Unpacking the CMA Report: Transparency or Tipping Point? (#411)

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in the United Kingdom released its long-awaited report on the veterinary sector today (15 October 2025), and it’s already making headlines.

The key takeaway?

Vets should be required to:

• Publish their prices

  
  

• Disclose their corporate affiliations, and

  
  

• Make it easier for pet owners to compare costs and access cheaper medicines online.

  
  

On the surface, that sounds entirely reasonable. Transparency is good for any profession.But beneath the headlines lies a complex and uneven playing field that the CMA report doesn’t fully address.

Two Veterinary Worlds: Corporate vs Independent

By law in the UK, independent practices must buy their medicines from approved wholesalers.

That sounds fair enough until you realize that those wholesalers often sell to the corporate groups at huge volume discounts.

Those same corporate groups may own the online pharmacies that undercut independents. Pharmacies from which independent practices are not legally allowed to purchase pharmaceuticals.

Here’s an absurd example cited by the owner of an independent specialty practice in the UK, whose own dog requires daily Apoquel tablets. You’d assume he would buy the medications through his practice’s approved wholesaler. But, it’s actually cheaper for him to purchase the drug as a regular customer from an online pharmacy, owned by a large veterinary group.

That single example captures the essence of this imbalance.

The big six corporates enjoy economies of scale, vertical integration, and buying power that independents simply can’t match.

The CMA’s recommendations, while intended to protect consumers, may ironically entrench these advantages even further.

The Price Paradox

The CMA found that vet prices have risen 63% over the past seven years, nearly twice the rate of inflation.

It also reported that large group-owned practices charge 16.6% more on average than independents.

Price transparency may indeed help pet owners to shop around, but it doesn’t address why costs vary so widely. A small independent clinic in a rural area can’t compete with a multi-site corporation in bulk purchasing or equipment leasing. Yet both must meet the same stringent safety, staffing, and legal standards, from radiation protection to anesthesia monitoring.

For example, a BBC Radio 4 caller from Italy mentioned that Italian vets don’t charge for sedating dogs during X-rays. They simply hold the dog still. In the UK, that’s illegal under radiation safety law. UK technicians are rightly protected from daily ionizing radiation exposure. These regulatory obligations cost money, and they exist to keep both animals and people safe.

Who’s Regulated, and Who Isn’t

One welcome recommendation from the CMA report is to regulate business owners, not just individual vets and nurses.

The current system, dating back to 1966, regulates the professional conduct of veterinary clinicians and nurses, but not the corporations that own most of the UK’s veterinary practices.

That loophole has allowed investors and private equity firms to build vast networks of clinics under different brand names, often without the public realizing they all belong to the same parent company.

The CMA is right to demand disclosure of ownership. Clients deserve to know whether they’re visiting an independent practice or part of a multinational group.

Transparency Without Oversimplification

The British Veterinary Association supports greater transparency but warns against simplistic solutions.

Publishing full price lists, for example, sounds great. But veterinary medicine isn’t a standardized commodity. Every patient, procedure, and outcome is unique. A single price for a procedure like dental work or cruciate repair doesn’t capture the complexity of anesthetic risks, diagnostics, or postoperative care.

Unless handled thoughtfully, price publication could mislead rather than enlighten consumers.

Where Do We Go from Here?

In the months ahead, stakeholders, including independent vets, will be invited to comment on the CMA’s provisional findings before a final decision next year. Implementation is expected by the end of 2026, with smaller clinics granted more time to comply.

As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: transparency should not come at the expense of sustainability.

If independents are squeezed out by regulatory and pricing pressures, clients will have fewer choices. And prices may rise even further.

In short, the CMA’s intentions may be commendable, but unless the system recognizes the structural differences between corporate and independent practices, the profession risks creating more inequality in the very market it’s trying to fix.

Rick’s Commentary

Veterinary medicine is not a luxury service; it’s a critical part of animal welfare and public health.

The goal should be a fair, transparent system that rewards skill, integrity, and care. Not just economies of scale.

As ever, the devil is in the detail.

And in this case, the costs of veterinary care may just rise more once the smoke clears.

Source

Understanding the CMA’s provisional decision in its vets market investigation. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-the-cmas-provisional-decision-in-its-vets-market-investigation

RCVS responds to CMA's provisional decision. https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/rcvs-responds-to-cmas-provisional-decision/?utm_source=informz&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rcvs&&&type=rfst&set=true#cookie-widget

#bunyipsbooksbeyond