Veterinarians, geese and golden eggs
I've hesitated to write about this because I don't want readers to think I'm hard hearted or cheap. Well, I am cheap, but not when it would hurt my pet. I'm definitely cynical.
This is our dog, who shall be known as Gassy Girl here. We adopted her when she was four years old from some neighbors who neglected her badly from the time she was a puppy and who thought moving out of state was a perfectly logical reason to get rid of her. She's the sweetest dog we've ever had, and we've been especially glad we've had her since our other dog died a few years ago.
We spoil her rotten to make up for the neglect she endured before we got her. We're responsible pet owners—we take her for annual exams, we get all her shots, we feed her expensive dog food, we buy her license every year, we take her to the vet when we think something might be wrong with her and we do whatever the vet tells us we need to do for her.
But in the past few years I've begun to suspect the vet is more interested in profits than our pets.
When our beloved 10-year-old German shepherd acted sick one Saturday a few years ago, we took him to the vet. The vet said he was "in crisis" and told us to take him to the animal hospital because the office was getting ready to close for the weekend. In the next several days, our dog had every test anyone could think of done to him at both the hospital and the vet's office—ultrasounds, EKGs, blood tests for toxins and infections, a biopsy, you name it. They even did exploratory surgery, and I still feel bad that he had to endure the pain from that for nothing. The vet told us we had to take him back to the animal hospital every night.
After several days of intensive testing and nights in the hospital, our dog died. Even with all those tests, the vet was never able to tell us what caused his death, much less prevent or delay it. The bills for the vet and the animal hospital for those few days reached more than $3,000.
I have vowed to never go to the animal emergency hospital again. You can't even bring your pet in until they have a credit card number and your signature. Apparently the local vets all stopped caring for animals after hours once the animal hospital opened (do they get kickbacks for referrals?). Once you've agreed to pay whatever you're charged, you have no control over what services they decide need to be provided during the time your pet is there; that's where our dog had numerous ultrasounds and EKGs that revealed nothing. Our experience showed there is no relationship between money spent and outcome there. I couldn't believe John Ensign was actually bragging in his campaign ads about starting the first animal emergency hospital in Nevada. He should be embarrassed.
It wasn't that long ago that all these things were not available for pets. Our first German shepherd had hip dysplasia, and our vet just told us to give him aspirin. He lived to be 13 and a half. And we fed him cheaper dog food (Purina), too! Now owners of pets with hip dysplasia are expected to pay for hip replacements and are told they are cruel if they don't.
Now that all of these things are available, vets assume we don't mind paying for them. They imply that if we love our pet we'll fork over whatever they charge for whatever they suggest. And most of us do.
But it's getting out of hand. I just get the feeling the vet is looking for every opportunity to make a profit off us. I know there's pet insurance, but Consumer Reports says it's not worth it, and I'm afraid if pet insurance catches on the prices will go up even faster.
I've found I can get Rimadyl at 1-800-PetMeds for about $75. With free shipping. (See what I mean about not trusting the vet? He told us we wouldn't be able to find it any cheaper while he's making at least a 25% profit on it.) But we'll still have to get the $98 blood panel every 6 months to get the necessary prescription from the vet.
Wait, there's more. During our office visit for Gassy Girl's movement-related pain, the vet for some reason decided to look in her eye and discovered a tiny speck on her eyeball (it must not have been there during her annual exam?). He wants to refer her to an ophthalmologist if it gets bigger. There are animal ophthalmologists now? What do they do, and what do they charge? Will our vet get a kickback?
I know pet rescue organizations have a hard time getting people to adopt middle-aged and older pets, and I'm sure vet bills are a major reason for this. Frankly, Gassy Girl is probably the last pet we'll ever own—not because we're cheap and certainly not because we've stopped loving animals but simply because we can't afford it any more. As prices keep rising and new tests and treatments keep becoming available and vets find new ways to make their businesses more profitable, I expect a lot of other people will be making the same decision. The vets might be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
As I reach the end of this rant, I realize it sounds as if I'm saying I don't want veterinarians to research new ways to help our pets. I can see how foolish it would be if I felt that way. I don't like the way it complicates decision making about our pets, but it's human nature to keep learning and improving things. I realize many of the innovations in veterinary care have kept beloved pets alive longer and, more important, improved the quality of their lives in some instances.
But I do want veterinarians to use some restraint. I want them to present options instead of taking advantage of people who love their pets by telling them the most profitable course of testing and treatment is the only humane thing to do.
