The only job in the world with full retirement and lifetime health care benefits after working 2 years!

What a waste of taxpayer's money to spend time legislating something that does not change the current circumstances for the public and only benefits the politicians' campaign resources.

Looks like the lobbyists are working this one very hard. I love how we're all about free market competition in this country, except when we're not ;)

HELLO??? RECESSION??? People here are losing their homes - boo hoo about vets' school loans. Maybe the schooling system needs to be adjusted. All I know is that vets are charging so much that (here, at least) very few people can afford them. Also, people doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance. Although vets seem paranoid about being sued, isn't it true that they can only be sued for the cost of the pet? I don't see them having to carry expensive malpractice insurance.

http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/articles/this-could-change-everything.html

You think your vet costs a lot now?
Just wait...
I for one am not comfortable with a human trained pharmacist dispensing medication on a daily basis to my canine/feline patients and ME being responsible if the pharmacists messes up.

Most owners of pets don't know their rights, and this bill makes vets articulate them.

Yes, knowledgeable owners may ask for prescriptions, but currently VETS ARE PERMITTED TO SAY NO. I find this unacceptable.

Let consumers have their rights, please.

Currently in Ohio my vet can and does refuse to write a script for a off site pharmacy. I like the idea and welcome this law. I've asked several times but she refuses. It sure would be nice to have the ability to shop around if I wanted to.

As both a pet owner and a professional pet sitter, I have seen both the best and the worst of client & vet relationships. And because I have several special needs pets myself, have experienced the best and worst as well.

Unfortunately, not all vets have their patients best interests in mind. The convenience of being able to fill routine prescriptions at the office can be a tremendous help to a busy owner when the pet is there for treatment. But, once the office is closed getting a refill is impossible.

Focusing on my personal experience in dealing with a diabetic pet, it took me several visits to several different offices to find a vet's office that would call in my cat's prescription to Canada to be filled.

You see my cat had already been regulated on Lantus from the shelter and I home test him several times a day. The first two offices wanted to switch him to 'their pet insulin' and too the vet meter! In both situations I was puzzled why they would be so insistent to the point of refusing to call in the 'script. Long story short, I left their offices feeling like they were ignorant and unwilling to deal with a fully informed owner. It wasn't like I was demanding alternative medicine for heaven's sake. I had even provided them with the article from the Queensland Study, the actual protocol, and copies of the daily BG information from the past year.

I finally located a vet that isn't afraid of working with me. We are quite happy with his entire office and since I am pet sitter I do see lots of vet offices over the course of a year. Most do ok for routine care and there have been a few that have left me standing aghast. One put a client on 3 'scripts that depress the CNS and nearly killed the pet. A real pharmacy would have likely caught that overdose because of the new computer checking systems.

So, is this law needed? Some here would think I would be the big advocate to demand this law. Well, truth be told I am not. I say NO this law is not needed. Every owner needs to remember they are paying the bill. If you are not getting the care that is in your pet's best interest, the information needed to care for your pet's condition, and your vet is not cooperative take your feet, pet, and money elsewhere! If it is a critical care issue deal with it that one time, but find another office for follow-up and don't look back.

It took me 3 expensive office visits to find my outstanding vet office that would call in my Lantus prescription for my cat. In the course of that journey and in my profession I've found several other offices. At a recent new client consultation, with an 8 week old pupppy, I was asked which vet I recommend. Happily, I told the new client here are 3 facilities you may want to look at. I recommend them for their up to date knowledge, care, and client respect.

Vet's who are insistent on filling prescription medications and prescription foods only at their office, have more wrong with their office, than just filling prescriptions.

I still believe it is needed, as some of us live in small towns with very few choices for vets other than driving 2 hours to the city, people who don't have the money, car or time to go that far for every vet visit are stuck with the choices we have. It would be far easier if the owners would receive a script and have a choice of where they want to buy their meds.

You must be in the enviable position of never having had a pet with a difficult to treat condition. Around here, we worry about continuity of care. I have a friend who has a dog with an immune-mediated disease (pemphigus) whose vet refused to approve any third party prescriptions and she was forced to choose between the vet (who knew her dog's history-- all the "we tried" and "this worked" stuff) and the ability to purchase expensive immunosuppressant medications at a less exhorbitant price. Frankly, that's a pretty crappy place to be with your pet's life in the balance. I call it legalized blackmail, and I think it ought to be made illegal.

I'm fortunate because, though my dog also has a difficult to treat condition, he was followed at a teaching hospital and they dispensed his expensive immunosuppressant drugs at cost. $300 a month could easily have been $900 a month were up up against the wall with this kind of situation. So, yes, I support his law and do not think it wise to leave it up to the profession to police itself or act out of the goodness of its collective heart. I've heard too many tales to the contrary.

This is truly a very difficult situation, no doubt.

"I call it legalized blackmail, and I think it ought to be made illegal. "

Do you believe a federal law will help with this type of problem? I, personally, highly doubt it. Just being 'illegal' does not prevent unscrupulous behavior, it only sounds like it does, but, as someone else already shared, if a business behaves this way there are other issues underlying, and a law will not protect the victims of unethical practitioners.

As Dr. Coates already stated, there are probably already laws and regulations in your state meant to deal with this. Consumer protection laws exist everywhere. How they are enforced is the issue, vigilance is necessary, but a Federal law won't make much difference.

Anyone in a situation like this, who feel as if they are a hostage to their vet in some way, will have various local avenues to pursue - a letter to the vet's hospital/professional association, getting a second opinion (possibility of exposure and/or the threat of competition can straighten up some attitudes), asking for a written explanation of why this medication or that must be purchased through that clinic, something is better than just blindly accepting the extra cost.

Don't threaten, but be firm and let the vet know that you are paying attention to this and will follow up.

Yes, I do believe that making something illegal as a business practice tends to curb the targeted behavior.

What vet wants to risk their practice or license by refusing to comply with something as simple and easy as this? We have plenty of laws protecting humans from these unscrupulous practices. Do you want to repeal those "silly" laws, as well? The rule of law is the price we pay for living in a civilized society. You want a lawless society, go live in Somalia.

Did you read my post, and my friend's story? We're not talking about theoretical situations here, we're talking about real people, right now, who don't have access to the medications they need at a price they can afford to keep their pets alive.

And furthermore, who has time to do all this follow-up you suggest regarding something that should be as simple as taking your vet's recommendation and buying what your pet needs? Talk about a waste of time and effort-- this sounds like far more waste than anything this law would create for the veterinary practice.

Apparently you have never heard of particular groups of people getting together secretly to create a "monopoly" so that the client/customer has no recourse in the face of such "standard practices."

Why should people have to jump through hoops or go to three vets and pay for all those services just to find one freaking vet who has a heart and will write a prescription without charging $10 to do so IF they will do it at all?! REDICULOUS!!...you must be one of those people who has a lot of extra money to waste! Good for you but most of us don't and as the middle class disappears, there will be even more people who won't be able to either.

As far as I am concerned MOST VETS' practices today have helped to fuel the current abandoned pets crisis by their price goughing! If they wonder why they've lost so many clients, they need only look to their own practices but I am sure they will go on blaming their clients.

our state laws in regards to this do not say that a vet has to write a script if asked, it says something to the effect that they should, but not that they have to, and the vets know it too and I have been refused scripts by more than one vet in this state.

I must be luckier than most.

My vet gives me the option and many times informs me that a prescription will be less expensive somewhere else. If it's not a compound, I prefer to get the first prescription at the clinic so it can be started right away.

When the clinic stopped carrying a prescription food I was using and set up an online "buy it through the clinic", they found me another local clinic that did carry it and faxed a prescription.

Again I'm convinced I have the best vet and clinic!

Old Broad, please give us an idea of what state and area you live in. I am extremely curious as to where there is such good vet care.

Here in Central Florida greedy vets abound(& from what I have heard from other Floridians, this is occuring all over our state.) Some have put themselves out of business by price gouging. Word did get around and soon their waiting rooms were empty. But for the most part their is no end to foolish practices and behavior from our vets. The internet and dog parks have helped to make us more saavy BUT once you are in the office with your vet, if you have not heard about them or they started a new office rule, they can pull all manner of bizarre practices. One vet I had been going to for quite awhile and had been fairly happy with began charging a $13. annual prescription "set up" fee!! So medication that was already fairly expensive at his office (I checked with several online vet pharmacies) now had an additional $13. cost added. Thank God, he still would confirm scripts from online pharmacies for free but if you needed a drug for something like a severe ear infection or such and didn't want to take the time to wait while meds were mailed because the infection would get much worse by not treating immediately, you were victimized by this fee!! When I discussed it with him, he pointed out that if my dog ever had another infection during the year, the set up fee covered that particular medication, not the cost mind you, just the dispensing of it!! Well unless your dog has a compromised immune system or such one would hope they'd only have an ear infection a time or two in their whole life!

