Supplementary Memorandum submitted by
Mr Chris Bainton (W13(a))
A RESPONSE TO THE ORAL EVIDENCE SESSION HELD
WITH THE MR ELLIOT MORLEY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE, MR JIM
SCUDAMORE THE CVO AND DEFRA'S MR MARTIN ATKINSON DIRECTOR OF SVS
I note with interest, that in the transcript
of the evidence given to your committee that the Minister could
not say what the affect of the Competition Commissions Report
was likely to be on the veterinary profession and the provision
of veterinary care.
I would like to take this opportunity to help
him out with a little "Navel Gazing" of my own!
1. Profit in the veterinary profession is,
by and large, equivalent to their POM mark-up.
2. That the UK vet has no clear definition
as to who is or is not, his/her client nor when an animal is deemed
to be under his/her care.
The combination of these two factors tells me
that a loss of POM margin is going to have a seriously adverse
affect on the provision of veterinary care in the UK.
By way of explanation, I offer you these thoughts:
1. If POM margin is too high and it must
be reduced (As per findings of the DTI). Then by definition margin
must be recovered through increased prices if profit is to be
maintained at its current level.
2. Is substantially increasing the cost
of the provision of veterinary care likely to increase or decrease
the amount of people seeking it?
3. Currently veterinary surgeons see LA
practice as hard work (out of hours cover being far more onerous
than in SA practice) for dwindling returns.
4. Is reducing those returns still further
likely to increase or decrease the number of UK veterinarians
seeking to practice LA medicine?
5. If as I surmise, we lose still more veterinarians
prepared to provide LA cover then the surveillance aspect provided
to the state by private practice must be adversely affected.
6. The only solution that I can see (if
the provision of veterinary care is to be maintained nationally)
is for the owner of the well animal to contribute to the provision
of said veterinary care. This can only happen when it is incumbent
on animal owners to register with a veterinary surgeon (so negating
the need for an RCVS definition of what constitutes "under
their care").
The practitioner then has the ability to recover
his costs against all his/her clients so keeping the cost down
at the point of usage.
This scenario has other potential benefits that
may not at first be apparent:
1. The practice can visit their farm clients
on quarterly routine visits, so increasing disease surveillance.
2. Herd/Flock health schemes will be easier
to sell as visits will happen anyway so improving stock management.
3. The black market for POMs should dry
up quickly as medicines margin ceases to be an issue for veterinarians.
4. The overall cost of the provision of
veterinary care will drop dramatically as all clients pay a small
retention fee and medicines margin is reduced.
5. Vets will remain in the LA sector as
it becomes viable, opening the door to inward investment and the
provision of the very best facilities.
6. If private veterinary practices are retaining
client data records anyway why not ask them to contribute in an
agreed fixed format to a local database under the control of their
LVI. The information could then be centralised under a regional
co-ordinator and transferred to a "Page Street" held
master Database giving you all the stock numbers and disease surveillance
you could want and at very little cost to the country!
Please accept these thoughts as just one mans
attempts to try his hand at joined up thinking!
Christopher Martin Bainton
June 2003
PS This is a copy of the minutes of a Scottish
farmers meeting held last week and supplied by a very concerned
client to their veterinarian:
At last, the govt. through the C.C. have addressed
the problem of our members in the UK paying more for our veterinary
medicines than our competitors do. I refer you to the hand out
to note what the changes are which have been recommended. Take
note of the item, which will now mean that it is your right to
demand a prescription for drugs from your vet with no charge.
It has always been possible to ask for a script but very few of
our members did and with few suppliers in the market little advantage
could be gained. That has now changed. We have looked at setting
up a pharmacy in conjunction with one of our members' wives who
is a registered Pharmacist. This will be run by farmers for farmers
We have approached various drug companies for terms and if you
look at your hand out you can see what savings can be made even
if all we get is list price. I suspect however, that we can negotiate
downwards. You may hear your vet try to stall the giving of a
script by saying the "Animals need to be under my care"
we have come across this so often. Last week I phoned the veterinary
authorities to ask what this means in real terms. They could not
tell me. They suggested it was all up to the individual vet but
on pressing them it seems that if you have a vet on your farm
twice a year he can't refuse you a script. So members, count your
T.B. test as one visit any sudden death examination, abortion
investigation or scrapie scheme as another and there you have
your two visits at least per year with no cost to you. It has
come to our attention that some vets are now going to insist that
we sign up to contracts with them and be charged for the privilege.
We would strongly urge members not to succumb to any blackmail
on this. Remember it is our right to get a script and vets can't
refuse us. So don't throw away the advantage we have worked so
hard for. Perhaps the day has come that we don't need a vet I
now get my cows feet, my pregnancy diagnosis and all my routine
work done by non-vet people. If I have a sick animal I just look
at what the vet gave it last time, it is all on his detailed account.
Then I phone up and request the drug. In future I will ask for
a script. Lastly if your vet gives you any hassle on this we want
to know. If your vet changes any of his policies due to this we
want to know. If your vet was in the habit of handing out a drug
and now tries to insist on a visit we want to know.
I think the above more than adequately indicates
the problem that we all face!
I intend to be at your additional evidence gathering
session on 1 July 2003, in the hope that I might hear something
that I can relate to the Scottish veterinary profession at our
meeting on 18 July to allay their growing fears!
| 
