Veterinary Salaray Scale

Veterinary Science Graduate Programs from U. of I.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Shanomong said:
I can't say I've even met a veterinary nutritionist... and I've only worked in very large specialty practices. Is that a large animal thing?
http://www.valuemd.com/veterinarian_earnings.php
Click to expand...

Nope. One of our nutrition professors last quarter was a veterinary nutritionist. She of course works at the university, but she's mostly small animal focused. Not sure what exact capacity she was working in pre-university, but it wasn't large animal.
 
a nutrional specialty is more than just the food they eat (or though that's a large part of it obviously...) but also about what food they need while getting treatment...

for example, in patients that may be 'crashing' or very critical, and are not able to eat, a TPN or PPN or of some form can be given. A nutrionist is the one who bests understands the ingredients needed for that TPN and what the animal might need in order to give it the best possible chance of survival.

Also, millions of dollars go into researching dog foods, and i'm sure plenty of the dog food crops are looking for a research nutrionists who is a DVM, as it probably gives their product a boost on the reliability side

just my guess and opinions though
 
StealthDog said:
The majority of board-certified veterinary nutritionists are associated with universities or big pet food companies (Hills, Purina, etc).
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, that explains the salary hike...

And V, that doesn't include the $$ you make from trafficing your controlled substances or selling your "euthanized" patients to labs. I'd say triple that figure, easily 🙂
 
As others have said, the reason nutritionists are up at the top, is because the majority of nutritionists are in industry, which typically pays more.
 
Does anyone else look at the list including "uniformed services" and read it as "uninformed services", or is it just me?
 
eventualeventer said:
Does anyone else look at the list including "uniformed services" and read it as "uninformed services", or is it just me?
Click to expand...


i wasn't when i read the page, but i did it with your post lol... i had to read it a couple times just to get what you were saying lol
 
I find it very hard to believe that vets who do exclusively food animal / large animal make considerably more than companion animal vets.
 
This might be a stupid question, but what is the difference between companion animal predominantly and exclusively? What else does the first category see?
 
TSUJC said:
I find it very hard to believe that vets who do exclusively food animal / large animal make considerably more than companion animal vets.
Click to expand...

Its true, especially when you throw in those that work exclusively for large dairy farms, swine operations, or feedlots that make very good money and raise the average considerably. We had a talk about it in one of our classes this year from these same figures.

Predominant usually equals something like 90-95% companion animal, while exclusive means absolutely nothing else ever.
 
TSUJC said:
I find it very hard to believe that vets who do exclusively food animal / large animal make considerably more than companion animal vets.
Click to expand...




I have heard that vets that do food animal get $80,000 more (from government??) than other vets.


On another note, I work for UCSD's Animal Care Program, where we care for research animals. I've been told that these vets make more than twice as much as companion animal vets. And that, of course, the director of the program makes a LOT. I don't think I'd ever want to be a lab animal vet though 🙁
 
TSUJC said:
I find it very hard to believe that vets who do exclusively food animal / large animal make considerably more than companion animal vets.
Click to expand...

Like others have said, I'm guessing the hike is mostly due to vets who work for large farms/ industries, versus those who mainly practice at family farms, small dairies, etc.
 
Just looked at the specialty list -- how/ what does one do to specialize in "veterinary practice?" Never heard of it before. Is it some sort of management thing?
 
aspiringDVM said:
Just looked at the specialty list -- how/ what does one do to specialize in "veterinary practice?" Never heard of it before. Is it some sort of management thing?
Click to expand...

They must be referring to the American Board of Veterinary Practitioners, one of the many AVMA-recognized specialties. Not a management thing at all, but a certification/credential for showing expertise in one of several practice areas (e.g. canine & feline practice) as opposed to a specific organ system (e.g. cardio).

http://www.abvp.com/
 
For example, near my old house there was a cat-only clinic where the vet was advertised as "board certified in feline medicine." He is apparently the only one in the state, so it must be fairly rare.
 