Last, I was informed by a vet who I just recently rejected for being unwilling to write a prescription for Heartgard that Florida does have a fairly new law on the books (put their to make the vets more money.) It is that other vets cannot dispense a medication to your dog EVEN WITH A PRESCRIPTION unless they have had a client relationship with that dog. This is meant to keep other vets with better medicine prices from acting like a dispensing pharmacy for non clients thereby taking business away from the greedier vets.

WE NEED SUCH PROTECTION HERE IN FLORIDA land of retired Disney CEO & one of the greediest men alive, Michael Eisner,aka Disney World can't afford to give the hourly workers a quarter an hour raise without reducing their health benefits but I just got a $40 million dollar bonus for myself on top of my $7 million dollar annual salary!

YEAH, I SURE HOPE FEDERAL H.R. 1406 PASSES!!

I live on the state line between Kansas City, MO, and Overland Park, KS.

My vet is amazing, wonderful, intelligent, patient, caring, compassionate, always goes above and beyond, etc etc etc.

There are several vets at the clinic and I've had occasion to see each. They're all pretty darned wonderful, but "my" vet is SO exceptional.

You are WAY out of touch on this one. I have been required to buy prescription drugs from the vet at over 300% markup. I have been charged $12 per prescription written by the vet so I could fill it at a local pharmacy (and another $12 at renewal time). At times, my vet has refused to provide an online prescription. When one was provided, I had to use the same pharmacy when purchasing the next month's supply, regardless of price increases. The law requiring vets to write & provide prescriptions without additional charge is overdue and will be a welcome change.

I agree with alpmega and my5beagles. As pet owners we should be able to get the best price we possibly can and have a choice. We do it for ourselves, why not our pets? Just in the last few years have I diligently researched the meds dispensed by my vet to see if they are human medications and some of them are. I was never given the option to take a prescription to my pharmacy. I was being charged $40 for a generic I can get for $4. Now that I am more "educated" I do ask for scripts or have them call the prescription in for me. Sometimes they are not very happy about it but with three geriatric dogs and everyone on some kind of medication I must find ways to save.

Hooray for your views. We do not need another law that is only window dressing or pandering to special interests. My vets have always done as you do, if I want to fill a scrip at my pharmacy or mail order, I have no problem asking for the scrip.

This is another layer of regulation that does nothing, serves no purpose, and can possibly interfere with client/vet relationships by creating suspicion. So many people have the idea that vets are only 'in it for the money', yet willingly pay whatever their own healthcare provider charges for every service. Never blinking.

I am not a vet, but I also work for a living doing something that I love! Does that obligate me to give away my years of experience and training for FREE? Frankly, I 'do it for the money.' ;-)

Too many people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I'm sure there are vets who overcharge, over medicate, inflate the cost of simple meds, give unnecessary tests, blah blah blah. I have had it happen to me, with an emergency vet recently, as a matter of fact. You see, I had no relationship with that vet or that clinic. I will tell anyone who will listen how unscrupulous this clinic is, taking advantage of the anxiety and stress of a pet owner in an emergency.

So now we want to get the FEDERAL government stepping in on every little tiny consumer issue? We must all need protection as if we were all little children. This is a disturbing trend, growing into a Medusa.

Thank you!

You do sound like a lobbyist here. I agree that the requirement to write a prescription under all circumstances is silly. But the rest of this is needed to ensure that vets are not holding their customers captive to high prices. Perhaps you and those you know are eager to assist clients who want to purchase drugs elsewhere, but I know of many whose vets have held their clients captive to their own dispensing and will not approve third party purchases. That's just wrong, and it's more wrong when the pet has a difficult to treat condition and the client is over a barrel wanting continuity of care. You think it doesn't happen? I'm quite certain that it does happen, and often. This law needs some tweaking, but it's a good start toward giving veterinary clients the right to choose. Your proposed approach (doing nothing) simply leaves the fox guarding the henhouse. I expect more informed discussion on this blog, frankly.

Also, I started a petition about this a few months ago. If you disagree with Dr. Coates and believe this law needs to be implemented, please sign it here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/support-fair-access-to-veterinary-prescription-medications

Thank you...signed! And just wish I could share it on facebook!!

You can. Just go to my page: http://www.facebook.com/louiethelovemuffin and share it from there. I just posted it again this morning so should be easy to find.

Thanks so much for your support!

Since you've been a lobbyist in the past, I'm curious why, in your opinion, would vets oppose the bill wholesale if there are only certain provisions that they have trouble with (like writing a prescription that they themselves are going to fill - I don't quite understand that.)

I'm lucky to live in a big city with many vet practices to choose from but not everyone has those options. Raise prices for other services if you have to - let people pay the costs where the costs are incurred. Relying on prescription sales to subsidize the rest of the practice puts more of the burden on those of us with senior pets or pets with chronic conditions - the same pets who don't qualify for veterinary insurance.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many people actually INVITE the Feds into their lives. Like they can't think for themselves.

This bill is yet another PIA example of how our lawmakers can waste even more of our money.

Common sense would dictate that YOU, as the pet owner, ask your vet for a written Rx if you want to drive somewhere else to get the drugs. If you don't ask, then don't complain that your vet is making a 300% mark-up. (Altho I've never seen that happen & seriously doubt it does - sounds more like sour grapes to me).

And BTW Papillon --- if you're so unhappy about Disney's CEO, why not join those 'Occupy' mongrels at their silly (yet costly) gatherings? Besides, I have no idea what Disney has to do with all the "horrible" vets you say you keep going to. Do you not know how to interview a potential doctor for your pets? ;-)

This bill isn't about asking versus not asking. It's about the ones who say, "No, you can't fill this prescription anywhere but here." It's also about allowing free-market dynamics and healthy market competition to work the way they are supposed to work. Is that what you are lobbying against?

I don't share your simple view that anything federally mandated is inherently evil. Not sure it's healthy to think in such black and white terms. Again, I point to Somalia for a good example of what happens when there's no cohesive government in place. Again, I point out that living with the rule of law is the price we pay for a civil society.

And again I'll say: if you don't like the way your vet practices - CHANGE VETS!!

I never said anything federally mandated was automatically evil. I'm just saying I don't like laws that try to govern common sense. To me, this is such an example. You have every right - & responsibility - to have the best pet doctor you can find. If you choose to stay with one that's an idiot, that's not only your fault, you're also putting your pets at risk of potential poor medical practices.

I'm sure you didn't choose your family doc because he was the closest. (Hopefully), you did your homework & chose him because he's good. You need to do the same for your pets.

And stop looking to the government to fix all your problems. You were born with a brain - use it.

Changing vets, as I've stated already, is not always an option. Get back to me on the changing vets thing when you have a dog whose chart is three inches thick and whose problems have required multiple rounds of trial and error and close work with your veterinarian to manage. I'm not sure why no one wants to address the fact that this regulation would promote and facilitate free-market dynamics and competition.

What I see happening, as more and more practices become corporate owned, are dictates coming down from corporate headquarters which would keep vets from allowing clients to purchase meds elsewhere. As more practices get swallowed up by large companies, the options for choice, even when you do want to change vets, become smaller and smaller.

This is where my logical mind goes when I think for myself (instead of listening to lobbyist talking points being regurgitated by people like you who are likely paid to repeat them). If you prefer your options be dictated by corporate greed then please, keep up the good fight here.

What? You won't change from a vet you don't like because your dog has a 3" chart full of medical problems?? That is EXACTLY when you SHOULD change! In the last 20 years, I have had 3 pets with thick charts - multiple medical problems. But I had already done my homework & aligned myslef with the 2 best vets I could find.

And no, I am not a paid lobbyist just because we don't agree. You're too funny! Sounds like you have your own agenda as personified by your 'petition'.

Thanks for the banter.

In the case described above, the vet was fine. The business practices of the corporate owned practice were not. I have a friend whose practice was just recently taken over by a big chain. She LOVES her vet, but the vet is no longer allowed to practice in the way she used to.

You can do better at twisting my meaning than this ;)

And yes, I started a petition. I don't like the lobbying that's being funded by big corporate money to get this agenda pushed through. The little guy needs a voice, too. It's called democracy at work. I know, democracy is just like that free market thing. You're for it until you're not.

Great Response Louiesmom! I am always intrigued by people like Olivers Mama who is unable to "hear" any one else's views/experiences so busy is she defending her own view & pushing her own experiences at us as if they are the only RIGHT ones and none of us have tried anything different to cope with the current situation we find ourselves in.

Things are not BLACK & WHITE anywhere in life. I notice that is what is wrong with the whole political climate in this country...they're all deaf except to each other's words when they're patting each other on the back and ascerting how RIGHT they are! Makes me ill.

You guys are really quite funny. BTW - it appears that I am not the only one giving opinions. Excuse me, is that not what this forum is about?

Oh sorry - I forgot. Only those that can't think for themselves have a right to have an opinion.

You really need to check the "Occupy" movement against corporate greed...Just because you don't agree doesn't mean how I feel is all "Black & White".

However - I DO agree with one thing: since you haven't the guts to change vets, or insist that your own vet change his way - then by all means, allow the government to do it for you.

