Vets mark-up on scheduled medicine

I will begin to investigate this week how it is that Vets are totally unregulated when it comes to the mark-up that is applied to scheduled medicine.

There are regulations in place to limit the mark-up applied by pharmacies and doctors on scheduled medicine however for some reason the Vets do not believe that this applies to them. This is something that I want the Department of Health and especially the Pricing Unit at the DoH to clarify for me.

Recent personal examples,
1. A injection charged at R115 for 10ml when the R100ml bottle cost R111 (this excluded the charge for giving the injection)
2. Ant-acid drug that costs R704.50 a box dispensed at R1200 a box

I am also very interested in finding out why Vets are reluctant to give scripts that can be filled at the local pharmacy for 30-40% less than what they are charging.

Once saw R100 for cottonwool on a vets bill, must have been a sack full

Vets are governed by the Dept of Agriculture and not the Medical and Dental Council, however as far as I am aware and Ive been in the game all my life, nobody is allowed to markup scheduled medicines above the maximum allowed by Govt which I think is 17%..it is illegal to do so.

Oscar, there are a few calculations available for use at the moment, 26% to a max of R26, and then 36% with a max ceiling in rands etc.

I agree that they may be governed by the Dep. of Agriculture but that department does not Register Medicine, the DoH and more importantly the MCC does.

Many of the medicines given to animals are for human consumption as well so i cannot see why there would be different rules....

A question ; How does an owner know his horse or horses are being treated? And also if trainers are taking off hind shoes and charging the owner for a full set? how does the owner get proof what has been done?

blueyonder001 wrote: A question ; How does an owner know his horse or horses are being treated? And also if trainers are taking off hind shoes and charging the owner for a full set? how does the owner get proof what has been done?

I got a vets bill from Natal for gelding a horse ............but she was a filly!
I believe that if the trainer appoints a vet ,they should at least sign off the treatment and the bill,before owners become liable.
I used to get vets bills directly, without any knowledge about whether the horses needed treatment ,got treated ,or whether it was a horses that was even mine!

totally agree makes sense and would curb dishonesty

Was a big issue in the UK a few years back because of an issue with a complex monopoly. Became legal obligation to offer a written prescription ( prescription fee at discretion of vet after 3 years), for any medication so that client could seek best price. However, it was also the findings of the commission that vets professional fees were not high enough!! and that the reason behind the mark-ups were that vets were keeping their professional fees low, by subsidising with mark-up on medications.

Lets face it , if you went to the vet and got a £50 bill for the vet to examine vs the same price £30 for consult and £20 for medication you would likely be happier with the second scenario.
Fact is , by and large the vets are not anywhere nears as well off as would be perceived based on what people think of their bills.

the point is wheather it is medication or consult is it administered firstly and secondly is it a fair and reasonable market price i think is the issue.

In KZN some Vets wont treat certain owners horses quite rightly so cause they bad payers

drdom, I am aware that fees are mixed up with the profit on medicine but this should not be the case at all.

Why would you have a professional fee that is distorted? There should be professional fees that are benchmarked and published. Should there be a Vet that is in demand then they offer their service at above the benchmark and customers have a choice to pay it. The same as doctors and specialists, Medical Aid tariffs etc.

Why would any professional want to distort their fees?

My opinion is that everything about the fees surrounding treating race horses is distorted and should not be so. I am sick and tired of people saying that Vets are not well off. What is well off? How well off does a Vet need to be? If the Vets are not "well off" then why have they not contracted with the Operators for a fixed salary to service horses in training? The Operators would then invoice owners and those who don't pay, their horses don't run and Medicine supplied at cost. Answer: there is money in running a private practice.

Now i do not begrudge anyone making a living and a profit but over 100% mark-up on medicine i have a serious problem with that.

Adjust your professional fee to what it should be so that there can be transparency or maybe the Vets do not want to reveal that they will charge twice as much to look at your horse than a GP's consultation to see you?

I have heard many stories but at the end of the day every horse (owner) pays for the Vets travelling time & cost, then treatment & then medicine. The only reason why anyone would keep "professional" fees a mystery is so that they are not questioned.

It is time that owners acted as a collective, i suggest that we find out how many Vets are needed per 1 000 horses and then contract that number on a monthly fixed fee. The fixed fee is divided by the number of horses and that amount is paid every month.

Ts
Can't comment on what the fees are in South Africa. I know the Savc has guidelines which vets have to stay within reasonable limits of. Just commenting on what I read in UK a few years ago. Was a similar issue with markups on medications and the fact that vets were in many cases the only suppliers of the medications was an issue .
I don't think there was any limit set on what markup could be,only that vets had to give the option to instead write a prescription , and to have an available list of the cost of he most common medications prices so that clients could shop around.
Itemised billing is also a requirement so the client can see exactly what the fees are.

There is not a published guideline of fees in the UK for vets so the problem with vets undercharging for fees, but overcharging for meds was an issue. Relative to fees charged by other professionals the fees were low,and it was felt by the investigating commission that the undervaluing of professional fees were wrongly being compensated by increased medication markups. That shouldn't be the same in South Africa unless the SAVC fees need reviewing.

But yes, fees and medications should be separate issues.