StayingHopeful said:
What else are they treating if they do "predominantly" companion animal?
Click to expand...

I wonder if there's a confounding factor for why mixed-animal vets make less. I assumed it would be because mixed-animal practices are located in rural and less affluent areas, whereas companion-animal exclusive would be in urban or more affluent areas, and large animal-exclusive, like was said, includes industry vets.
 
I worked at a feline only clinic for a month in Northenr Virginia. They do exist! There is an American Association of Feline Practitioners, too.

http://www.catvets.com/

I don't know if you get boarded per se, but you do get "certified"...little different (as far as I know)
 
DollyyLlama said:
I wonder if there's a confounding factor for why mixed-animal vets make less. I assumed it would be because mixed-animal practices are located in rural and less affluent areas, whereas companion-animal exclusive would be in urban or more affluent areas, and large animal-exclusive, like was said, includes industry vets.
Click to expand...

Dolly you make a very valid point that probably could not be factored into the calculations. I had not thought of that. The only mixed animal vets I have met worked at a 24 Dr. practice that had 2 in house MRI's and a complete building dedicated to alternative medicine. Trust me, they made more than the median income there!

To the last poster, I as well worked at a cat only clinic. It was owned by the husband of my mentor, who had a dog repro only practice, oddly enough at a clinic named "The Pet Doctor". Ha! :wtf:🤣Anyhow, I don't think he was boarded per se, just had a "special interest" in cats.
 
DollyyLlama said:
I wonder if there's a confounding factor for why mixed-animal vets make less. I assumed it would be because mixed-animal practices are located in rural and less affluent areas, whereas companion-animal exclusive would be in urban or more affluent areas, and large animal-exclusive, like was said, includes industry vets.
Click to expand...


I don't think that location or economic status are the primary issues, having grown up on a dairy I think the main issue is that companion-animal veterinarians can charge more for their services. For example a bulldog C-section cost ~1,000 dollars whereas a bovine C-section only cost ~300. Although it takes more time and energy to perform a bovine C-section, the producer is not going to pay more than the animal is worth.

A vet friend of mine went on a call a few weeks ago, a heifer had been bred too early and she could not delivery the calf. The vet spent 3 hours working with this heifer and finally resorted to using an OB saw. He charged the farmer for the house call and a few injections but obviously couldn't charge for the time and effort it took to remove the calf. Needless to say after 3 hours of strenuous work he walked away with $220 dollars, not including the cost to drive out there. In retrospect I worked for a small animal clinic that treated a dog with a mild case of pyometra, which involved spaying the dog and sending it home on some antibiotics. The total cost was $1200 and the procedure took less than 40 minutes!
 
TSUJC said:
I don't think that location or economic status are the primary issues, having grown up on a dairy I think the main issue is that companion-animal veterinarians can charge more for their services. For example a bulldog C-section cost ~1,000 dollars whereas a bovine C-section only cost ~300. Although it takes more time and energy to perform a bovine C-section, the producer is not going to pay more than the animal is worth.

A vet friend of mine went on a call a few weeks ago, a heifer had been bred too early and she could not delivery the calf. The vet spent 3 hours working with this heifer and finally resorted to using an OB saw. He charged the farmer for the house call and a few injections but obviously couldn’t charge for the time and effort it took to remove the calf. Needless to say after 3 hours of strenuous work he walked away with $220 dollars, not including the cost to drive out there.
Click to expand...

See, this bothers me a bit -- saying that he "obviously couldn't charge for the time and effort it took to remove the calf." I'm not trying to single you out, TSUJC, as this certainly not a unique attitude. I think that the profession has made its own bed in this respect -- if vets are unwilling to charge for their professional services and value their time according to their education and skill, then salaries will remain low compared to educational debt.

It is not the vet's responsibility to drastically underprice himself because the farmer is not willing to pay. There's a fine line here and I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself well. Obviously, you can't price yourself so high that no one can afford you, but if you are going to give away services -- which this vet was doing -- then there needs to be some understanding that the vet is making a sacrifice/doing the farmer a favor.