Sheeple make me ill, not individual thoughts or beliefs. I believe I have the same freedoms as you. The difference I want to keep that freedom, not put someone else in charge of my thoughts.
Thank you very much - it's been fun!

Oliver's mom, I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If you had a child with a severe case of leukemia or some other horrible disease, and that child was being treated by an expert who knew his/her stuff and was keeping your child alive, would you feel good about having to change doctors because of the cost of that child's meds? You really don't get the point, do you? I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly than this.

PLEASE stop with the party line stuff. When I start seeing words like "sheeple" and so forth, I know it's not a real conversation. We're not talking about political will here, we're talking about animals who cannot care for themselves and rely on us to care for them. If this is unclear to you, I am sorry.

And please, explain to me how one justifies the support of free-market dynamics with support of this bill. I've asked three times now. Stop ignoring this because it's not convenient to you.

OK louiesmom - I'm done. You're not reading my content any more than you accuse me of not reading yours.

There is no "party line stuff". It IS political when someone tries to pass a law to get their way. duh

Where you got the idea that I am against "free-market dynamics" just because I don't like the proposed bill is beyond me - I never said that.

Maybe my frame of reference is different. I have NEVER had a vet who refused to write a script for me so I could go elsewhere to have it filled. Prior to 'hiring' a vet, that's always been a question I asked. If they refuse, than I kept looking. So I never ran into some of the problems you & others have. I cannot apologize for what I haven't experienced.

You & I both know that passing another law will only do one thing: the shoddy vets will always find a way around it & the good vets will pay the price for what their sleezy counterparts do. We've got all kinds of laws on the books that do little, if anything, to protect us, the consumer. Or our family members. Or our pets. Ultimately, we cannot force the issue. We HAVE to control those parts of our lives that we can without someone else doing it for us; because in the end, we are the ones who will pay. Not a politician.

We should be able to agree to disagree without malice from each other. You want the law - that's great & that's your right.

I don't want another law - but you know what? That's my right too.

It's absolutely your right. And I respect your right to your opinion. Thanks for taking a moment to explain to me why you feel the way you feel. Talking about your own experience and where you're coming from makes a lot more sense to me than just saying things like laws are bad and we're all sheeple or something because we don't agree with you.

Yes, our experiences are different. We're not all the same, we don't all live in the same kind of community, and we don't all have access to the same quality of healthcare for our pets. I'm telling some stories here about problems that have happened related to the things this bill hopes to address, and you get to choose whether to take those stories seriously or not.

And no, you never said anything about being against the free market, but this bill-- as I understand it--promotes fair competition and protects us against price fixing by greedy corporations--all things that should be healthy for the free market. Should I assume, then, that you are both for the free market and against this bill? If so, I'd be interested to hear you reconcile both of those positons.

I am absolutely FOR free market enterprise. The more the merrier. In the end, it is us, the consumer, that benefits.

I have a problem with making yet another law. Heck, most of the ones we already have only help lawyers - for it is them that gets people 'off' when they break the laws. And we - the consumer - pay for that.

I think it is long overdue for professionals to take responsibility for "policing" their own professions. I worked as a Vet Tech for years. I am a nurse by trade. Techs had no union, but we "policed" our kind & any vet with whom we had contact. (I worked for a surgical specialist - 100% of our clients were referrals from other vets. So we had lots of contact.) We had no problem turning a vet into the Board if they were doing something shoddy. I'm an Aires by birth & have the Big Mouth to prove it. :-) Not that the Board ever did anything substantial, but at least we tried. Nurses have a union (outdated & a PIA, IMO), but a representative body nonetheless. I have seen MANY nurses AND docs that should've been smacked for their unethical ways. But the union protects them. And, as a (forced) member - I was actually told EYE was being unethical for turning someone in. (for falsifying chart-keeping). However - I still believe we had the obligation to try to weed out the bad apples.

Would we hear about bad cops if the cops would weed them out themselves? No.

Would sleezy vets be allowed to pull a lot of their crap if the vets would out their own bad apples? No. But we don't DO that. Instead, we pass a law - that is not going to stop the bad ones, just ask their lawyers. Many of these laws just don't work.

And we're placing the responsibility for good & honest care in the hands of politicians who, IMO, really could care less.

If we have that many shoddy vets out there (& I'm glad I don't have one) - then, DARN IT - all you GOOD vets out there need to oust them! Do NOT let them ruin the profession, possibly killing our beloved 4-legged fuzzy valiums in the process.

I want INDIVIDUAL responsibility. Not a legal mandate that I really don't believe will work anyway. Unfortunately, there's always too many loopholes for the sleeze-balls to continue to get away with they're doing.

Hope that makes sense. No, I am not against good, healthy competition in a free market. Yes, I am against the passing of another worthless law.

Now - wanna start a group with me that would tackle these crappy vets? Since the good vets won't do it? I'm game if you are. :-)

Well, here's where you and I just philosophically differ. I don't believe that well targeted laws are useless or pointless. This nation was founded on the rule of law. What you get when you remove law is anarchy. I believe there's an honored place for good legislation in a civilized society.

I don't think this is perfect legislation by any means, but I don't have much faith in the good intentions of businesses whose overriding mandate is to increase both profits and stock prices. I feel it a bit naive to think they will ever police themselves in the way you and I would like to see done. So we have a philosophical difference here that will most likely never be bridged. Not much left to say except that, hopefully, we can agree to disagree.

Agreed! :-)

Olivers mama - are you purposely being obtuse? Or are you just yanking our chains, for the fun of it? You asked if I knew how to interview a potential vet or comment I don't have the guts to change vets what part of what I previously wrote did you not understand? If the vets get together and get laws passed here in FL to keep clients' from getting what they need, how does one work around that?!? I said that I interviewed the latest vet and rejected her for admitting just such a lousy attitude. She only carried minimal drugs in her office, used an online pharmacy that all her clients had to use regardless of whether they had the drug in stock and/ or it was cheaper at a local pharmacy, would not give prescriptions or confirm prescriptions if you had the pharmacy call her even if she didn't carry the med you wanted...e.g. Heartgard Plus versus whatever heartworm med she was pushing. It was clear she gave her clients absolutely no choice and no consideration AND originally her staff insisted I make an appointment and pay for an office visit and she would examine my little dog, and explain what all her policies were. They would not answer my questions. They absolutely thought it was reasonable for me to pay to have my dog examined by a vet who I might be deciding not to use after I interviewed her.
BTW, why should I have to pay a vet to order to interview them?! I don't get paid when I go on job interviews!! For that matter, why don't they just post their office policies out front or on their websites for all to read and decide before making an appointment? Wouldn’t that be phenomenal? It would save us all a lot of grief. Anyway, when that vet who happened to be listening to all this from just beyond the lobby doorway heard me say that I would keep looking for a new vet and started to leave, she came out and asked me what it was I was wanting to know.... she answered my many questions, which also included her attitude about and pricing for titers, her belief about vaccinations ( turns out even though her staff originally told me she did not require annual vaccinations, it turned out she believes in and requires annual vaccinations...why am I not surprised? That's another “gravy train” money maker. Funny how the vets who push over vaccinating are never held responsible should their over vaccinating kill your dog.

Like I said previously, so you don’t lose the train of thought here, the two previous vets I had used for years prior to my new search...one lost all his clients when he started gouging all of us and everyone left (again met many ex-clients at the dog park or while out at the pet stores shopping ) who wanted to compare notes regarding the last bill or two they'd gotten before jettisoning him and the other vet left his practice to go into research but he had started incorporating new strange charges like that "$13.00 annual prescription set up fee" for each new prescription for each dog which I also mentioned previously. I'd have still used him for some care like dentals and such had he not left the practice as I liked him as a vet, and got a sense of caring and concern for my dogs. I never bothered to go back to that practice when friends & acquaintances who did continue to go there told me his replacement was awful and none of them liked her.

Oh, and the point I was making about Michael Eisner ‘s pay & I can't believe that you were unable to figure this out for yourself because you’ve been doing your best to convince us of how intelligent you are was this: if the kind of greed exists here that limits human beings’ medical insurance benefits ‘cause they were granted a whole 25 cent an hour raise while their CEO can get a freaking $40 MILLION, YES MILLION salary BONUS on top of a $7 MILLION SALARY then, I think the whole greed/money issue is something that needs to be regulated by government!! Just like back when they had to legislate child labor laws, and factory work conditions, and limit monopolies and all other manner of regulations were created. Sometimes human behavior will require legislation because humans, especially the best off ones, are often unable to do the right thing on their own. You might have noticed that happening in the current political events of the day, right?

I realize you probably enjoy interviewing prospective vets & have a lot of extra money sitting around to spend on that and on whatever else you want or need, but very many of us don't! I just want to be able to take care of my dogs. I am willing to pay for that care (and unlike chienblanc’s incorrect observation), I do know prices as well as the value of that care too but it still makes sense to me to have choices. If anyone is a “mongrel” here, it sounds like it is you! I’ll bet when your “people” were holding their rallies all around the country and touting Palin and the rest, and spitting on current congressional members in D.C. you didn’t think that was costly or that they were mongrels! You’re so typical. Thanks for “outing” yourself.

