Undercover Vet Segment On 20/20.

[Hubcitypam]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/veterinarian-honest-20987714

[robinw]

Interesting. Nothing surprising; a business is a business.

[Hubcitypam]

Business is business unless you are possibly harming your clients.

 

The 3 year AVMA vaccine protocols have been in place for several years and we have three year rabies here in Texas. Many vets here that still insist on all shots every year. I left a vet because he insisted on it and charged just about $140 for office visits and shots. Lepto needs to be done every year but not the rest...then there is putting dogs under sedation to for unneeded dentals.

 

Honestly, I've had two vet clinic where I watched the suggest expensive procedures to well heeled clients that they never did to me. At one there was a lady with a dog in a purse. She bragged that she got the mixed breed mutt for ONLY $1,200 because it was a mistake.

 

I asked "can he be so good to me because of the purse dog people?" The lady at the desk said "we have a lot of purse dog people".

Edited November 24, 2013 by Hubcitypam

[Hubcitypam]

I'm not vet bashing but it seems sometimes they are like car salesman gauging how (un)informed their clients are and how much they will spend.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Hubcitypam

[JJNg]

I'm sure that there are some vets who recommend unnecessary procedures, but I don't think this segment proves that point, nor is the reason always to 'upsell'. Veterinarians are people too, and some are more knowledgeable and experienced than others. Some unnecessary expensive tests may be recommended because a vet has made a mistake, misinterpreted signs, lacks confidence, or isn't skilled or experienced enough to make a diagnosis with less costly methods. Or the basic steps of history and physical exam may indicate a likely diagnosis, but more expensive testing is the best way to go to confirm it before proceeding with treatment.

 

Some vets may choose to skip the laboratory tests and allow the client to save money, but that isn't necessarily the best thing for the pet, if the treatment is costly or has potential side effects, and there's a chance (even if it's a small one) that the diagnosis is wrong. I practice with the philosophy that I will present all the options, and my recommended course of action, to the owner, and it's the owner's choice what options they are willing and able to pursue. I do agree that the owner does have some responsibility in doing research and asking questions if they are not comfortable with what their vet is recommending. Vets are not perfect, and IMO, a good vet should welcome feedback and encourage a dialog with clients.

 

To address some of the specific examples given in the 20/20 segment (based on the transcript, since I can't get the video to play). The advice "just to monitor a lump" is often not providing the best quality medicine. Recommendations to do a fine needle aspirate to check out a lump, or even a biopsy or surgery to remove it, is not because vets want to make money, but to make sure that the growth isn't something serious. Nothing wrong with bringing up the "c" word if that lump really might be cancer. Sure, there are some growths that, based on how they look and feel, and clinical experience, are most likely benign, but you can't tell for sure without microscopic testing.

 

My own dog had a small, subcutaneous growth, less than 1/2 and inch in diameter, that didn't change or grow, and I chose to "just monitor" it. At the time, he was under the care of a board certified vet oncologist to manage an unrelated cancer. Neither of us thought the growth was very concerning, but about a year later, she finally suggested that we really should at least aspirate it. When I did, the cytology showed suspicious cells, so I followed with surgery to remove it, and the biopsy came back as an unusual type of carcinoma. He died the following year of metastatic carcinoma (this was Corey, my mixed breed who I posted about in Remembrance back in June). He was 12 years old, and this was his 2nd cancer, so I'm not sure anything would have changed the outcome, and I'm at peace with what happened. But a small part of me still wonders, and it definitely reaffirms my standard practice of recommending aspirates for any growth that is large enough to do so effectively. If it had been a client's dog, I would have recommended an aspirate and cytology when the lump was first noticed.

 

The practice of routine dental evaluation and cleaning under anesthesia is one with many opinions, even within the veterinary community. Recommending annual 'dentals' with x-rays, even if the teeth look fine, is considered the best standard of care by veterinary dental specialists and is equivalent to the level of care provided in human dentistry. Most people certainly don't wait until their teeth are covered in tartar and getting loose before they see a dentist for a cleaning. We go in for routine cleaning and evaluation even when our teeth look and feel fine. Even teeth that look clean can be developing disease under the gumline that can't be detected unless the pet is under anesthesia, and some issues can only be seen on dental x-rays. Obviously the risk of general anesthesia is a concern that doesn't apply to people for routine dental care, but there are risks of untreated/undetected dental disease too, and that's a choice that needs to be made by the individual vet and owner.

