of tangents, to put it mildly. However unlike you I can see the merits of opposing trains of thought and constructive criticism.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join