I have never paid to interview a prospective vet or medical doctor. If they charge a fee to do so, I go elsewhere.

And thanks for outing yourself. You & your 'Occupy' co-horts obviously need anger management.

I am allowed to give an opinion just like everyone else here - including you. You've chosen to attack all of my comments. Why not just agree to disagree like me & louiesmom? Geez.

Believe it or not but personally I've paid $240.00 for Panacur from my vet for my pack. I recently purchased enough for my pack for under $100.00. Amoxicillin was $16.00 for 500mgx3 for ten days. It is FREE at my local grocery chain. And yes I demanded she call in the script to the store because I be darned if I'm paying for something that I can get for free. Other than the script issue I am happy with my vet and her overall prices. I don't have a vet on every corner. So it's not that easy to just switch vets. Nor do I want to but if I can reduce my overall costs and maintain the same care why shouldn't I.
If I get sick I get a script and call around for the best prices and go there. I am not given that option with my vet.

My5beagles....try tractor supply....you'll find panacur (Fenbendazole) in the livestock isle....wormer for goats...$20.00 should do your dogs for a good long time.

I am SO over paying the 300%+ markup for my meds from the vet...and a lot is available OTC for farm animals if you have a little common sense and basic math skills. ;)

Was making it extreme so the "mistake" in prescribing would be obvious.

If the vet writes out an incorrect medication or amount for the animal and it goes to the outside pharmacist who does not know it is not the right medication for the pet's condition, why would the vet not be held responsible? It is the vet's error! A doctor is held responsible should he prescribe the wrong thing for your child and harm the child. I just don't get what that part of the legislation is meant to do or why it is included.

I did have this happen with a vet who prescribed to the Chinese Herbal pharmacy she used an amount that would have hurt my dog. When I was calling in to pay for expedited shipping, their consultant asked me if the pet was a horse. I said no, it was a 10 pound Papillon. The consultant told me the amount prescribed was for a horse and that I had to contact my vet and tell her to correct the order (the consultant refused to though I thought that should have been her job since it was her company & the vet who had the association and the original prescribing communication.) I faxed the info in to the vet's office since I was unable to get her on the phone and then phoned and asked her staff to get the fax to her so she could make the correction before she closed as she was off the next day. I didn't make a stink about the error. I know we all make mistakes & just told her in the fax what the consultant told me to tell her.... but for my trouble, after years with that vet and thousands spent as well as referring many people to her and her practice, my little dogs and I were terminated as clients.

You really think all vets are capable of owning their errors let alone policing their peers?!? Many can’t even police themselves.

There are vets to whom this law pertains. They outright refuse to write scripts so people can get medications for their pets outside their clinic. Some charge to make up for the lost revenue.

It is sad. Especially since often the medication is severely marked up.

I like the *idea* of the law. But do you think vets who refuse to write scrips now will start doing it simply because of this law that they are pretty darn sure that no one will have heard of? And if they don't, what is the repercussions? a fine? a slap on the wrist? a note in their "file" not to do it again? After hearing what judgements are levied against vets who do wrong, I have little faith this bill will do much of anything.

And I agree, forcing vets to write a script for all meds is silly. Requiring them ask if one would like a script would be good.

and I don't much like that they can't make anyone sign nor get information that scripts might be filled incorrectly. EVERYONE makes mistakes. The vet I worked for a while back had their pharmacist make mistakes weekly..

I support the bill.

To say that "most vets are willing to write prescriptions, therefore no law is needed to compel [any] vets to write prescriptions" is not good logic.

The logic is basically saying that vets who do this are the rule, so let's not make a law to address the exceptions.

Take that to other logical extensions. Most people don't rape, therefore we need no laws against rape. Etc. Total hyperbolic comparison, but you get my point. Most people don't write bad checks. Therefore we need no laws against writing bad checks. Most doctors don't divert drugs, therefore we need no laws against drug diversion. Not good logic.

I do not feel that a federal law is overkill, because state regulations on this are not in sync. Some vet boards have passed regulations requiring vets to write prescriptions, but most have not.

As for whether there are exceptions -- yes of course, that's why some vet boards have regulated that vets must willingly write prescriptions that can be filled elsewhere. While I have personally not had this happen to me (and generally choose to fill my prescriptions at my vets, although I appreciate their utter willingness to write a script) I have talked to others whose vets have flatly refused to write prescriptions to be filled elsewhere.

A member of the DC VMA and owner of the largest animal hosptial in DC (who testified AGAINST pro-animal legislation at a hearing I attended), wrote on his blog in an entry he subsequently deleted after I blogged about it that prescription markups were a "gravy train" that vets had "enjoyed" for a long time.

If his view is representative, and based on his statements I think it must be if all vets know drug markups are a "gravy train", then some vets likely need a little er, um, incentive to get off the gravy train for the good of their clients and patients. When humans can't afford their pets drugs, pets die. It's as simple as that. Being unwilling to write a prescription equates to being willing to sacrifice your patient's life for your own profit.

Since some vets are willing to do that, a federal law is great.

States can't turn the other way to this issue.

Remember that even if most vets -- like you, and like my own vets -- are more than happy to write a prescription so that an owner can fill it somewhere more affordable, that doesn't mean ALL vets are. And if ANY vets are not (and yes, we know for a fact that is true, because states have had to address this, and I've personally talked to people who've been refused prescriptions) then a federal law is a good thing.

After all, almost ALL laws are written for the horrible, awful, dangerous exeptions, not the nice, good, benign rule.

Most people don't rob, kill, vandalize, assault, etc. But we still need laws for those who do.

Wow Stefanio, I sure appreciate your articulation of all these points and I think you pretty much made it very clear as to why we need this law. Thank you. You must have one heck of a blog!

Thanks Papillon. Check out badvetdaily@blogspot.com. I have not been doing as many entries as when I originally started it, but I get one in here and there. Sad stuff. A couple of the entries have been about mis-filled prescriptions in-house.

Unless, we are protecting the Wild Horse or something good for our Wild Life. We are giving our Free will over to The so-call-Law-makers. If I find medication cheaper on Line, Our Doctor give it to us the same or maybe a little less in price. Our Pet-Kids love their Doctor. He helps NO-KILL-SHELTERS. He has help people, who could not afford, to pay full price. I've known Wonderful Vet. Doctors. So these so-call-laws, one day might bite us all in the butt and Stop these Good Doctors for giving their time and help to others.

Thank you, Kay. You are much better at writing than ; for you said this perfectly.

"The logic is basically saying that vets who do this are the rule, so let's not make a law to address the exceptions >
I'm afraid this really IS hyperbole, comparing apples to oranges, or more accurately, Laws to Regulations. Logic does not apply to these comparisons.

Unethical behavior is not necessarily illegal. Be very, very careful of what we wish for. As much as we are disgusted by vets - and other business people - who overcharge and generally rip off their customers, these practices may or may not be criminal. We risk undervaluing the law by over-criminalizing so much obnoxious, unethical behavior. There really are (in spite of some claims here) current laws against theft, price fixing, conspiracy, criminal behavior of all kinds. Overcharging may or may not be theft. These practices are CIVIL and REGULATORY issues. These are issues for civil court, not criminal court. The Tort system is where these issues belong until the problem behavior reaches a certain degree, which is decided by the high courts and attendant processes. The good news is that penalties for bad behavior in business can often be MUCH GREATER in civil courts than in criminal court. The punishment much more severe and with the chance of restitution to the victim. Jail time won't help, but put enough financial penalties onto someone and they won't be doing it again, probably go out of business. And, depending on the state where you live, there is no avoiding a judgment by going to jail instead, or through financial manipulation. Payment will be guaranteed if there are any assets at all.

Who will enforce this new law? The states, probably, and they are all pretty much broke. Good luck with that. They call these laws 'unfunded mandates'. Not worth the paper they are written on, as they say.

I know we all want to come down hard on these sleazy, greedy and dishonorable creeps, but there are better ways than passing new, basically useless laws. The criminalizing of bad behavior is actually creating disrespect for the law.

I don't know how many of you readers watched the new Ken Burns documentary "Prohibition" on public TV? Fantastic, a Must See for all dog owners, considering what is happening in the country with the animal rights movement to eliminate pets. Watch it and see if you can substitute the word 'animal' for 'alcohol' and see into a sort of crystal ball. Prohibition not only failed to solve any alcohol-related behavior problems, but in fact, made far more problems for American families, and made these problems hundreds of times more severe - alcoholism became an equal opportunity disease, and the disrespect for the law in general allowed Organized Crime to come to the fore and flourish. Sadly, it's here to stay.

Again, be careful what you wish for.

Thank you, chien. That's really what I was trying to say.

Be careful what you wish for or the Meek WILL inherit the earth.

Olivers I don't get this "be careful what you wish for or the meek shall inherit the earth" stuff.

Stephanio - pretty self-explanatory.