I'm not saying people should gouge clients, but it seems to me that the concept of running a business for profit is a little too foreign to vets. If WE don't value our time and charge accordingly, why should clients value and respect our time and expertise?

As an unrelated example of this attitude of only giving lip service to respecting vets' time, a lot of doctor's offices charge you a fee if you miss an appointment and cause them to lose income for a 15 minute slot. Yet a horse vet will go out to the farm and wait there while the owner takes 45 minutes to go get the horses out of the field. Why? Because the owner has never been forced to realize that the vet's time is worth money, just as the doctor's time is worth money.
 
eventualeventer said:
See, this bothers me a bit -- saying that he "obviously couldn't charge for the time and effort it took to remove the calf." I'm not trying to single you out, TSUJC, as this certainly not a unique attitude. I think that the profession has made its own bed in this respect -- if vets are unwilling to charge for their professional services and value their time according to their education and skill, then salaries will remain low compared to educational debt.

It is not the vet's responsibility to drastically underprice himself because the farmer is not willing to pay. There's a fine line here and I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself well. Obviously, you can't price yourself so high that no one can afford you, but if you are going to give away services -- which this vet was doing -- then there needs to be some understanding that the vet is making a sacrifice/doing the farmer a favor.

I'm not saying people should gouge clients, but it seems to me that the concept of running a business for profit is a little too foreign to vets. If WE don't value our time and charge accordingly, why should clients value and respect our time and expertise?

As an unrelated example of this attitude of only giving lip service to respecting vets' time, a lot of doctor's offices charge you a fee if you miss an appointment and cause them to lose income for a 15 minute slot. Yet a horse vet will go out to the farm and wait there while the owner takes 45 minutes to go get the horses out of the field. Why? Because the owner has never been forced to realize that the vet's time is worth money, just as the doctor's time is worth money.
Click to expand...

The problem with this logic is that the alternative to undercharging and getting paid isn't overcharging (or appropriately charging) and getting paid... it's probably euthanasia once a certain price point is reached...

Not saying our time isn't worth as much money as an MD's time (and I'm going into SA so this actually doesn't really apply to me directly), just saying that in human medicine there's less of a direct consequence for unaffordable services... when they raise prices, people tend to just not come in until they really need to. Yes people will die unnecessarily by not seeking medical care, but the human MD is not confronted with it directly as we are when owners ask for the pink juice.

And then there's also human health insurance to consider...
 
Shanomong said:
The problem with this logic is that the alternative to undercharging and getting paid isn't overcharging (or appropriately charging) and getting paid... it's probably euthanasia once a certain price point is reached...
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, is that not true already?

There's also a difference between being willing to compromise on the bill with someone who truly can not pay and undercutting yourself and undervaluing your education and expertise across the board. In the case of the former, you have hopefully communicated to the client that you are doing them a favor because you want to help animals but that your time is still worth something. In the case of the latter, you give people no reason to value you as a highly paid professional, and you have no chance of ever collecting an amount which accurately reflects your debt load and education level. Even if you raise your prices but only collect that from 50% of your clients (unlikely), that's still more money than if you undercharged completely.

At the last practice where I worked, the practice owner started raising his prices faster than inflation for all of the above reasons. There were a few people who switched to other practices because of the prices, but not as many as you would think; he compromised on the bill on a few expensive cases for the sake of trying to save the horse's life despite the owner's finances (as long as the owner was willing to make a good faith effort to pay what they could, not just blow him off); and, guess what, a lot of people paid the higher bills without complaint (or complained, but continued to pay). (The practice has shrunk due to other reasons.) The fact that most people continued to pay says that on some level they agreed that there was a high level of inherent value in veterinary professional services and the level of care provided. This was in an area where there are a number of other equine vets, so it's not that people did not have a choice.
 
