Brodiatrist repeatedly requests this thread remain on topic, but clearly it is now shifted to how veterinarians determine/justify the cost of service, and is not on their individual level of compensation.
Accusing the entire population of veterinarians of greed and gouging was on topic? Interesting.
I am sure we all recognize the spread in the cost of veterinary service; simple procedures can vary significantly between clinics. I am not saying that the cost difference is unjustified, but I agree it is unregulated. Human medicine is significantly and more appropriately regulated. Fail safes exist to insure human medical care is provided without financially burdening the practitioner. I can respect that Brodiatrist was drawn to that more established system. What I am having trouble understanding is why variability in service cost justifies belittling the skills or qualifications of veterinarians.
Actually, point me to the human med regulations to which you are referring? Or are you referring to the third party system called insurance/HMO/PPO? If so, then those options are available in veterinary medicine IF the client elects to use them. Why should veterinarians be persecuted for a client's choice to not either save money to cover the costs of having pets or invest money in a pet insurance policy? Also, while you are saying it is regulated, for me, as a CNA, that meant that my company had a contract with various insurances. So, how exactly did this work? My company negotiated with each insurance company for what services and equipment were included at what price points. This is what happens with doctor's offices as well. Doctors ARE NOT required to only charge a certain amount...but insurance companies do have upper limits. They may make X from ABC insurance per annual physical while making x + 20 from XYZ insurance. They aren't even required to accept medicare or medicaid. They also don't have to work with health insurance companies (and the highest paid plastic surgeons simply don't.) How exactly is that regulated in terms of individual income?
The fail safes to provide care are, once again, for end of the line care. In other words, emergency care to stabilize. I have been down this route; if you have type I diabetes, and you are not insured, you have to pay for your own meds. If you start to go into kidney failure, that fail safe system DOES NOT step in UNTIL you are on dialysis. The cost of dialysis, followed by death or transplant, is far higher than vials of insulin. Maybe this has changed in the past decade, but that was my husband's experience at the turn of the century. If you are not critical, an emergency department does not have to treat you. They will still check you out (due to malpractice and negligence) but they will send you away after giving a single dose of insulin to treat the hyperglycemic episode, KNOWING that you will not be able to obtain more insulin. You are right, it DOESN'T burden the practitioner; it burdens the individual. And, when it comes to critical care, it burdens the tax payer. Are you really saying that with a health care system that still leaves people out in the cold, you are ready to surrender more money to a system to do more for pets than you already do?
I have no issue with podiatrists, but I am 100% honest in saying that if I knew where Brody ended up practicing, I would avoid that practice to the absolute best of my ability. I also avoid doctors who think patients are too stupid to discuss diagnosis with. I have high expectations for the people who treat my family members, whether they are pets or people, and I am certain, from him views on these topics, that I wouldn't want him as a care giver.
I do not think that the average veterinarian should be paid the same as the average MD. Nor do I think the average mechanic should be paid the same as an airplane engineer. Not because the mechanic can decide what to charge, but because the consequences of making a mistake as an airline engineer are more dire.
I have a feeling you are comparing automechanics to airplane engineers. Lets go through the actual numbers
airplane mechanic = $74,761
auto mechanic = $32,100
aeronautic engineer = $79,100
auto engineer = $62,880
Veterinarian, general = $71,990
Family Phys (no OB) = $156,010
Those numbers are from 2008 engineering trade journals. Husband is, by education and training, and aerospace engineer (though that isn't the field he works in most of the time these days.) The vet and med data was from OOH.
Now, the differential between airplane mechanics and engineers is slight ($5k), most likely because educational requirements are similar.
There is a large differential between automechanics and auto engineers, however, the education requirements are vastly different (hs or less compared to at least a 4 yr degree)
The difference between veterinary medicine and human medicine is more similar to auto mechanics and auto engineers than aero mechanics and engineers. I suppose I would be fine with that, if the education requirements weren't similar. So, if I could graduate high school and go be a vet just by mentoring under a skilled veterinarian, I would be ok with that differential. However, to have such a differential when the cost for education is similar will result in problems, including bottlenecks in education, disparities in socio-economics of applicants, and eventually, shortages in the field...not to mention the other end of the issue; professionals who leave the field, burn out, practice escapism, and even suicide. I am not saying all of that is 100% about what the pay is, but I think comparing an automechanic who may have a hs education (or may not have even that) to a veterinarian in relation to an engineer to a doctor....well, for me, the comparison just doens't make sense.
What I am hearing Brodiatrist say is if an owner can not pay then service should still be provided. He also feels that the cost of service should be standardized. At this point if free service is provided the vet or clinic must absorb those costs. That additional overhead will have to be dispersed across the cost of other procedures. That is why hospitals prefer patients with insurance (decreases overhead).
So, we should, in this country, continue to not provide health care for humans, but vets should absorb the cost of animal care from owners? And we should standardize, on a national basis, cost of care (btw, the other argument against that is price fixing), even though that hasn't happened in the medical field. Also, again, the assumption that hospitals have to provide care to non-critical patients even if they don't have insurance. Unfortunatly, that just isn't the case.
The lack of an established veterinary insurance program, high variability in the type of clinic (number of staff, equipment etc.) and the breadth of animals treated has delayed the development of treatment cost standards. Even human medicine lacked these standards in the not to distant past. I welcome the future development of these standards in Veterinary medicine.
So....all doctors offices across the country have the same type of practice, same number of staff, same equipment? Interesting....my current doctor doesn't even have the ability to give me an MMR (sent me to the health department.) It is a 6 person clinic with an onsite lab. My previous doctor had a 2 room clinic and did the blood draws himself and sent the blood out. Doesn't seem very standardized. Oh, and they don't accept the same insurances either. So please, share the standards that define those practices?
One thing you are forgetting about standards is that it will also mean that animals who currently recieve adequte but not ideal treatment could be denied any treatment. If vets can't take the risk ot cut the corners ot cut the costs (whether that is right or not) then the price will be the price. No reduction by sending a dog home or hospitalizing it at a local clinic vs the emergency clinic. That $4k bill will stand...and if you can't afford it, that will be that. I can't take off a hundred for the pre-anesthetic blood work, or chose to use cheaper pain meds, because it won't meet the standard of care.
When I was 16 I had a lump in my breast. At the time, part of the mentality was remove remove remove when the aspirate came back suspect. Don't risk cancer spreading. I am incredibly grateful that there was a doctor willing to risk the 'standard of care' and watch that stupid lump for a year. For a year I had needle aspirates every month. Oddly enough, ONLY the first aspirate came back suspicious. I am twice that age now, and I am glad I didn't have surgery to remove a portion or my breast and most of the lymph nodes. Sometimes the 'standard of care' that seems so universal isn't in the best interest of an individual, either. If that is true with humans, I am certain it is true with animals. Honestly, I know I do not give my fish the same standard of care as my dogs. I believe that is part of my choice as an owner. Heck, I doubt I could even find many vets who could do a thorough annual exam on a fish.
this is very entertaining (also great for procrastinating and making yourself feel like a genius.)