The more we allow government regulation ro designate personal choice - the more we ask for what we get. That is, Dummies telling us how to live.

Are we not capable of doing that ourselves? Without a government mandate?

Apparently we are not capable of policing ourselves. If that were the case vets would freely allow me to shop around for the best price on my pets meds. As commentors clearly stated that is not the case. Why is it that a vet can have a monopoly but others may not? Why cant my doctor just say too bad fill your script here or you get nothing. Everyone one of us would find that behavior unacceptable so what is the difference with my dog? My family doctor is great and so is my vet but we don't agree on this one subject.

Your vet can have a monopoly and others may not because there are laws preventing others from having that. This is just an extension of the same kind of protections we currently enjoy under the law when it comes to other consumer issues.

Those who argue that any laws are bad have no understanding of what protections the law currently affords them and no understanding of what life would be like for us if we did not have these kinds of protections in place.

I'm torn on this law. I have always written prescriptions at owner request, and think it is unethical not to do so and I have no problem with refusing to write a script being illegal. I think the short-term decrease in pet care will lead to long-term increase as vets raise prices on services to keep their hospitals running, making the diagnostics more expensive in the long run, but it's too late to stop that now.

I do think parts of the law are asinine:

>>1) Write a prescription whether or not he/she will dispense the product.<<
This is a waste of time and paper. If it's coming out of my pharmacy why the hell should I write the script out first? I'm more than happy to write if they wish to go elsewhere.

>>2) Provide a written disclosure notifying clients that they may fill prescriptions at the veterinary clinic or at an off-site pharmacy. <<
This again seems like a waste of time and paper, especially if we're required to notifying with every script. I'd be much more keen with posting a notice in the front office.

>>3) Verify a prescription electronically, or by other means consistent with applicable state law.<<
No problem here.

>>1) Require the purchase of an animal drug for which the veterinarian has written a prescription.<<
I'm not even sure I understand this? Of course we can't require the purchase of a drug, the client has the right to decline to purchase it. Am I missing something?

>>2) Charge a client a fee for writing a prescription as part of (or in addition to) the fee for examination and evaluation of a pet.<<
No problem here.

>>3) Require a client to sign — or supply a client with — a waiver or liability disclaimer should the prescription be inaccurately filled by an off-site pharmacy. <<
So now it's my fault if the pharmacy screws up the prescription? And they do, believe me. I find clients coming in with prenisone instead of prenisolone, or the wrong size. It's not all the time, but I should only be held responsible for meds prepared in my hospital, and I should have the right to make sure the client knows that pharmacists are NOT trained in veterinary pharmacy for the most part (I've had arguments with pharmacists insisting I give them my NPI or DEA numbers when I don't have the former and don't need the latter to prescribe most of the scripts I write, as well as arguments that YES that is the correct dose for a DOG even if it's not for a human) and they are on their own if the pharmacist messes up. There is also widespread suspicion of counterfeit products being sold by some of the online retailers and if the consumer deserves to know they can get their meds elsewhere they deserve to know that online veterinary pharmacies are not well-policed.

I could get behind a law requiring written prescriptions to be given if asked for, and even informing clients that the option exists, but the law as written seems asinine and I will not support it as written. I will, however, continue to write scripts when asked with no hassle and no fee.

As a pet owner I do not want to have to ask for a prescription. It is awkward. Even when both of my current vets are willing to call things in for me, I don't like having to ask for it, I don't like how often the one office "forgets" to call it in and I get the runaround until it is finally called in with multiple phone calls to the office and to the pharmacy. It takes up everybody's time.
I am educated on the fact that I can ask for a script, many pet owners aren't, that's why there should be required disclosure of this and there should be a written script without me having to ask. There are many reasons for this. If it's not an emergency, it gives me the opportunity to do my own research about the medication, then decide if I want to give this to my pet and where I will buy it.

We may need to agree to disagree. If there is disclosure that the written script is available, and willingness to write it, I don't think I should need to sit down and hand-write a prescription for every single medicine unless I know it is going to be used outside my hospital. I'd find it very frustrating to basically write it once, only to have to order it in our computer once the client fills it with us. If the client is informed that written prescriptions are an option, is it really prohibitively awkward for them to ask instead of me automatically doing everything twice? It might be less awkward for practices that have computer-generated outside scripts with the right software, but I hand-write mine because our software can't do that and it would really slow things down.

I'm fine with requiring disclosure, just not with automatically doing everything twice.

The run-around would not be acceptable, but that's a whole 'nother issue and has a lot to do with forcing someone to do something they don't want to. That doesn't make it okay to drag their heels, but it's a side effect of forcing the vet office's hand and again I think if your vet is doing this with outside prescriptions you should be looking for a new one rather than trying to legislate them into better behavior. They are probably not a good fit and better to find someone who will work with you now than continue to put up with it. Losing business is a great motivator to change behavior like that which is hard to prosecute.

Being a nurse I know a lot about redundent work, so I understand that many veterinarians will balk at the idea to have to write a script to themselves. Maybe there would be a solution to this such as owners opting out of a written prescription? Also a prescription does not have to be filled out by a doctor, only the signature from the doctor is required, none of our human docs fill out the scripts themselves, so the same could be done in a vet's office. I totally understand that a business has to make money to stay in business, so I don't think I am unrealistic in my expectations that medications at my vet's office shouldn't cost many times more than what they would cost me elsewhere. If I order on the internet those businesses still make money on those meds even with the free shipping, otherwise they wouldn't be in business.
As far as changing vets goes, I live in a small town with only 3 vet offices, one vet has lied to me on more than one occasion and won't accept walk-ins, so I won't go there anymore. The other vet refused to write me a script unless I would bring the dog in for labwork every time I needed a refill, she didn't require labwork if I bought directly from her, and then she misdiagnosed one of my dogs with a infected uterus and sent us in for emergency surgery, the vets at the surgery center told me there was nothing wrong with the uterus, my dog just had a lot of gas in her colon. So I am with vet #3 and my last option here in town and I am generally very happy with him. It's not him who is dragging his feet on calling stuff in, it's his staff who isn't always on top of things. This vet has always been willing to work with me, does housecalls and has the best equipment, such as digital x-rays, that the other vets in town don't have. Not all of us live in places where it's easy or even possible to go to another vet. I have another one where I go for certain procedures or certain pets, but it's a 2 hour drive over mountain pass and I can't go there for everything so I need a local vet to see my pets.

Agree with you. The part about a written prescription no matter what is silly. I'd imagine the office could easily get around this by offering waivers that clients can sign one time saying they understand the law and are willing to forego the written prescription when meds are being dispensed onsite. It's not that big a deal, really.

Re: "Require the purchase of an animal drug for which the veterinarian has written a prescription"

I think I understand this. Some vets have threatened to drop people as clients if they want to fill a prescription outside. They require drugs to be purchased from them.

As for the liability/disclaimer about outside pharmas filling it wrong, this does sound a little silly to me, but for a different reason. Vet offices also often fill prescriptions incorrectly. I had it happen to me, I caught it thankfully. In other cases pets have died when unlicensed assistants in-house have been allowed to fill RX's and filled them wrong.

So, how is this risk greater outside than inside? That's unclear to me.

I still support it tho.

Ah, I had no idea some vets did that, it makes more sense now. Thanks for clearing that up. I can support that, I guess, although I do think that if your vet is saying they will drop you as a client for not buying from them you've got a bad one and you should leave anyway. Still, I can support the idea and don't mind that part of it now that I understand what it's getting at.

The way I read the bit about the waiver, though, it is protecting the vet from someone else's mistake. It's not to say a vet can't fill their own prescription incorrectly and cause problems, and if it happens they should be held responsible. But there's no way I should be held responsible for someone else bungling a script I write. The onus should be on the client for making sure that what they get is what I wrote, and on the pharmacist to fill it accurately and to check with the vet before changing anything if they think it is wrong. Too many pharmacists seem to think cats and dogs are small humans.

My big fear on this is the increasing consolidation, with private practices being bought up by VCA and Banfield and the like. There's not going to be much room for competition among vets in coming years. If we don't have laws like this in place, they'll have a monopoly on meds and you won't have anyplace to turn.

I agree that you should not be held responsible for someone else's mistake, and that part of the language doesn't even seem legally enforceable to me. They should take that out.

It's almost like they put that in there thinking it would reduce veterinary opposition to the bill, by planting the implication that their pets will be at higher risk of the RX is filled outside. I guess that would be why they would put the language in there, to give vets a way to say "but your pet will be at higher risk if you choose to do this" -- kind of almost contravenes the whole rationale behind the law in the first place.

3) Require a client to sign — or supply a client with — a waiver or liability disclaimer should the prescription be inaccurately filled by an off-site pharmacy. 

Maybe I'm missing something but I read this to mean that if I want a script(and get it) but decide on a off site pharmacy this waiver would shield vets from liability from errors.

So if the vet writes out a script for a poison instead of a remedy.... he won't be held liable? But if he fills the script in his office and gives me the poison and kills my pet, and the autopsy proves his error then I can hold him liable? I am really not sure what the point is of that document - any one else understand it? Thanks.