Last edited:
eventualeventer said:
See, this bothers me a bit -- saying that he "obviously couldn't charge for the time and effort it took to remove the calf." I'm not trying to single you out, TSUJC, as this certainly not a unique attitude. I think that the profession has made its own bed in this respect -- if vets are unwilling to charge for their professional services and value their time according to their education and skill, then salaries will remain low compared to educational debt.

It is not the vet's responsibility to drastically underprice himself because the farmer is not willing to pay. There's a fine line here and I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself well. Obviously, you can't price yourself so high that no one can afford you, but if you are going to give away services -- which this vet was doing -- then there needs to be some understanding that the vet is making a sacrifice/doing the farmer a favor.

I'm not saying people should gouge clients, but it seems to me that the concept of running a business for profit is a little too foreign to vets. If WE don't value our time and charge accordingly, why should clients value and respect our time and expertise?

As an unrelated example of this attitude of only giving lip service to respecting vets' time, a lot of doctor's offices charge you a fee if you miss an appointment and cause them to lose income for a 15 minute slot. Yet a horse vet will go out to the farm and wait there while the owner takes 45 minutes to go get the horses out of the field. Why? Because the owner has never been forced to realize that the vet's time is worth money, just as the doctor's time is worth money.
Click to expand...


I think you make a great point! However, my fear is that farmers would simply say "screw the vet, I will do it myself" rather than paying the higher cost. I know this is especially true for food animal producers especially since that have no emotional attachment to their animals and are solely concerned with cost.
 
Last edited:
I'm of the same school of thought as eventualeventer. I think the profession has really done a disservice to itself by undercharging for all of these years.

The default argument is that people will stop paying for veterinary services, period, once you reach a certain price point. While that may be true if you charge $1,000 for a 30-minute consult, it is NOT going to be true if you charge appropriately--not exorbitantly--for your time.

One concept I'm big on is that of perceived value. If the customer/client PERCEIVES the value of our services, then they will be willing to pay an appropriate amount. Period. This is not the case for the destitute, or the small population of D and F clients who will always manage to find the low cost/high volume places; rather, this is true of the majority of the bell curve.

Perceiving the value of our services begins with how much the client values their cow/horse/dog/cat/alpaca/whatever, yes. If the client doesn't value the animal very much, then there's only so far we can go. However, assuming that there is a value on that animal, if we provide a service that is PERCEIVED AS VALUABLE--and in my opinion, it damn well better be perceived as valuable because it IS valuable--then clients will be willing to pay.

This means dressing the part and communicating professionally (i.e., not "Call me Dr. Sue," etc). It also means little things. One of the most successful practices I ever shadowed at had the greatest thing--their reception staff ("client care coordinators") were explicitly not taught anything about medications. In order to answer any medical questions, they HAD to talk to a technician or doctor. This raises the perceived value of the doctor/technician--communicating to the client there's something special about the service YOU are providing as the DOCTOR. Otherwise--"if the receptionist can answer my medication question--why am I paying the doctor all this money?" etc. Something small, but that really increased perceived value (and limited the chance for a liability problem should the receptionist give the wrong advice). And in case you're wondering, this did not affect the efficiency of the practice at all--receptionists are more efficient when they're checking clients in or out, managing records, etc than getting into long drawn-out conversations about hypothetical medical questions. And this practice has the gross to prove it. Again, one tiny thing--among MANY other things they do--to increase perceived value.

If we charge appropriately as a profession, across the board--what will happen? Beef will go up $0.50 a pound. People will still pay for it. More pet owners will take out insurance. Many people will think more seriously before acquiring a pet. All of these are reasonable things, IMHO.

Instead of catering to the lowest common denominator, it's time that we charge appropriately as befitting any other professional.

After all, the grocery store doesn't refrain from charging you because they're worried you won't be able to afford it and then won't have anything to eat. Your mechanic's estimate for services is non-negotiable--if you want a car that works, you have to pay.

