Price Transparency in Veterinary Practice: Promises and pitfalls (#420)

On 15 October 2025, the UK Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) released its provisional decision in the veterinary market investigation.

Among 21 proposed remedies: mandatory publication of price lists, clearer ownership disclosure, itemized bills, a cap on prescription-writing fees (proposed at £16), and support for a national price-comparison service.

Final decisions are slated by March 2026, with staged implementation thereafter.

The Upside: Why publishing vet prices could help

• Informed choice & trust

  
  

  • Standardized, visible price lists (consult fees, vaccinations, common surgeries, diagnostics) may reduce the phone-around fog, help owners plan, and may rebuild confidence in a sector the CMA says has outdated rules and unclear pricing.

• Competitive pressure on routine items

  
  

  • Transparent fees for high-volume services (e.g., booster vaccinations, spay/neuter, dental scale & polish, microchip) might sharpen competition and curb the above-inflation increases the CMA documented (about 63% from 2016–2023).

• Medicines & prescriptions clarity

  
  

  • The CMA highlights large differentials between practice-dispensed medications and online pharmacies.

    
    

  • A cap on prescription-writing fees plus clear statements of owners’ right to a written script might reduce surprises.

• Ownership transparency

  
  

  • Making group ownership clear may help owners compare like with like and understand potential supply-chain or referral incentives.

• System-level data

  
  

  • If price lists feed a comparison site, policymakers and the profession may gain a view of regional variation and access issues, which may be useful for workforce, out-of-hours, and urgent-care planning.

The Downside: Where well-meant transparency may backfire

• Sticker-price distortion for complex care

  
  

  • Vets treat an enormous variety of cases, from triage-to-theatre, across species, breeds, and comorbidities.

    
    

  • Simple menus risk anchoring owners on a base fee and underestimating diagnostics, analgesia, consumables, and post-op care, potentially increasing disputes. (The CMA also proposes stronger complaints processes, but the tension remains).

• Race-to-the-bottom on routine items

  
  

  • Headline prices may fall while non-headline items (e.g., consumables, hospitalization) may creep up, or care is de-scoped to meet an advertised tariff.

    
    

  • This effect has been seen in other transparency drives, if not paired with quality/outcome data.

• Administrative burden, especially for small practices

  
  

  • Publishing, maintaining, and explaining price lists (plus feeding a comparison portal) adds workload; CMA signals extra time for small businesses, but capacity remains a concern.

• Geographic cost realities.

  
  

  • Transparent lists won’t remove London-vs-rural cost spreads (staffing, premises, Out-Of-Hours provision).

    
    

  • Without context, higher-cost areas can look unfair despite legitimate inputs.

• Medicines margin compression without offsets

  
  

  • If prescription fees are capped and owners shop medications elsewhere, practices may need to rebalance consulting or procedure fees to remain viable, especially where drug margins help cross-subsidize unprofitable services (e.g., 24/7 cover).

How this compares to human healthcare in the UK

The National Health Service is a public system. Patients rarely shop on price. The NHS Payment Scheme sets unit/guide prices paid to providers and publishes the methodology and prices annually. That’s system-level price transparency, not consumer price-shopping.

Costs are largely invisible to patients at the point of use, and tariffs aim to reflect complexity (Healthcare Resource Groups case-mix system).

After the 2014 CMA private healthcare investigation, the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN) was mandated to publish consultant fees and hospital performance indicators. Consultants must submit typical fees for common consultations/procedures; hospitals supply data that PHIN publishes for comparison. Enforcement has been ongoing to improve compliance. This is the closest human-health analogue to what the CMA now proposes for vets.

Key differences that matter

• Who pays?

  
  

  • NHS patients don’t price-shop; most pet owners do, out-of-pocket.

    
    

  • Vet transparency therefore directly affects consumer decisions in a way NHS tariffs do not.

• Case-mix signalling

  
  

  • The NHS bundles complexity into tariffs and adjusts payments; consumer price lists risk oversimplifying complex veterinary episodes unless paired with scope notes, ranges, or estimates.

    
    

• Quality data

  
  

  • In private human care, price data comes with quality/performance metrics via PHIN.

    
    

  • For vets, the CMA is focused on price and ownership first.

    
    

  • Without credible outcome/proxy quality measures, owners might equate cheaper with better value when it may be less comprehensive.

Practical suggestions (for the CMA and the profession)

• Publish ranges + scope notes, not just single prices.

• For example,

  
  

  • Canine spay: £X–£Y, includes pre-operative bloods, IV fluids, analgesia, Elizabethan collar; excludes treatment of concurrent illness.

    
    

• That mirrors how many NHS tariffs embed scope.

• Require written estimates over a threshold (CMA floats £500) and itemized bills

  
  

  • Both are already in the provisional package

• Pair price with context

  
  

  • Display Out-Of-Hours availability, staffing (RVNs, certificate holders), and anesthesia & analgesia protocols as proxies for quality until outcome measures mature.

• Phase-in and support small practices

  
  

  • Provide templates and update cadences, with longer run-in for independents, as the CMA indicates.

• Medicines transparency without harming care

  
  

  • Cap prescription fees as proposed, but also standardize medications counselling so owners understand bioequivalence, cold-chain needs, and when practice-dispensed medications add safety/convenience value.

Rick's Commentary

Requiring vets to publish prices may be a useful step toward clarity and fairer competition, especially for routine care and prescriptions.

But unlike the NHS, where prices are published for commissioners, not patients, pet owners will act on these prices directly. If transparency is rolled out without quality context, scope notes, and careful phasing, it could distort care, undervalue complexity, and strain small practices.

Done well, as learned from PHIN’s journey in private human healthcare, the CMA’s plan may improve trust and access without sacrificing clinical standards.

The details of implementation, and the profession’s proactive engagement, will decide whether we get sunlight and better care, or just brighter price tags.

Key Sources

CMA provisional decision & gov.uk explainer; Reuters/FT/Guardian coverage of the proposals and timelines; NHS Payment Scheme documentation; PHIN/CMA materials on private healthcare fee publication.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond