Pet Insurance Affecting Vet Salary

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

koerwk49

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I would like to get some opinions on this situation. I know lots of vets don't want to worry about paperwork and reimbursement procedures. I also read somewhere that organized insurance reduced medical doctor's average salaries. I would think that an increased amount of pets under insurance would raise a vets salary because people would be more willing to pay for expensive procedures whereas in the medical field, euthanasia is not an option. Example: would you rather pay $3000 for an invasive surgery or $300 (totally arbitrary numbers). I'm sure that if money wasn't an issue almost everyone would pay for every procedure.

P.S. I would appreciate not getting any replies about not worrying about money, be a medical doctor if you want to make money, etc, etc. Trust me, I have weighed the pros and cons of being medical vs. veterinary and come to the conclusion of just being happier with being a vet. Ambition and wondering about paying off student loans are normal things to ponder. Also, there are many ways to boost income in the vet field if thats what you want to do, i.e. specialize.

Kevin

Members don't see this ad.
 
At least in the practice where I work, I don't think we've seen any difference in salary due to the advent of pet insurance. One, there just aren't enough clients that sign up for it, and those that do are usually the responsible types who would find a way to pony up the cash if the need arose. Second, the big expensive problems usually end up at the big expensive specialty hospital, so any financial benefit would be theirs.

I've thought about pet insurance for my own animals, but after reading the multiple pages of fine print, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't any better than my employee discount.
 
At least in the practice where I work, I don't think we've seen any difference in salary due to the advent of pet insurance. One, there just aren't enough clients that sign up for it, and those that do are usually the responsible types who would find a way to pony up the cash if the need arose. Second, the big expensive problems usually end up at the big expensive specialty hospital, so any financial benefit would be theirs.

I've thought about pet insurance for my own animals, but after reading the multiple pages of fine print, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't any better than my employee discount.
that about sums it up, i've never really seen that many people come in with insurance (maybe 1-2 in one summer)

i don't think that the benefit of having pet insurance is really that great to pet owners yet, which is probably why its not that prevalent. at least for me, like the person above, my employee discount is plenty.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So far, where we are at, the owner has to file for reimbursement. So we still get paid upfront. Of course, we only have a few clients that use it.
 
The way most pet insurances work is that you (the client) have to pay your entire bill to the veterinarian and then submit your claim to the pet insurance. The insurance pays you (the client) not the veterinarian so vets shouldn't see any loss of income from patients with insurance. If anything, the insured patients will be more apt to agree to more diagnostics and procedures because they expect a certain percentage to be reimbursed.

In my case, while I do get an employee discount and the clinic I work at I still got insurance (VPI) for my dog and will likely keep the insurance at least until I'm done with vet school. We do a lot with her and 1 major incident would be well worth the cost. A rattlesnake bite that necessitates anti-venom would probably be well over $1000 by the time we're done (hospitalization, IV caths, BW, etc...) And I don't even want to imagine what a cruciate ligament tear would cost (I know it's upwards of $3000) but with insurance coverage I'd be able to pursue a better treatment for her, including surgery at a specialist.
 
I know how pet insurance works now but I think that it is safe to assume that this concept in ever evolving and one day will be more like human insurance. I looked into VPI and am aware that they reimburse the client, not the doctor but i believe this will change. Not to mention the fact that i would even be able to become a vet in a minimum 8 years. (Not in college right now, so 4 years undergrad and somehow getting in vet school first cycle, another 4 years.) Who knows how the insurance business will work then.

Catvet2be said my point. Unfortunately i would not be able to afford a $3000 operation and recently put down my 12 year old dog (non-expense related) and that was probably the hardest thing l've had to do. I wouldn't be able to comprehend putting down my dog in the prime of his life. I still second guess if I put my dog down at the right time. I've told my gf we will definitely get some sort of pet insurance because if i had the money I would definitely get whatever operation was needed.

(Weird how I still say recently put down eventhough its been almost two years.)
 
🙁 i can't imagine having to let go of my dog...he's like my other half.
 
Pet insurance is NOTHING like human medical insurance. It is far more comparable to your car insurance, in which YOU are responsible for handling claims, etc. It's not dealt with first between the vet and the company and THEN you get a statement. A better comparison would be whether folks having car insurance has reduced the salaries of mechanics, which it hasn't. They're not the same thing.
 
I know how pet insurance works now but I think that it is safe to assume that this concept in ever evolving and one day will be more like human insurance. I looked into VPI and am aware that they reimburse the client, not the doctor but i believe this will change.

Why do you think it will change? Pretty much EVERYONE in the veterinary community is against such a change and has already prevented changes in that direction in the past. I've spoken directly with VPI reps who say that would be a horrible thing. There's such hatred for the way that the human medical system works bleeding into the veterinary medical world, I just don't see it happening.

Also, we don't have the governmental input that the human medical world does. Much of the reason that human insurance works the way it does is because the government says it should. Again, we don't have that influence. We certainly should guard against any such changes and warn our clients of the types of insurance to look out for (though the VAST majority of pet insurance companies out there do not work like human insurance), but I wouldn't worry too much about this.
 
