Veterinary Economics July 2003

Responding to Consumer Reports

Needless to say, the editors at Veterinary Economics found the negative tone of Consumer Reports' July cover story disturbing. Our abbreviated response to Consumer Reports President Jim Guest and that of Dr. Ray Click, our Group Publisher, follow:

Dear Mr. Guest,
While your recommendations for blenders weighed the consumer's needs, features available, and price, your cover article, "Pets & Vets," did not. If the cheapest price doesn't always signal the best appliance, it seems clear it's not the best way to pick a healthcare provider. Do you pick your physician based on his exam fee? Do you complain if he suggests a blood test?
You also misrepresent Veterinary Economies' recommendations, and worse, our mission and our respect for the relationship between pet owners and veterinarians. We do give advice on setting appropriate fees, attracting clients, and building clients' loyalty. And the bottom line is that we believe pets and their owners deserve the option to choose good health care and great service.
If practitioners don't charge appropriately for their knoCwledge and services—and given they're the lowest paid of all healthcare providers with equivalent training, we believe they're often too generous—they can't afford to buy the equipment necessary to provide the care many clients demand or to pay their team members a living wage.
Keep in mind, pet care demands the same equipment and the many years of schooling that human health care requires—and you get it at a much-reduced price. Compared with the costs to stabilize a human trauma case, $614 looks like a bargain.
While the authors of this piece clearly don't see their pets as family members, many of your readers do. In fact, a study of pet owners conducted by AAHA shows that 86 percent of pet owners include their pets in holiday celebrations; 70 percent sign their pet's name on greeting cards; and 58 percent include their pet in family portraits.
To those pet owners, I make this recommendation: Take Consumer Reports' negative slant with a shaker of salt. Veterinarians have your pets' best interests at heart, and for decades they've sacrificed their pocket-books for your pets.
Marnette Falley
Editor, Veterinary Economics

Dear Mr. Guest,
I found your July cover story regarding the costs of pet care apparently poorly researched, poorly fact checked, and lacking in balance. One point you overlook: Most pet owners today expect and demand a level of pet care that approaches the pediatric care they provide for their children. And today's veterinarians are trained to provide and deliver that high-quality medical care.
That's what's driving veterinarians' increased use of diagnostics. Pet owners want an accurate diagnosis, which can only be confirmed by tests—not the empirical medicine of the '50s or '60s.
Adding to the need for appropriate diagnostic aids is the fact that state legislatures and other legal bodies are increasingly recognizing animals as companions, rather than property. This lets pet owners sue for emotional damages as well as malpractice if a veterinarian makes a medical error. Clearly this change means we must be more careful than ever to provide complete care. And yes, it means increased costs—just as it did when lawsuits multiplied in human medicine.
Some other clarifying points:
• Unlike the situation in human health care, all the capital and operating expenses of veterinary hospitals fall squarely on the shoulders of the owning veterinarians. There are no government grants. There's no widespread insurance system helping offset fees. Yet veterinarians possess similar skills and offer similar care as their human medical colleagues—and charge fees that are ridiculously out of sync with the costs of human medical treatments. Rather than criticizing our profession, I think you'd be better served by asking how the human healthcare system could learn from the cost-effective model veterinary medicine offers!
• Zoonotic diseases make pet care a family health issue.
• Regardless of where a pet owner chooses to buy, it's critical to monitor pets using today's sophisticated medications, including insecticides. The possibility of unnoticed medical issues requires thoughtful and careful use of these excellent products.
Your article does a huge disservice to your pet owning readers by recommending they seek cheap care—not good care. I really thought better of Consumer Reports.
Ray Click, DVM
Group Publisher, Allied Healthcare Group