 

The majority of vets don't "push unneeded services" just to make money and meet their overhead. There are usually very valid reasons why they may feel it's the best option for optimal care. Overall, I found this segment to be a biased piece that doesn't present all the facts from the veterinary side, and seems to have a goal of making vets look bad. I guess that's not surprising either, as that's what the media seems to do best.

[krissy]

Deleted my post because Jennifer did it much more eloquently than I did. (I worked all day and my technician and I both almost ended up at the human ER after wrangling an aggressive dog... I feel like that exam and vaccines should have cost A LOT more than it did! Anyway, not very eloquent tonight as a result.)

Edited November 24, 2013 by krissy

[JJNg]

Honestly, I've had two vet clinic where I watched the suggest expensive procedures to well heeled clients that they never did to me.

 

Not saying this applies to you, since I don't know your relationship with these vets, but with clients we've come to know, we often adjust the recommendations that we make based on what we know about the owner's priorities and philosophy. Some people view their dogs as children and would do whatever is medically available. Others love their dogs but view them as 'just dogs' that they won't do any more than the basics. If there's a previous history of interactions and we know the client, there's no reason to waste time and offend the client by recommending things we know they won't accept.

[Acadianarose]

Until very recently, I have not had problems with my vet (last time I went though, a new vet was working and I really felt like she was pushing expensive treatments). However, the push for yearly vaccinations drive me insane. In Louisiana, rabies are yearly so of course, every time go, the vet automatically starts to give a bunch of shots, so I have to make sure they doesn't get anything they don't need. Every time I give my animals a vaccination, I run the risk of a reaction.

 

Really though, around here, you can't bring your pet to the groomer, broading, or even classes at Petsmart unless they have had all of the vaccinations yearly. I have considered requesting a titter but I don't know if that would be a acceptable substitute.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Acadianarose

[Hubcitypam]

Some people view their dogs as children and would do whatever is medically available. Others love their dogs but view them as 'just dogs' that they won't do any more than the basics.

I understand what you are saying but my dogs are not 'just dogs' nor are they my children. I'm in some kind of grey area. I'll do everything I can for them. I wasn't referring to you.

 

When Buddy had lymphoma three vets, including one from sacred The Ohio State said there was no need for an aspirate and biopsy as if you had a dog with every single lymph node involved to golf ball size in a couple of days over the weekend and the dog was eating normally it was a solid sign of lymphoma. One of the most regarded greyhound vets in the U.S. told me that didn't even biopsy their lymphoma dog as the signs were as clear as Buddy's. They said it was more like "holy crap - this dog has lymphoma!"

 

I am spent around $1,200 on Bella before she passed and I am now in the hole over $1,000 for Comfort's Ex-Cap as I couldn't afford TPLO. We are 6 weeks post op with total rest and one month into short leash walks which is way better. He can't be off controlled leash walks until after the first of the year according to my vet and the ortho at the surgical referral center.

 

As far as grooming Poodle is 14 and my vet gave him what he said was his last rabies shot in April. After his third stroke a couple of weeks ago He won't have any more shots at all. I quit the rest at 10 with my vet's blessing. He now goes to a retired groomer that takes a few clients in her home. I don't think he'll outlast this rabies shot but he's been proving me wrong for years. The last 5 times I've taken him to the groomer I've said "I'm sure this will be the last time". :)I swear he'll outlive me - the odds of which seem to be increasing over time.

 

As far as lumps Poodle had had them of years and we did biopsy a bunch of them which were harmless fatty tumors and have padded on biopsy on the more recent ones. He's 14 deaf, blind, diabetic and has a grade 3 heart murmer. He still eats, goes for walks and plays with Barkley but my vets and I don't feel biopsies would do much good in the big picture. Maybe they are on crack.

 

When my Rex was so sick we went up to the surgical referral center where I was with Comfort a couple of weeks ago. They decided it was either an inoperable Smoor's nodule or GME. They had an opening for an MRI in 30 minutes if I'd take it. If I didn't take it could be MONTHS until they could get me in. Welcome back to the car lot. I said I'd ask my vet and he said "OK. so you want to spend $1,200 on a test that will maybe show you which of two bad outcomes it will be?" I really like that referral center as the pick each others brains so you can get 6 vets for one $120 office call. Salesman vet was gone last month when I was there.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Hubcitypam

[philospher77]

I was just at my vet today to do a follow-up on Pixie's blepharitis (methicillin-resistant staph infection… oh joy!… but after 4 weeks of the appropriate antibiotic she is looking much better, and we are going to do another 4 weeks just to be safe), and to get a lump on Katie's foot looked at. The vet was very careful NOT to call it a tumor, since she says that when she does that, people automatically think "cancer" and freak out. A "lump" or "mass" doesn't have the same reaction. I thought that was interesting. Right now she's leaning towards saying it's a histiocytoma, but yes, I am having the biopsy sent out to a pathologist to be sure.