We are by nature a very compassionate cohert. I think it's one of the things that makes this profession such a privelege to belong to. But I have to pay my student loans. I have to pay my (future) mortgage. I have to pay electricity just like anyone else. Why should I have to live like a pauper because I'm worried about charging $65 for an exam?

Apologies for the rambling; I'm about to fall asleep! But in case you couldn't tell, I have a bunch more thoughts on the matter. 🙂
 
I definitely see both sides, and you guys make great points. It's a fine line... I think I just lean the way I do because I've only worked in emergency/specialty practices, where cost-based euthanasia's are too frequent. We did 3 during my shift alone today, and it was a very slow day...

Because of the nature of our practice, our prices are substantially higher than the average regular vet, so I guess I see a lot less of the "undercharing/undermining" side that you're exposed to. What I see are estimates that generally average around $3,000 and reach upwards of $10,000. I see owners go full force, some take smaller, more affordable steps in the right direction, and some can't even afford the $125 emergency fee. I see too many owners crying and heart broken because they can barely afford to humanely euthanize and cremate their pets when what they really wish they could do is treat it, but the costs are beyond their means. It's honestly the thing I dread most about the job, finding the balance between compassion and $$, and I think it's the reason so many vets end up in financial trouble. I know I can't go into business for myself b/c I'm too much of a bleeding heart and would run the business into the ground... I need a partner who can be equally as compassionate, but more logical about the financial aspects, and I'll probably end up avoiding emergency medicine for this reason, even though I love the other aspects of it...

Anyway, point being I see your point, and you're not wrong. But coming from the other side of it, where prices often seem too high (even if it is necessarily so) and lives are constantly lost because of money, I can't agree that veterinary costs should be higher, at least not in my little corner of the field 🙂, and I could easily see it leading to more euthanasias in any areas where costs increase (or farmers performing their own proceedures as someone mentioned above), and that's a huge strike against the idea for me.


ETA: alliecat, I admittedly didn't read all of your post before I posted (it's 4am... sorry =p), and honestly I still didn't read the whole thing, but I saw what you said about higher costs leading to greater consideration given by pet owners before acquiring a pet.. I totally disagree with that. People now have no idea how much vet care costs before the get that cute little free puppy or cheap one from the municipal shelter... hell even the expensive one from the pet store. We had a couple euthanize their 2 month old puppy because they spent all of their money buying it, and later that same day it jumped and broke a leg. They couldn't afford to fix it. I adopted a dog a little over a week ago, she came from a home where she'd been to the vet once, at the humane society, to be spayed and get her rabies shot all for $15. She never would have been to the vet again if we hadn't gotten her... and she came with pyoderma and a luxated hip. People who see no need for regular veterinary care and aren't going to spend more than the cost of euthanasia (or a shotgun bullet, which does still happen) when their pets health declines will not base their decision to take that puppy (or kitten, etc...) home on the cost of veterinary care. Higher prices will only deter the more responsible owners IMO...

OK, Editing one more time to add... 2 last thought before I go to bed (I actually turned the computer back on for this lol, speaking of rambling...):

Just to drive the "these people don't consider the costs of vet care when getting pets" point home... I forgot to mention a MySpace email I got last week from a friend who wanted to know what one of his friends could do... she had 2 puppies and one died at home from parvo (ouch...), and now the other had it. She couldn't afford to treat either dog... he wanted to know what she could do at home to fix it. The second puppy died the next day.

And then my other thought was elderly people. I strongly believe that pets improve the quality of their lives, and elongate them. There's a great program in NY that donates $$ to the vet care of the pets of the elderly, and we were fortunate enough to be able to contact that agency when older people meeting certain criteria came to the AMC with their pets... but here in PA we don't have that (that I know of anyway). These are people who may not have much money, but also may have a ton of love to give, all of their love if they have no one left, and would be home all day with the pet. They could offer it a fantastic life, but in many cases live on a fixed income. They'd be greatly affected by price increases. Sure, we all have our own bills to pay (including our ridiculous student loan debt), but I'm not looking to live an extravagant lifestyle, and I think anyone can live nicely off even $80,000/year... again, IMO...
 
