Vet groups scrutinise CMA working papers
BVA has supported some of CMA's findings, but criticised some of their recommendations.
A collaboration of major veterinary organisations has reviewed five working papers published by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in February.
The British Veterinary Association (BVA), British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA), Society for Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) and Veterinary Management Group (VMG) united to issue a response examining the preliminary findings of the inquiry group.
The groups have expressed some support of the CMA’s findings, thanking the inquiry group for listening to their concerns. Their response commends the CMA for working to understand the complexities and nuances of the veterinary sector.
This includes acknowledgement of ‘significant changes’ in the sector over the last 10 to 15 years and the ‘outdated’ Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.
Discussing key issues surrounding transparency and choice in the veterinary sector, the organisations agreed that transparent and comparable information was vital to support clients in choosing a practice. BVA also noted that business ownership information should be readily available on practice websites and on premises.
However, BVA has criticised calls for a ‘one-size-fits-all’ online comparison tool for pricing and quality outcomes.
The organisation says that this could diminishes the value of veterinary care, and failed to take into account the importance of contextualised care. In turn, this could contribute to misleading comparisons and misinformed consumers.
They also noted the risks of clients frequently ‘shopping around’ between veterinary practices, which BVA says could lead to ‘fragmented care’, ‘suboptimal treatment’ and additional cost.
In regards to the sales of medicines and prescriptions, the response challenged suggestions of a maximum charge for written prescriptions. The organisations believe that this would risk a ‘standardised’ prescription fee, where clients are likely to be paying the maximum amount.
The suggestion of dismantling Cascade, which would allow human drugs to be prescribed to animals, was also criticised by the organisations. BVA warns that, without Cascade, antimicrobial resistance and poor animal welfare may become a risk.
The organisations have highlighted the importance of promoting the RCVS Code, and ensuring registrants are up to date. They say that future legislation could more effectively utilise and recognised registered veterinary surgeons.
The response calls for a formal and consistent complaints process to be introduced into the RCVS Code. BVA believes that this process should be a mandatory part of practice regulation.
Elizabeth Mullineaux, BVA president, said: "The CMA is right to ensure animal welfare we need a thriving veterinary industry that works for both vet businesses and clients and we've been clear that we fully support greater transparency around vet fees and business ownership to ensure healthy competition; consumer choice; and diversity of business models.
“We’ve urged the CMA to ensure that any proposed remedies, including those relating to medicines, are carefully considered and introduced in a way that allows vet businesses to adapt, as well as avoiding any unintended consequences and increased pressure on the veterinary profession.”
BVA, BSAVA, BVNA, SPVS and VMG’s joint statement can be found here.
Image © Shutterstock
Companies marketing medicines for small pets exempt from authorisation must submit their annual return to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) by 30 November 2026.