 

As to vaccines, I do rabies every three years, because I have to by law. I am now in the dicey area of being at 3 years on all the other vaccines, and the vet and I have agreed that we will titer instead of vaccinate. My trainer and the place I board will take titers as acceptable proof, but some places won't. And, just in case someone else is thinking of doing this, it costs MORE to titer than it does to get vaccinated. Especially since you have to titer every year, since no one knows for sure when the vaccine will wear off, while the vaccines can be done every three years. So titer if you are worried about over-vaccinating, not if you want to save money!

[o_rooly]

 

Not saying this applies to you, since I don't know your relationship with these vets, but with clients we've come to know, we often adjust the recommendations that we make based on what we know about the owner's priorities and philosophy. Some people view their dogs as children and would do whatever is medically available. Others love their dogs but view them as 'just dogs' that they won't do any more than the basics. If there's a previous history of interactions and we know the client, there's no reason to waste time and offend the client by recommending things we know they won't accept.

 

I've noticed this with my vet. With all of Aston's medical issues over the past two months, I have basically left treatment up to her (and Dr. Couto, when he was involved); now, I text her with his progress/new issues, and when she takes Aston to the back area of the clinic out of my sight, she runs whichever tests she feels are warranted, and I get the bill. A lot of his numbers have been out of whack thanks to prednisone, so we've had ~4 full blood workups and urinalyses over this time period, plus BP checks, biopsies, xrays, ultrasounds. She also expects that I'll whip out an insurance claim form for her to fill out with each bill I receive. That's not to say that she runs up bills just because, though -- she has been cutting me quite a few breaks (and I'm very grateful!!).

 

As I've spent a lot of time waiting in either the waiting room or exam rooms at the clinic, I've overheard her interactions with other clients (not trying to eavesdrop, but I can only sit and stare at the cute fluffy animal photos for so long!). The conversations really do range widely, depending on the situation and how receptive the client is to running tests and other diagnostics, and how hands-on they are about their pets.

[JJNg]

Some people view their dogs as children and would do whatever is medically available. Others love their dogs but view them as 'just dogs' that they won't do any more than the basics.

 

I understand what you are saying but my dogs are not 'just dogs' nor are they my children. I'm in some kind of grey area.

 

I gave those 2 examples as opposite ends of the spectrum of good owners who care about their dogs. Obviously, there many people who fall somewhere in between. My point was just that when a vet gets to know a client, they sometimes tailor their recommendations based on their knowledge of what that client is likely to be willing to consider. Doesn't mean that they're trying to swindle money from those they think are uninformed enough to fall for unneeded expensive tests.

 

Whether or not an owner chooses to proceed with diagnostic tests often depends on what treatment options they are willing to consider, but they should at least be made aware of the possible options. What I tell owners is that there are 2 reasons to do a test - 1) if it may change what they decide to do, or 2) if they just want to know. So using the lymphoma example, when a dog presents with all lymph nodes enlarged, I usually tell the owner that I'm over 95% sure their dog has lymphoma, but I'd recommend a fine needle aspirate to confirm it. If the owners know for sure that they would not pursue chemo and would just want to manage it with pred, the aspirate becomes optional. But I would be very surprised if any vet or oncologist would start a chemo protocol for a dog with likely lymphoma without confirming it with an aspirate.

 

I do approach geriatric dogs a little differently and have a heart-to-heart with the owner to try to gauge how much or how little they want to do. But just because the dog is old doesn't mean that I won't mention the options of aggressive diagnostics or treatment, even if that's not what I would recommend. Some people want and will pursue those options. When I was on my oncology rotation in vet school, we treated an 18-year-old dog with chemo for lymphoma. He responded well but died a couple months later of unrelated causes. I also had a client at my current clinic who decided to do surgery to remove a primary lung tumor and do chemo for an almost 20-year-old cat. The cat did well and lived happily for over a year after that.