I would think that with just a small percentage of clients using pet insurance it probably wouldn't affect salary much, if at all. My vet could only think of a handful of clients that use insurance at the clinic when I asked him...

Speaking of pet insurance...I currently use ASPCA but have been considering switching to Pet Plan. Does anyone have any experience with Pet Plan? I like how they don't have "incident limits" with their coverage, which is why I'm considering switching. I currently have 5 pets insured (2 giant breed dogs and 3 cats). Just curious. Sorry if this is straying away a bit from the topic!
 
Something to remember is that a lot of the things labeled 'insurance' in human medicine are actually 'managed care' such as PPO's and HMO's. You can obtain insurance still, but most people don't because you do have to handle costs up front then file claims/seek reimbursement. Most companies offer PPO/HMO, etc.
 
I don't have experience with Pet Plan, but I have had VPI almost all of my dog's life (she is a black lab) and wouldnt trade it for anything else.

It is something that sometimes I wonder why I pay monthly, but when something does come up I am really grateful I have it (like when she tore her ACL)
 
As people have already said, the client pays up front and gets reimbursed directly by the insurance company.

I know firsthand as I was sooo thankful I had pet insurance when my dog Milo accidentally ingested raisins and had to be hospitalized for 72 hours. The only thing the vet had to do was put her signature on my claim form which took about, oh, 2 seconds. 🙂 Without the insurance I don't think I would have been able to leave him there overnight and would have had to monitor his renal functions myself 24 hrs day for the 3 days. I am fully an advocate for pet insurance for both sides. I think it's a win-win situation for both the client and the vet.

Badgergirl, I do have Pet Plan. You're right, they do not have incident limits and for what I pay monthly the annual coverage is higher than other plans I researched. They are really wonderful, great customer service. It took me a little longer than expected to get the reimbursement but it was over the holidays, so understandable.
 
Thanks, teatime!! I have had good experiences with ASPCA thus far, but am really considering switching to Pet Plan because of the no incident limit. If something pretty bad happened to my Saint Bernard or Mastiff, I know that it wouldn't take long for the $3,000 limit to be reached!
 
I mostly presented this question on the basis that more and more people are getting pet insurance, even though not many have it now. Personally I know I will. On that aspect, people would be able to pay for more of the expensive procedures previously unavailable to the family, knowing they would be reimbursed a certain amount. Meaning that vets with the skills to do these procedures and not just refer, in a logical sense should see an increase in pay.

On the point of car mechanics is a lot more people see their car as of more value than their pet. They got their pet anywhere from free to a couple thousand dollars where as you are not going to get any decent car for under a couple thousand (exceptions of course). For most people, vehicles also make it possible for people to live their lives, work, etc. People get insurance as security measures. You get car insurance not because you think you're going to get into an accident but in case you do. Its the same with human insurance. Its all about precaution and I think more and more pet owners are realizing that.

Also I realize that it was a bit too quick to make assumptions about the pet insurance industry. My apologies.
 
For people who are not wealthy, insurance can be the difference between life and death.

Case in point: Dog has GDV. Where I work (large city, 24 hour combined primary care/emergency/specialty hospital), that will end up costing around $3000 from start to finish - including initial emergency fee, emergency on-call surgeon fee, surgery itself, radiographs, lab work, and everything associated with about 3 days of ICU hospitalization.

The client who doesn't have insurance is out $3000. For a lot of hard working people, this is an unmanageable sum. They may end up making the decision to euthanize for financial reasons. This is a rotten situation for everyone involved.

Now if they have insurance, they still have to come up with the $3000 initially but after reimbursement, they end up paying maybe $750. This is a sum that is a whole lot more manageable. So the dog gets treatment and goes on to live a normal, healthy life. Everyone is happy. And the hospital brought in $3000 for a treated GDV instead of maybe $200 for an emergent euthanasia. I don't see how that isn't a financial win for the hospital.

But to me the emotional aspect is as worthy of consideration - and I'm talking about the veterinary staff too, not just the clients. It sucks to euthanize an animal for a perfectly treatable medical condition because the owners can't afford the cost of care. For me, even if it were a guarantee that I would earn less money because of insurance (which I don't believe for a minute would actually be the case), it would still be worth it to me because while I do want to earn a living, I do what I do for the animals and their families first.
 
In the horse world, insurance status can dramatically affect the standard of care the owner is able to afford, except for the independently wealthy people with large farms and unlimited budgets. When I was working for an ambulatory practice, one of the questions asked when a horse was colicking badly was, "Is this horse insured?" because surgery is out of reach, financially, for many owners. An uncomplicated colic surgery and associated hospitalization, fluids, etc., around here is given a rough estimate of $4000 - $7000, and a case that requires a resection can easily run into the five figures.

I think equine practitioners stand only to benefit from increased insurance coverage rates, as both elective and emergency treatment plans often have several tiers of affordability. For owners, insurance can mean the difference between conservative and aggressive management, e.g., between a $2000 lameness workup with bone scans or MRI and a course of bute and stall rest, or one joint flush and oral antibiotics for a joint-penetrating injury vs. repeated arthroscopic washout and IV antibiotics.
 