More views on vet bills
This is our dog, who shall be known as Gassy Girl here. We adopted her when she was four years old from some neighbors who neglected her badly from the time she was a puppy and who thought moving out of state was a perfectly logical reason to get rid of her. She's the sweetest dog we've ever had, and we've been especially glad we've had her since our other dog died a few years ago.We spoil her rotten to make up for the neglect she endured before we got her. We're responsible pet owners—we take her for annual exams, we get all her shots, we feed her expensive dog food, we buy her license every year, we take her to the vet when we think something might be wrong with her and we do whatever the vet tells us we need to do for her.
But in the past few years I've begun to suspect the vet is more interested in profits than our pets.
When our beloved 10-year-old German shepherd acted sick one Saturday a few years ago, we took him to the vet. The vet said he was "in crisis" and told us to take him to the animal hospital because the office was getting ready to close for the weekend. In the next several days, our dog had every test anyone could think of done to him at both the hospital and the vet's office—ultrasounds, EKGs, blood tests for toxins and infections, a biopsy, you name it. They even did exploratory surgery, and I still feel bad that he had to endure the pain from that for nothing. The vet told us we had to take him back to the animal hospital every night.
After several days of intensive testing and nights in the hospital, our dog died. Even with all those tests, the vet was never able to tell us what caused his death, much less prevent or delay it. The bills for the vet and the animal hospital for those few days reached more than $3,000.
I have vowed to never go to the animal emergency hospital again. You can't even bring your pet in until they have a credit card number and your signature. Apparently the local vets all stopped caring for animals after hours once the animal hospital opened (do they get kickbacks for referrals?). Once you've agreed to pay whatever you're charged, you have no control over what services they decide need to be provided during the time your pet is there; that's where our dog had numerous ultrasounds and EKGs that revealed nothing. Our experience showed there is no relationship between money spent and outcome there. I couldn't believe John Ensign was actually bragging in his campaign ads about starting the first animal emergency hospital in Nevada. He should be embarrassed.
Painful decisions
Now little Gassy Girl is 10, and Mr. Ann thought she looked stiff and sore. Off we went to our friendly vet, and this is what it has cost us so far: exam, $39 (reasonable, even though she just had her annual exam a few months ago); 2 weeks' worth of Rimadyl, $52.95; "liver test" after 2 weeks on Rimadyl, which suddenly became a full blood panel, $98.05, and 1-month supply of Rimadyl, $99.45 (after being told it would be about $52 a month). She is supposed to have another blood test in 6 months. The vet assured us there was no point in trying to buy the pills on line because the cost of shipping would bring the cost to what they charge.It wasn't that long ago that all these things were not available for pets. Our first German shepherd had hip dysplasia, and our vet just told us to give him aspirin. He lived to be 13 and a half. And we fed him cheaper dog food (Purina), too! Now owners of pets with hip dysplasia are expected to pay for hip replacements and are told they are cruel if they don't.
Now that all of these things are available, vets assume we don't mind paying for them. They imply that if we love our pet we'll fork over whatever they charge for whatever they suggest. And most of us do.
But it's getting out of hand. I just get the feeling the vet is looking for every opportunity to make a profit off us. I know there's pet insurance, but Consumer Reports says it's not worth it, and I'm afraid if pet insurance catches on the prices will go up even faster.
I've found I can get Rimadyl at 1-800-PetMeds for about $75. With free shipping. (See what I mean about not trusting the vet? He told us we wouldn't be able to find it any cheaper while he's making at least a 25% profit on it.) But we'll still have to get the $98 blood panel every 6 months to get the necessary prescription from the vet.
Wait, there's more. During our office visit for Gassy Girl's movement-related pain, the vet for some reason decided to look in her eye and discovered a tiny speck on her eyeball (it must not have been there during her annual exam?). He wants to refer her to an ophthalmologist if it gets bigger. There are animal ophthalmologists now? What do they do, and what do they charge? Will our vet get a kickback?
I know pet rescue organizations have a hard time getting people to adopt middle-aged and older pets, and I'm sure vet bills are a major reason for this. Frankly, Gassy Girl is probably the last pet we'll ever own—not because we're cheap and certainly not because we've stopped loving animals but simply because we can't afford it any more. As prices keep rising and new tests and treatments keep becoming available and vets find new ways to make their businesses more profitable, I expect a lot of other people will be making the same decision. The vets might be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
As I reach the end of this rant, I realize it sounds as if I'm saying I don't want veterinarians to research new ways to help our pets. I can see how foolish it would be if I felt that way. I don't like the way it complicates decision making about our pets, but it's human nature to keep learning and improving things. I realize many of the innovations in veterinary care have kept beloved pets alive longer and, more important, improved the quality of their lives in some instances.
But I do want veterinarians to use some restraint. I want them to present options instead of taking advantage of people who love their pets by telling them the most profitable course of testing and treatment is the only humane thing to do.
UPDATES
Updates on my vet bill rantMore views on vet bills
Comments