 

I don't assume that owners won't want to treat because of age, but I also don't judge those who decide not to pursue various issues for this reason. If an old dog comes in with multiple lumps and bumps, I'll mention the option of aspirates, but if there's no way they would consider surgery or treatment, there's no reason to do the aspirates unless they just want to know.

 

Regarding vaccines, that's an issue that is somewhat influenced by concerns about money, not because vets are being greedy, but because they are truly worried about whether they can stay in business. Many older vets have been reluctant to switch to 3-yr vaccines because the old veterinary model was focused on "yearly vaccines" being what brought clients into the clinic for routine visits. While they were there, other important and necessary services were also performed, like exams and parasite screening.

 

With vaccines being seen by clients as the primary reason for vet visits, many are concerned that if yearly vaccines are no longer recommended, that clients will simply stop coming in for routine annual visits. This would lead to pets no longer receiving important preventative care, as well as a significant decline in income. Despite what most people seem to think, the profit margin of vet clinics is pretty small, and a decline like that could very well be enough to make a clinic go out of business. I'm not saying this is a good reason to refuse to do 3-yr vaccines, but just explaining why some older vets are reluctant. Plus, a big change in practice philosophy is simply difficult for some.

 

Finally, one additional reason that vets may recommend extra tests that aren't completely necessary... A vet may be called greedy for recommending too many tests. But a vet can be sued for not recommending enough tests, missing a diagnosis, and harming a pet.

 

[macoduck]

I watched the 20/20 show when it aired. I did think it was interesting that some vets comments on the dog needing a dental or having tartar, even though the dog had been given a clean bill of health by the producer's vet.

 

When I was stuck going to a different vet than my own I did feel a bit nudged to do a lot more "stuff", even though I'd brought that dog's vet records with me. My opinion may be tainted because I hated the way he rough-handled my dog.

 

At the practice I regularly use, I noticed much less pushing services once the senior partner retired. Now all options are offered, including suggesting local honey for allergies rather than an Rx.

[cello]

I have not watched the segment yet, but one thing comes to mind. Veterinary practices have changed SO much over the last 20 years or so. Think about it, it used to be that you took your dog to the vet once each year for his shots and a check up. If they got hurt or obviously ill then you took them back - but more than likely that was a one way trip if the dog was very ill. You went by what the vet said - expensive tests and cancer surgery and chemo were not routine suggestions from your local vet. There was health care for people, and health care for your pets and no one expected them to be at the same level. You fed them Purina Dog Chow, gave them giant rawhide bones and table scraps. They were the family pet - we loved them, but our entire lives did not revolve around them. And surprise, surprise they lived to 14!

 

Fast forward to today. Modern veterinary techniques have advanced to the point where Fido can have pretty much the exact same treatment for the same conditions as a person can have. If you can afford it. If you want to put your pet through that.

 

So now we are left with the ethical dilemma of where do you draw the line? Are you a bad person if you make the decision to euthanize instead starting a painful and expensive treatment plan? Do we have the moral imperative to seek out the latest and greatest experimental treatment to show our pets how much we love them? Should we blindly agree to whatever tests and procedures the vet recommends without thought to cost? Do we take out a second mortgage so that Fido can live an extra six months? Dogs are not linear thinkers - they do not mourn the fact that they will die tomorrow because all they can think of is the pain that they are in today. You cannot rationalize with a pet that they must go through pain now but that there is a chance that they will live to see more tomorrows.

 

The potential costs of having a pet now a days are much higher than they used to be years ago. On the one hand we are all thrilled that our beloved Fido can live longer and healthier. On the other hand, at least for those of us who have lived with catastrophic illness in our pets, the risk of future vet bills can keep us awake at night. I'm really not sure where the happy medium is this equation lies, but I guess it is different for each of us depending on many factors.

[Batmom]

including suggesting local honey for allergies rather than an Rx.

 

I wouldn't use that vet. The notion that local honey can help cure or alleviate allergies has been pretty thoroughly debunked. It never made sense in terms of bee or human biology in the first place.

[PrairieProf]

Until very recently, I have not had problems with my vet (last time I went though, a new vet was working and I really felt like she was pushing expensive treatments). However, the push for yearly vaccinations drive me insane. In Louisiana, rabies are yearly so of course, every time go, the vet automatically starts to give a bunch of shots, so I have to make sure they doesn't get anything they don't need. Every time I give my animals a vaccination, I run the risk of a reaction.