Sorry you lost me on your comment

The waiver would shield the vet if after he's written the script then you take it and get it filled but the off site pharmacy screws it up. I still don't get the poison thing. Oh well.

"should the prescription be /inaccurately filled/ by an off-site pharmacy."

A document like this would not shield a vet from writing a script for the wrong medication or dosage or for "poison." It would say that the vet is not responsible if the pharmacist fills the script incorrectly - wrong med, wrong dosage, wrong schedule, etc. If I write a prescription for a med for 50 mg and the pharmacist thinks that's way too low because it doesn't fit with what a human would get and fills it for 100 mg instead, do you think the vet should be responsible?

Inaccurately filled is the key. There is no difference than if my family doctor wrote a script and chain pharmacy screwed up the prescription. The doctor isn't responsible if the pharmacy got it wrong.

Btw the pharmacy that has filled the antibiotic for me has the rx in my pets name and it is clearly stated it is for a canine not human.

As it should be. I'm not saying that all pharmacists screw stuff up, or even that most or many do. But I've seen a couple mess up, either by extrapolating something from human medicine that simply isn't true for pets or by not realizing the script was for a pet. It can happen. Vets can also make mistakes with filling a script, and they should take responsibility for those, but we shouldn't need to take responsibility for the pharmacist's mistakes as well.

I haven't seen this mentioned much yet, but many pet owners don't even take their pets to the vet anymore because they cannot afford the medications and they don't know they could ask for a script and get the medication much cheaper elsewhere. I had a personal experience with this in an elderly pet who had severe pain from arthritis. The owner said she could not afford the pain medications from the vet which would run close to 100 dollars a month. I told her that she can ask for a prescription and that my own seniors are on a generic drug for humans that is the equivalent to the veterinary Metacam, it costs me 2 dollars a month for my large breed dogs for the meloxicam. This lady asked her vet and was told that they have no prescription pads so can't give her a script. She told me about it, so I told her they can call it in or go to another vet. She saw another vet in that same office who was a fill-in, he had no problem writing her the script and both dog and owner were much happier once the dog was on pain meds. Btw neither of my vets knew that the generic drug for humans existed and were surprised to hear how cheap it is. So, my point is that many pets are not getting the treatments they need because their owners cannot afford buying the meds at the veterinary office. Everybody loses, the veterinary office because the pet is not being taken to the vet, the pet who is suffering and the owner who feels guilty and suffers with the pet. I very much support this law, it will help more animals getting the care they need.

The last time I bought a bag of sub q fluids at a vets office the price was around $24.

When my cat survived with brain damage for 2 years after being given an insulin overdoes by his veterinarian's son and then being left untreated for aforementioned overdoes for 24 hours, he didn't "know" how to drink water anymore. He could eat with help, but not drink. This contributed to him careening into a hyperosmolar crisis. It became apparent that he was going to need fluids twice a day to maintain his hydration level. 100 ml, twice a day.

I did that for 2 years.

I could not have afforded it if each bag cost me $24. With a presciption, I was able to get them through an online pharmacy for about $4 or less a bag.

That's a what -- 600% markup? And yes, the prescription here and the associated price difference was critically important to me being able to give him what he needed.

Many cats and dogs in kidney failure -- same thing. They get to a point where once a day fluids are better than a few times a week, and finally to the point where twice a day is better than once a day. I have personally observed two pets do much better and stay stable longer on twice a day fluids. The difference between $4 a bag and $24 a bag is huge. If you are doing 100 ml 2x a day, that's a bag every 5 days, 73 bags a year. At 73 bags a year, the price difference is $1,460.

There is a lot of contention here, which is clouding the issue. There are a lot of tangents and personal experiences, which can help to make a decision, certainly, but it is also helpful to get the Big Picture, get away from looking too closely, missing the forest for the trees.

I am a Legislative liaison for my breed club, and a delegate to our state dog federation for my SAR team and my obedience club. It is my responsibility to bring issues like this to a diverse membership, and help these people sort out the important issues that will affect them. I find it very helpful to ease them away from focusing on the details at some point, as important as they are, and helping them to see around corners. One thing I have to say is that this time in our history is not a pleasant time in politics. A lobbyist, former politician, said that in his lifetime in politics he doesn't remember a single moment from the past that comes even close to the anger, frustration, hatefulness, animosity that is today's political arena. Sad, isn't it?

After working with several issues similar to HR 1406 at a state and local level, I feel it is important for me to share some things I have learned.

These issues tend to shake out by party, but in reality, it is NOT a partisan issue. Dems, Republicans, Independents, Progressives and anything else are universally animal lovers, party has nothing to do with it. That said, even though bills like this one will tend to appeal to the more liberal folks, and I, personally, tend to lean slightly Democratic in my voting nationally, I will be calling my Reps and Senators about this, speaking in opposition. Please do NOT make decisions on this by political party. Listen to all sides.

All the problems with vets shared here are true, valid, very important, but I do not see anything in a federal bill like HR 1406 that can help any one of us in the long run - except the politicians who propose it, followed by the rest of the flock who are put in position to be labeled negatively if they do not support it. The accusations will be: not care about animals' health; too big on 'free market'; not big enough on consumer protection; thoughtless about suffering; anti-business; too pro-business; and so forth, until there will be a pothole for everyone to fall into if they oppose this bill. In an election season, good luck with that. Timing is everything.

Probably the biggest threat to the average pet owner without a trustworthy vet is the False Sense of Security that bills like this provide. The devil is in the details - trite phrase, but a truism. Don't expect to see results, or sit back and wait for the government to help you out. Laws are meaningless to unethical people, unless someone knows they will be caught, and this bill has no teeth that I can see.

I recommend to anyone who has experienced these dreadful problems with veterinary services that she please become familiar with LOCAL political scene. Consumer protection starts with YOU, and if you can't solve the problem yourself, find out where you can go. You don't have to know all the answers, just where to look them up. Issues like this are really best dealt with locally, more efficient, more positive results, more direct action can be taken, more control over your own situation, all around better.

No matter how good this law sounds, I can tell you from experience that you will probably not see any positive, REAL effects. Particularly for yourself. The feds are not much interested in individuals, frankly. Your elected officials ARE concerned, talk to your representatives. Avoid cynicism, it is entirely self destructive. America is a Republic, with representative government. If you want something done, talk to the people who have been elected to represent YOU.

Frankly, we can probably count on this passing, but I will warn everyone to not sit back and expect anything meaningful to be done in states with poor business regulations. You will still have to take care of yourself.

Re:

" A lobbyist, former politician, said that in his lifetime in politics he doesn't remember a single moment from the past that comes even close to the anger, frustration, hatefulness, animosity that is today's political arena. Sad, isn't it?"

Absolutely agree with you here.

"These issues tend to shake out by party, but in reality, it is NOT a partisan issue. Dems, Republicans, Independents, Progressives and anything else are universally animal lovers, party has nothing to do with it."

Absolutely agree with you here too.

As for the false sense of security --

I agree that pet "owners" (I like to stay out of the "owner" vs. "guardian" debate) have a false sense of security when it comes to vets. I also agree that this false sense of security is a danger to their pets, and to them.

However, in my opinion, that false sense of security is here and pervasive and has nothing to do with this law. This law will neither increase the false sense of security, nor do a damn thing to put a crack in it. They definitely need to have this false sense of security destroyed, but the outcome of this law and its presense or absence won't affect it one way or the other.

The false sense of security comes from the unparalled position and reputation that veterinarians as a profession enjoy. They truly have mythical halos over their heads, not only to the average pet owner but to the average citizen, pet owner or not. We do not see vets with clear, objective eyes. We see a projection of what we believe a vet to be. That projection is an illusion that only on happy rare occasions is anywhere near the reality.

Veterinarians are consistently among the top rated professions in polls of the public for honesty and several other positive characteristics. Pet owners truly do not realize that vets, just like doctors, CAN BE incompetent. The truly block out the possibility.

I have many theories about why this is, but the fact that it IS has been established in survey after survey.

That naiive and dangerous illusion needs badly to be shattered, but this law won't affect that one way or the other.

This law will, however, make it illegal for vets to bilk pet owners by refusing to give RXs and that is still in my eyes a good thing.

Peace out.

I agree that this bill is overkill, but that tends to be what happens in response to a field in which the practicioners act unscrupulously. I live in an area where there are 12 vets within a 30 minute drive. Of those 12 vets, only 3 are willing to write prescriptions to be filled off site. But those 3 vets all have reputations for dirty facilities, poor service, and bad medicine. A doctors willingness to write a prescription does not necessarily make them a better practicioner.

Vets need to stop depending on pharmacy sales to keep their hospitals afloat. MDs practice medicine and leave prescription filling up to pharmacists, and so should DVMs. Does that mean increasing prices on services, absolutely. But they should be charging appropriate prices for the medicine they practice, not reducing prices because people are cheap and think they deserve cheaper healthcare because their companions walk on 4 legs instead of 2 and trying to make up their losses with pharmacy sales. Medical services are expensive, regardless of who the patient is, and if the market is not their for animal medical services, vets need to think about using their skills in another way (industry, research, etc.). this happens in EVERY profession, look at the state of new law grads for instance...

