Millie Ridley

By Millie Ridley

The regulatory framework surrounding veterinary practices was originally designed for individual practitioners in 1966. Therefore this makes it particularly difficult to currently regulate large corporate entities that own multiple practices and considering commercial factors like pricing and ownership transparency.

The lack of transparent pricing for veterinary treatments and inability of pet owners to compare the cost of different treatments between veterinary practices can result in unexpected and high costs. More than often these costs will come as a shock but still pet owners must dig deep to finance. 

Main headlines of CMA’s provisional decision

The CMA's provisional decision focuses on increasing transparency for pet owners by making pricing information readily available, rather than implementing significant structural reforms. By doing this the CMA is creating a competitive environment between veterinary practices allowing customers to more freely shop around. The provisional decision includes requirements for veterinary practices to make information accessible such as displaying price lists of treatments and services, providing itemised bills and offering written estimates for treatments exceeding £500. Additionally, veterinary practices would be required to inform owners of more affordable online prescription options and cap prescription fees at £16.  Another of these proposals is to disclose group ownership.  

These proposed changes are welcome but perhaps more could have been done, to help reduce actual costs. The responsibility still largely falls on pet owners, but increased transparency from veterinary practices will help them to make more informed choices. Whilst these reforms are subject to change before being finalised, substantial alterations are unlikely. 

Impact for pet insurers

For pet insurers, significant changes are also unlikely, even if the CMA's goal of increased competition is achieved. While pet insurance prices may not see a drastic shift, some adjustment could occur when the changes are implemented, mirroring the price drops observed when the CMA’s  investigation was initially announced. Insurers may anticipate benefiting from the downward pressure in vet fees, yet, it remains uncertain whether these savings will reach pet owners. The cost of pet insurance is still an area of concern, with four in ten pet owners reporting record-high premiums (CRIF data).

Pet owners may ultimately gain a clearer understanding of the actual cost of pet care and the reality of how expensive treatment can be particularly for emergencies and long-term conditions. Increased awareness could encourage more people to take out or upgrade their pet insurance so that it is more suitable to their pet’s specific needs. 

Clearer billing, with itemised invoices and transparent pricing could also be beneficial.  Insurers will be able to verify claims more accurately and reduce disputes, identifying inflated or inconsistent pricing more easily. According to the FCA value measures data, between 2023 and 2024, the percentage of pet insurance premiums paid out in claims saw a slight decline across all pet insurance product categories. Notably, lifetime policies experienced claims decreasing from 65.60% to 57.70% of premiums paid. Over time, increased transparency could potentially lead to more stable claims costs and would allow pet owners to budget accordingly.

Greater transparency can also support  the strengthening of customer trust for insurers. With clear pricing from vets, pet owners will find it easier to understand their coverage. That could mean fewer disputes at claims stage, a smoother customer journey and greater satisfaction overall. Forward-thinking insurers may even integrate vet cost tools or digital claim estimators into their apps turning clarity into a competitive edge. 

The CMA’s decision won’t upend the pet insurance market. Pet owners still  face significant financial burden when their pets require medical attention. The lack of transparent pricing for veterinary treatments frequently results in unexpected high costs and more often those costs are unanticipated but still owners are compelled to pay and the CMA provisional decision will not change that reality.