 

Really though, around here, you can't bring your pet to the groomer, broading, or even classes at Petsmart unless they have had all of the vaccinations yearly. I have considered requesting a titter but I don't know if that would be a acceptable substitute.

 

Yes, a titer is an acceptable substitute, I do it. Actually the records won't even say the dog was titered, just list that they are not due for a new vaccine until the next year. So your dog will be seen as current on all vaccines. Of course, a titer actually costs more than the vaccine would! Beth was titered for several years and then did need a booster for part of her combo shot last year, so I was happy to do that.

[Hubcitypam]

. So using the lymphoma example, when a dog presents with all lymph nodes enlarged, I usually tell the owner that I'm over 95% sure their dog has lymphoma, but I'd recommend a fine needle aspirate to confirm it. If the owners know for sure that they would not pursue chemo and would just want to manage it with pred, the aspirate becomes optional. But I would be very surprised if any vet or oncologist would start a chemo protocol for a dog with likely lymphoma without confirming it with an aspirate.

You make some valid points.

 

t would be me. I took Buddy to my older vet and he said 99.9%. He also said he used to recommend Chemo for lymphoma for years but it only bought the dogs a very short time and in the big picture wasn't worth it. Now he just goes the pred route. My young vet also agreed. When I was challenged that impossible to diagnosed with lymphoma without aspirating I called two of my vets and asked that question. They said yes I could waste my money on an aspirate but when the personally had seen it on many dogs with total engagement and were eating well. He said the is a diagnosis and definite diagnosis and it depends on the owner which path to choose.

We aspirated about the first six of Poodle's tumors and all were B9. Now that he is blind deaf and diabetic at 14 years old it makes no sense at aspirate every lump & bump. Like you said it is not going to change the outcome.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Hubcitypam

[philospher77]

So now we are left with the ethical dilemma of where do you draw the line? Are you a bad person if you make the decision to euthanize instead starting a painful and expensive treatment plan? Do we have the moral imperative to seek out the latest and greatest experimental treatment to show our pets how much we love them? Should we blindly agree to whatever tests and procedures the vet recommends without thought to cost? Do we take out a second mortgage so that Fido can live an extra six months? Dogs are not linear thinkers - they do not mourn the fact that they will die tomorrow because all they can think of is the pain that they are in today. You cannot rationalize with a pet that they must go through pain now but that there is a chance that they will live to see more tomorrows.

 

Actually, many of these questions apply with people too. My dad died of pancreatic cancer. The "gold standard" treatment for that will double your chance of survival at 5 years, but it is an incredibly invasive procedure that involves a high risk of complications, including death, and additional hospital time. And that "double" chance is, I believe, 4% instead of 2%. And I got to watch a panel of medical experts squirm when faced with deciding whether to say that the benefit of living an additional year was worth spending 300K, the cost of a new procedure that was trying to gain approval. So this isn't something limited to vet care, but is a result of being able to do a lot more than put on a cast or do a few stitches and just send the patient home to see if they live or not.

[krissy]

A friend from my graduating class just posted a link to this blog. It's a good read and really shows you what this profession is like from the other side. There are great days when I love my job. In a year and a half of practice... I've had 2 days where I honestly thought "I hate my job, I'm not doing this anymore". Days where we had case after case like the one that this blog describes.

 

The Reality of Vet Med

[Hubcitypam]

Kristi -

 

you are right. It is hectic and hard.

 

My young vet is theoretically not authorized to quote prices as he was "giving away the house" but he did quote Comfort's Ex-Cap for $1K which was really cheap. When Buddy had to go to the bridge I swear that he was more upset than I was but trying to hide it. Buddy was one of his favorite patients.

 

My niece has been a nurse for 30+ years and prefers ICU. She says the sadness of not being able to save a patient is offset By the adrenaline of saving a very ill patient. I'd imagine being a vet would be the same.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Hubcitypam

[robinw]

There are good, ethical and bad, unethical practitioners in every profession. I think most of us do our best.

[Guest IrskasMom]

I Love my Vet , even though he is Pricey ( so is the Neighborhood ) but I trust him . He never actually never ordered anything that was not related to the original Visit. He sits on the Floor with Morty , Talks to him , Loves on him and he will spend on Hour with me to hash through my Concerns. I have no Complains.

[JJNg]

Veterinary practices have changed SO much over the last 20 years or so. .....