About mark ups on meds dispensed in vet clinics...just because the vet's price is higher than the pharmacy's does not mean they are charging a 300% or 600% markup. Vets cannot buy drugs in bulk the way many corporate pharmacies can, and therefore do not enjoy the same wholesale price that pharmacies get, which allow the pharmacy to mark the drugs at a lower price. In addition, $4 and $10 generics are what they call "loss leaders". The pharmacy takes a loss on the sale of these items to get your buisness so that you will buy the more profitable drugs and other goods in the store(for instance also stop and shop at Target or Wal-Mart). Just because a bag of fluids costs $4 at Wal-Mart does not mean that the vet is charging a 600% markup on those same fluids...the vet pays more in the first place, and Wal-Mart takes a loss on the item.

Re: the markups.

I was buying them from Direct Medical, which vets can also order from, so in my example of fluids, it does seem to me that they were being marked up about 600%.

Couldn't agree more with you. Panacur is the tough one for me. $240 versus -100.00
Vets know they have a captive audience and as such charge whatever they want.

If you think people in today's economy are either willing or able to pay EVEN MORE for pet health care, you have to be out of your mind. Most of the times I drive past the local vet offices, the parking lots are empty. Practices that used to be busy and thriving are dead.

The rising cost of vet care means that most pets here are no longer vaccinated; no longer receive even minimum care. I hear stories all the time of animals put to death because the owner could not afford the cost of fixing an injury or illness (I never heard those stories twenty years ago). I'm also seeing an increase in unlicensed animal care - under-the-table neuters of male cats, off-duty nurses willing to stitch up a wound, etc.

The answer cannot be to raise prices. I'll bet that if prices dropped to reasonable levels, those empty offices would again be filled with people trying to provide care for their pets. To compare health care for people to health care for animals is ridiculous.

Welkin,

Agree with what you say; here's what confuses me.

I did research for a presentation this summer, and found that in spite of the recession, Americans are spending more on pet care, and veterinary services cost has been continuing to increase. Here is what I found:

-- Americans spent $55 billion on their pets in 2010
-- Spending up 12% in spite of recession
-- Veterinary industry is biggest slice of this at over $13 billion; price of vet care up 8% in 2010

So, since we agree that:

-- MORE people are getting rid of their pets because they can't afford them in this economy (although I think many of us here would be homeless in a tent before giving up our pets); AND

-- MORE people are struggling to afford their pets food and supplies, let alone adequate veterinary care now

How is it that the price of vet care rose 8% in 2010 and the "pet industry" took in 12% more in 2010?

The answer must be:

Those of us who haven't lost our jobs and haven't fallen on seriously hard times are spending more on our pets.

Seems to me, the veterinary industry has decided to keep the recession from impacting them by raising their prices and getting more money out of fewer people, even if the end result is that many clients can no longer afford them and thus, pets suffer with illness or die or are given up to shelters to face certain death.

Of course it is appropriate to compare the cost of human medical care to that of animals. DVMs spend the same # of years in school and spend the same amount of money to get their degrees. The equipment costs the same whether an x-ray machine is for a hospital or vet clinic. A chem panel costs the same to run whether the patient is human or animal. DVMs should not take a loss because people feel they have a RIGHT to own animals they cannot afford. When you spend over $100,000 and 8 years on your education you need to make more than $40,000/yr to compensate, especially when your human counterparts can make more than $100,000 per year.

People's irresponsibility for their pets medical care is why most pets do not receive adequate care, not because vets charge too much. An unwillingness of people to pay appropriate prices does not make this the DVMs fault than animals are going without care.

unlicensed care again is the fault of irresponsible owners, not DVMs...people care more about saving a buck than providing decent care to their animals.

If prices dropped, DVMs could not afford to keep their practices, and would go out of buisness. It would encourage hiring of unlicensed techs, cutting corners on services, and all around lower the standard of care. If you want cheap care then be prepared to pay for crappy care cause that is what you will ultimately get.

Amen & Thank You, jas!

Sorry you knew the pay scale going into vet care. Don't blame me for your student loans and don't blame me if you can't afford the new SUV this year. We all make choices. Don't blame me if I choose to not pay your over inflated prices for antibiotics,flea meds, and the list goes on. Charge a reasonable price instead of 2,3,4 or 5 times I can buy elsewhere. My doctor charges seventy five dollars to walk in the door..Fine..I have no problem with a vet charging for their professional services(office call etc) and paying a comparable price as my doctor. But come on the maintenance drugs for my dogs shouldn't be used to pay for the private schooling for three kids. They have a captive audience and they know it.

This conversation has gotten way off topic now...but, since it is:

$75 to walk in the door? Good Lord, where do you live? I thought Calif was expensive. But our vet only charge $35 to walk in the door.

Overly expensive meds, animals harmed by poor vet care - I'll say it again...if you don't like your vet or how he runs his practice - then change vets!

BTW - my vet's kids go to public schools & he drives a compact Toyota.

Now - let me tell you what my oncologist drives & where his kids go to school - or any other MD out there! hahaha

I clearly posted it was 75 for my doctor visit not my vet who charges 30.00 for a visit. I have suggested instead of gauging me on meds that I can't shop around on(don't have vets on every corner either) but to instead charge a little more on professional services. Ie vet office visits. If going into the office I know I'm paying forty,fifty dollars for a visit I can plan for that. I can't plan for the 5x gauging of antibiotics and I'm left with no choice but to fill there. It must be nice to be able to shop around for your meds and vets but some of us can't. It isn't as easy as you think. My vet drives a new car,the specialists drive a beemer,Prius and an Escalade. I drive a thirteen year old jeep proudly.

Please note that this is precisely what i said in my original post: veterinarians need to drop the dependency on pharmaceuticals to keep their clinics afloat and instead charge more appropriate (higher) prices for the medical services they provide.

On a more important note: Please show some respect for veterinarians. veterinarians ARE doctors, that is what the D in DVM stands for. so when you use the term "doctor" this does not automatically imply MD, and the insinuation that it does is insulting. vets undergo the same rigorous medical training as MDs, except vets are responsible for 1/2 a dozen or more diverse species, as opposed to their MD counterpart's responsibility to the medical training on one species.

It's also harder to get into vet school than med school --- there are far fewer vet schools than there are medical schools.
It's obvious there are some here that are using this forum as a way to bash their own lousy vets. When they should change vets. "Not as easy as I think?" What - only 1 vet in your area? Got one that won't "allow" you to get meds outside his office AND he's the only game in town? Doubt it.
And that, My Dear Watson, is why some think we need this bill. Make it harder on the vets. Easier on lazy pet owners.

I have two in my area which is a twenty minute drive each way . Plus both have hours that are not easy with my work. As many previously stated it isn't as easy as you think.
I have stated many many many times I appreciate and like my vet who does a great job(see above posts) but I don't worship her or put her on a pedestal. Also I stated the rxs are the only issue I have. But you instead you say some just want to bash the poor vet.


Jas23..get over it. I don't call my doctor a MD in the above article nor am I calling you DVM I call my vet a vet and my doctor a doctor. I'm glad I have a vet not one so hung up on what I call her.

Oh, jas23 -- you mean that vet prices are high so that vets can hire licensed techs?

If that's true, why was my cat given an insulin overdose by an unlicensed kennel assistant, working unsupervised, at one of the more expensive AAHA-accredited "hospitals" in my area?

Why aren't the "better" veterinary offices hiring licensed techs?

Believe me when I say -- I pay more to go to a business that DOES use licensed techs. But I was always willing to pay anything I had for my cats, and that didn't stop a vet from cutting corners, and along with it, cutting out large swaths of my favorite cats brain with neuronal necrosis due to prolonged severe hypoglycemia from an insulin overdoes given by unlicensed staff left alone to care for patients.

You are so dreaming about that licensed techs thing. IF ONLY most vets hired licensed techs! Most don't! And yes, now I know the difference, once I did not. I was always willing to pay whatever it took, and look what it got me.

Yes, now I go exclusively to a practice with licensed techs. Yes, they are wicked expensive and I don't bitch about it.

But don't tell me all the higher priced vets are using licensed techs, because I know better. A former vet board member in my state did a study on this. He found that vet business owners simply DON'T WANT TO PAY THE EXTRA MONEY for licensed techs. Since there is no money in becoming licensed and vets aren't willing to invest in getting good assistants the training they need to become licensed, this creates a self fulfilling prophecy in my state. There are few licensed techs, which becomes vets excuse for not having them, but hte truth is they aren't willing ot pay for it anyway. A person making $11 an hour can't afford a $3,000 per class associates degree program, and could only go if their employer would pay for it. Vets won't do it, therefore, no one can get licensed. Vets are not interested in paying to develop this capacity in their own profession. Sure, they'd hire licensed techs if they a) don't have to pay for their training and licensing and b) don't cost much more than unlicensed assistants. They aren't willing to pay, so they don't hire them. This is not my opinion. It is the results of a survey of veternarians in my state.