A couple of studies have indicated that for MOST people, putting the same amount of money into a savings account (without consideration of interest) would be more financially advisable.

I haven't decided about having insurance yet...but we also have a very large rainy day account, so only the most expensive and ongoing treatments would be problematic...and those are the same treatments that I am not sure I would be willing to have due to quality of life.
 
This is an interesting topic, though honestly I don't think pet insurance makes a big impact on veterinarian salaries in general because so few people have it (this is the main reason). I think it's a very low percentage, especially in the U.S....I can't remember the exact number.

The second big issue about pet insurance is that if you think about it, many of the people who are willing to pay for pet insurance are people who, even if somewhat financially constrained, would be willing to pay for treatments their pets needed anyway. Of course this is not to say that people who don't have pet insurance are bad owners at all, it's that some people believe insurance is worth it, and some do not (and some don't know it exists or how good it is). I've had technicians tell me that if you just take all the money you're willing to spend on a pet's insurance throughout his lifetime and just put it into a separate account, it will generally cover the cost of any major events that would happen throughout his life. This may be true, especially if you have a mutt, or some domestic shorthair indoor cat. But accidents always happen, right?

I got insurance for my recently adopted indoor-only shorthair. It starts at around $150 a year for me because he is a kitten, and I am covered up to $20,000 a year with $200 co-pay. But once he hits five years old, that rate is going to shoot up. I think it increases at a rate of 15% a year or so every year until he's 10. So over the course of his lifetime, assuming he lives to a ripe old cat age, I'll have spent in the thousands on insurance, plus whatever co-pays for any incidents. Then let's assume he comes down with something that costs several thousand (e.g. $5,000) to treat (at my hospital, a very real price/possibility), or needs continued therapy for cancer or something. I'd say it's worth it, but other people might just think, "I'll pay for it when it happens," and they make enough money to be able to pay off whatever the bill is right then and there.
 
A couple of studies have indicated that for MOST people, putting the same amount of money into a savings account (without consideration of interest) would be more financially advisable.

I haven't decided about having insurance yet...but we also have a very large rainy day account, so only the most expensive and ongoing treatments would be problematic...and those are the same treatments that I am not sure I would be willing to have due to quality of life.

Wouldn't that be the truth for medical insurance too? Insurance companies can't give rates that they foresee doing poorly and expect to remain a business. Insurance companies make a ton of money. Wouldn't people be able to put that monthly payment into health savings accounts to do the same thing? Its much easier for people to give up a little money, even for financial loss in the long run than to give a huge lump sum, especially if something else is going wrong also.

Didn't know this was going to turn into an insurance thread. And to think I contributed to it!
 
Wouldn't that be the truth for medical insurance too? Insurance companies can't give rates that they foresee doing poorly and expect to remain a business. Insurance companies make a ton of money. Wouldn't people be able to put that monthly payment into health savings accounts to do the same thing? Its much easier for people to give up a little money, even for financial loss in the long run than to give a huge lump sum, especially if something else is going wrong also.

Didn't know this was going to turn into an insurance thread. And to think I contributed to it!

Actually, no. First, you have to distinguish between managed care (HMO/PPO) and insurance (which may be a part of HMO/PPO, but may not as many people discover when something goes really wrong.) This is somewhat true for basic HMO care (if you set aside the money you, and probably your employer, are paying, you could probably cover basic medical care, especially preventive care.) However, the reason human medical insurance kind of works, and the reason most plans are still through employers, is because of the averages. If you put 99 healthy people on a plan and 1 person who has a catastrophic medical event in the same group, the pay in of the 99 healthy cover the cost of the 1 catastrophic event...up to a given point (often termed the limitation of coverage.) That is why some health plans/insurance require pre-enrollment physicals, and some charge you more (sometimes a LOT more) if you have a pre-existing condition, have a certain medical background, have certain behaviors (smoking, motorcycle riding, history of injuries), or are of the certain genetic descent.

Theoretically, this is what is happening with pet insurance....those whose animals remain healthy and are then struck dead by HBC or disappear or get an illness not covered due to genetic predisposition, etc.... are the ones who cover costs for the animals that have multiple catastrophic issues. It IS possible to be kicked out of a pet insurance plan for too many claims (which your homeowners and auto insurance can do as well.) We actually had a client who was kicked out for too many claims across her household of pugs. If I remember correctly, like health insurance, most pet insurances do have limitations and caps as well.

I have had the very bad experience of what happens in life when you hit limitations of coverage and cost caps with human insurance.

I am not suggesting pet insurance isn't a good tool for people who don't have the discipline to set the money aside and limit access to it for thier pet's sake only, just that it isn't necessarily the best move fiscally. Our side account is actually in a different state at a credit union that I don't have regular access to. I have to call to release the money. For us, that means we would either pay out of our primary bank or credit cards, and should be able to transer money within 48 hours (if it was a weekend/holiday emegency.)

I just realized that I know way too much about insurance. My late husband really wanted to find a way to set up a truely non-profit self-enrolling insurance...but the issues he ran into were the people who need it are the ones with pre-existing expensive conditions...the ones who didn't think they needed it were generally young, healthy, and had a mentality of invincability.
 
Top