Vet practices have changed, but so have the desires and expectations of pet owners. There is a portion of the pet owning population that would do whatever is medically possible, and because of that, vets are obligated to at least mention the options.

 

So now we are left with the ethical dilemma of where do you draw the line? Are you a bad person if you make the decision to euthanize instead starting a painful and expensive treatment plan? Do we have the moral imperative to seek out the latest and greatest experimental treatment to show our pets how much we love them? Should we blindly agree to whatever tests and procedures the vet recommends without thought to cost? Do we take out a second mortgage so that Fido can live an extra six months? Dogs are not linear thinkers - they do not mourn the fact that they will die tomorrow because all they can think of is the pain that they are in today. You cannot rationalize with a pet that they must go through pain now but that there is a chance that they will live to see more tomorrows.

You bring up lots of good questions which are faced by pet owners every day when they have an ill pet. As you mentioned yourself, the answers to these questions differ for each individual and each situation, depending on many factors. When it comes to personal morals and priorities, there are no right or wrong answers. And just because aggressive, technologically advanced treatment options may be available does not make that the right choice for every pet or every family. Everyone, including vets, have their own opinions. Even though I may feel strongly about something, I don't believe it's my place to limit my clients' options because of my own biases, nor is it right for me to push them into a decision or judge them for making a choice I wouldn't have made. When faced with an owner in a difficult situation, it's my job to give them my assessment, present the options, and help guide them to the best decision for their circumstances.

 

IMO, no vet should judge a client to be a bad person for choosing euthanasia over expensive and invasive treatment options. I absolutely do not believe that owners should "blindly agree to whatever tests and procedures the vet recommends". Vets are human too, and we don't always have the perfect answers. If anything doesn't make sense or doesn't feel right, owners shouldn't be afraid to question and discuss things with their vet.

 

The point about pets living in the moment and not thinking ahead to the future is a good one, but I think that's where we need to use our knowledge of the diagnosis and statistics regarding prognosis to help guide treatment decisions. Would you proceed with a painful procedure with a lengthy recovery period, if the chance is good for complete recovery? What if the prognosis of recovery is only 50/50, or may only be for a limited time? Every owner has a different threshold of tolerance for their pet's pain, and the long term prognosis has to be factored into the decision. At one extreme might be an owner who considers euthanasia for a simple broken leg because they can't stand to see the pet in pain at all (and I imagine most vets would try to convince them otherwise, but how should a vet handle this type of situation if the owner insists on euthanasia?).

 

He also said he used to recommend Chemo for lymphoma for years but it only bought the dogs a very short time and in the big picture wasn't worth it. Now he just goes the pred route.

 

JMO, but I don't think it's my place to decide for an owner that a certain treatment option isn't "worth it." What is considered "a very short time" is subjective. The median survival time for lymphoma when treated with chemo is 12-14 months. For some, this may not be worth the thousands of dollars it will cost to do chemo, but for others, the extra months of quality time they get to spend with a beloved family member are priceless. I wouldn't want to deprive a family of that possibility because I don't think it's worth it.

[GeorgeofNE]

I was completely floored when George's vet (one vet in the practice) told me I could go ahead and discontinue heartworm preventative, "Because at his age, something else is going to kill him before heartworm would." What??? So to save a few bucks a month I should put him at risk for WORMS in his heart??? Cause they won't be what ultimately kills him?

 

The rest of the vets in the practice do not make that recommendation!

 

I don't do ANY tests if I don't understand what they're for, what will change in the course of treatment, and HOW MUCH THEY COST! I learned the hard way when one vet very casually suggested a cat have her clotting factor tested "because it was hard to find a vein." It was like $125! There was nothing wrong with her clotting factor; the tech was a crappy blood draw-er! I was furious. Another place said, "You want us to clean that up?" about a small sore on Kramer's head. They billed me $25 for shaving a 1 x 1 inch section of his head and swabbing it. And now my vet is charging $3 PER VACCINE for "Sharps disposal." Excuse me. But you're already marking up the cost of the vaccine by about 400 percent. And I'm SURE that the $56 charge for the visit more than covers the cost of having your Sharps emptied weekly. Imagine the profit! Every client paying $3 per needle, week after week!

 

Really ticks me off, but what can you do?

[Hubcitypam]

I hear you on the sharps disposal. I get a $3 "bio-hazard" disposal fee, I' sorta OK with it when needles are involved, but I've been charged for it when I swear nothing disposal entered the exam room.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Hubcitypam