Nowhere did i say that higher priced vets automatically means better care, this is simply not always true. what i was saying was that if veterinarians dropped their prices further, as suggested previously, this would GUARANTEE less licensed techs be hired because clinics wouldnt be able to afford them, further degrading the quality of care provided.

i completely agree that vets are not willing to pay enough for licensed techs, but this is because CLIENTS are not willing to pay enough to support the hire of licensed techs. the cost of hiring more qualified staff gets passed onto the consumer (as it should), but as we have seen here, many consumers are not willing to take on this higher cost. you are, and that is great, but i was responding to a comment from people who are NOT willing to pay vets appropriate prices for their services.

I'm glad you support hiring and valuing licensed techs, Jas, but I know for a fact that your reasoning as to why they don't is wrong, at least wrong in many cases. I live in the DC metro area. There are plenty of vet hospitals around here that are expensive, that charge enough to afford licensed techs. Of those businesses, very few of them have even 1 licensed tech on staff, let alone a staff of techs all of whom are licensed. I know this for a fact. It is not because vets can't charge enough because clients won't pay.

I drive nearly an hour now to take my pets to one of the very few hospitals in the area that meets this criteria -- nearly all their techs are licensed (and boy, did I make noise when an unlicensed one referred to herself as a "tech" to me - but her nametage said assistant so it wasn't the hospitals fault.)

I pay a lot, they are right in line with the most expensive places in the DC area which is an expensive area to begin with.

Don't you think I'd be willing to pony up the same amount but NOT have to drive 1 hour? Yes I would.

There is not one other single place I have found in the DC area that is not an exclusively referral/ER place that uses exclusively licensed techs. Not a single one that I have found.

Some businesses may have 1 LVT, but not enough to ensure that all activities requiring medical skill will be performed by an LVT and not an unlicensed assistant.

Here is what we can agree on --

Licensed technicians are valuable. Using them raises the bar on care. They deserve to be paid well, treated well, and if it means that the hospital will be one of the more expensive ones in a geographic region, that's OK.

Perhaps we could also agree on this --

The pet owning public does not currently understand the meaning of licensed vs. unlicensed. They are truly naiive and ignorant about the importance of finding a practice that uses LVTs. I was that person once and had to find out the truly heartbreaking way.

We should spend some energy educating pet owners about what kind of training LVTs get and why they are important, and also educate them about the dangerous and widespread practice of vets using all unlicensed assistants whose level of training is objectively un-verifiable by the pet owner.

honestly I don't think it's so much that people don't WANT to spend money on their pets, often they simply can't. 5 years ago many people never thought they would lose their jobs or that everything would get so much more expensive or what about the family who has a human in the family get sick and it takes out all their resources? I don't think anybody wants their vet to go out of business or not being able to provide for their own families. But if people don't have the money they cannot generously pay for overprized drugs. I believe the veterinary industry needs to look at alternative ways to increase income. Here is just one example, we have a feedstore here in town who holds monthly "shot clinics", since it's nearby I have witnessed many times how many people show up with their pets for these "shots", dozens and dozens every month. This is a vet that comes here from out of town, he doesn't know those dogs, he doesn't give them an exam, just the shots and that's it. Why do people go, they don't want to pay for a office visit and they don't understand the value of a vet/client relationship. Our local vets lose a lot of business to this guy. So why don't our local vets have shot clinics once a month, they could set it up like an assembly line, owners fill out a questionnaire then one tech reviews those and asks more questions if needed, then hands it over to the vet who gives a brief exam and addresses any issues that the tech has discovered, no extra cost but recommendation to come in for a office visit with an explanation of why if needed, 3rd step would be a tech that actually gives the shots. The same thing could be done without the shots for low cost "exams" in assembly type fashion, minor issues can be addressed, during such an exam, sell drugs at low cost during such events to move inventory. Other events could be a health fair when the vet would provide lower cost labwork, fecals, microchips etc. Another thing I don't understand that my vets are not more pro-active about is pet insurance, most have the VPI brochures out, well, VPI isn't the only insurance and I have provided both of my vets with info on the pet insurance I have that pays a percentage of what my actual bill is not a pre-set amount per condition regardless of how much I pay. Owners are a lot more likely to take their pet to the vet and don't worry about how much meds cost if they know that most of it will be covered by insurance. I have talked to the receptionists and explained that if more people have insurance people will spend more money at the vets, more income means job security and pay raises, does anybody look into it, no, but they charge me 4 dollars for a pill I can get for 69 cents on the internet without a prescription and free shipping.

I've been going to the same Vet in Long Island for over 10 years, and they charge $5 for each prescription if I do not get the meds from them - Of course I don't, they are almost always nearly twice the price of any internet meds. Most of the time I know ahead of time, research the cheapest price of the same exact medicine, print it out and ask if they will match. Depending who is on duty at the time, they will usually match it- sometimes they refuse. I've even considered changing vets because of this, but we like the vets themselves and the way they handle our pet. thank you for this info - I'll take it with me the next time I go!

I work at an animal hospital, and this would create a LOT of unnecessary paperwork for us. We are always willing to write/authorize prescriptions and fax them or call them into pharmacies. Not to mention that our prices are very fair and are on par with what you would pay at on online pharmacy like PetMeds. This might help to discourage unscrupulous vets, but it also creates a ton of work for honest vets with their patients (and their owners) best interests at heart.

I am a veterinarian. Of course I prefer that clients get their medication from me. I get paid (which is admittedly a huge plus). But I also know all the medication the pet is on. I know about drug interactions in various species of animals. Also, the record keeping is easy (we use paperless medical records unlike our human medicine counterparts.

But we have a sign out in our lobby stating upon request, we will provide a written prescription. This is required by California state law. It is also required by our veterinary code of ethics. We do not charge for this service. It is illegal in our state and also considered unethical.

To have to write a prescription: 1) will be a time burden 2) lead to errors (anyone see a doctor's writing?) 3) increase odds of unknown interaction 4) make follow up on medications more difficult-we worry about antibiotic resistant bacteria too!

So who's behind the bill? Big pharmacies are, not just on-line but the big stores. They want to get your pet dollars and hope you will convert your expensive human prescriptions too (and shop in the store while you wait). But do these pharmacists have any knowledge of pets' unique and different physiologies? No. So how can they assist you with any medications? They can't.

If we lose revenue for time to do this (less appointments per day) and the money we'd get for selling the medications, we will be forced to raise prices elsewhere. The economy has hit veterinarians hard too, and most clinics are hurting. Most veterinarians are very close to their clients and have not increased fees much...but the veterinary pharmacies, landlords, banks, laboratories, fuel/electrical costs, and medical insurance sure haven't stopped. What this will mean is increased costs to treat sick patients, which will mean more people will need pet insurance, which means any pharmacy savings people received are now going to pay insurance premiums.

I listen to my clients. If they want a written script they can have one. We also support an on-line pharmacy that works with our software system to prevent errors. But let's think carefully about who the winners of this will be....and you can bet it's the pharmacies and the insurance companies and not the pet owners. Do you honestly think that congress really has your best interest at heart?

Dr. Horn,

You are absolutely correct! Our vet (CA) also will write the Rx if his patients want it. In my case, I trust him more then the pharmacist at CVS & no one knows my fur-friends better than him (other than me).

However, if you read thru all these comments, you'll see many who just wanted a reason to complain. If they didn't like their vet or the way he runs his practice, they'd change.

You'll also find, I'm afraid, that more & more people are willing to let the government make their decisions for them - absolves them of all responsibilities.

Sheeple.

Dr. Horn, I am pleased that you say without the California legislation you would provide your client's with a written prescription. Many of us are not so lucky. (I don't think my getting the 30 day supply of enalapril for my dog at Walmart for $4 as opposed to paying $20 at my vet's is an unreasonalble thing to do when I am having trouble paying all the vet bills I had for my little senior.)

Some of us have changed vets in our communities when we didn't care for the standard of care and we have stated such in our comments and have also made the point that there's only a few vets to choose from in a smaller towns. Unfortunately your "fan" - Oliver's Mom, has been unable to comprehend what other's have written, I hope if you choose to read other people's comments you'll see and grasp the whole picture and understand that the people writing are not "sheeple," but the person throwing judgements around is definitely a sheeple proven by the very fact that she is unable to comprehend anyone else's experience but her own. SHE IS the type of person that will be responsible for the ruination of this country. She needs to stop being a troll. And maybe even let her heart soften her a bit so she appears more human.

Papillon-

I did not attack you personally on this forum - unless you consider yourself 1 of the few that whined.

People like me do not add to the "ruination" of this country. We fight against it. It's not that I am incapable of "comprehending" others' experiences. But I AM against bringing the government into the picture to pass a law to override an individual's choice.

If you choose to attack me, do so politely by sending an email, not a public forum.

I invite you to do so: beckyevans@surewest.net