Last edited:
Shanomong, let me preface this by saying that I worked in emergency/critical care for 4.5 years prior to veterinary school. I have seen every situation you have described and many more, time and time again. I am well aware of financial euthanasias, and also well aware of the different sort of economics at play in emergency practices.

Your clinic is not the norm (compared to all veterinary clinics everywhere). I'm speaking of the practices that continue to charge $20, $30 exam fees. The practices that barely scrape by with a 5% profit margin (where's the safety net?). The practices that have not raised their prices for five years...or more. Or have only raised their prices according to inflation, and are still grossly undercharging for their services. What are they doing for the profession? You don't see lawyers charging $30 an hour for their time. If you did, you'd be more inclined to look negatively on those lawyers who charge $350/hour. The same thing holds true in veterinary medicine (albeit at a different scale).

I completely agree that there will ALWAYS be a need for lower-cost veterinary care. As you stated, people who are elderly, indigent, or otherwise unmotivated to provide appropriate care will always form a market for veterinarians who wish to and are able to provide it.

However, I'm speaking of the majority of the bell curve. We can't continue to cater to the lowest common denominator. Sure, special programs are wonderful and I wouldn't take them away--in fact, I would add to them if at all possible! But why not raise the bar for the majority of the profession?

$80,000 a year might seem like a lot to you, but for those of us graduating with over $200,000 in debt it is NOT a lot of money. I'm not speaking of living extravagantly at all--is it somehow wrong to think that I might be able to buy a "new/used" car every five years? Or one day own my own modest home? Or are we as veterinarians just supposed to do this for the love of the animals and hope we marry rich? Can you name another profession where people are expected to perform at a certain level just because they "love" it? Is that really appropriate?

Again, I'm not advocating that we should charge exhorbitantly--but that we should charge APPROPRIATELY. And there is a difference.

There will always be veterinarians willing to provide low-cost care to clients who need it (emergency medicine is another matter). There will always be a market for this level of service. But why not distance the rest of us a bit more from the bottom of the bell curve? Aren't we worth it?
 
Oddly enough, I see many clients who can't afford vet care, but can afford to go shopping at the mall, have cable TV (with the sports package), and can't or won't be bothered to cut costs in their lives. I have little sympathy for the majority of individuals who get in over their heads due to poor decisions and lack of willingness to liver frugally. There will always be individuals who need extra help every once in a while. That is very different than the individual who has acquired an animal when they are barely managing to live pay check to pay check or who has higher priorities in material goods than in living creatures.

I do think in LA medicine there comes a point where cost of animal interferes with cost of service. I read an article recently (possibly in DVM 360) about a state where horses can only be floated by vets, and they are now charging a man who has been doing it for years with a felony (he has been charged with misdemeanors before, paid his fine, and did it again..and again.) Perhaps a change in standards of care is important in LA. I have mixed feelings since my folks own a small family farm. The people in the middle during changes like that are the ones who suffer...which in this country will be the small farmer, not the corporations. As a dog trainer, I am starting to see some places consider limitations on what trainers can address on their own (especially aggression, seperation anxiety, storm phobia, etc) that I am all for even though it would change my business model.

I do agree, though, that we continue to undercut ourselves because we care about the patients (the animals) often more than the clients do. I say this in part because my last act as a vet tech was to help euthanize a 1yo yorkie. Outside only dog. Intact. Euth because of severe worm infestation that had created blockages and made the dog extremly sick. Completly treatable. We dont' charge for euth/disposal. Essentially, they wanted us to 'fix' this dog for ~$25. Simple rountine dewormings as a pup (along with vaccines) could have saved that animals life. Yes, we could have spent a small fortune treating because we took responsibility for the illness, or we can lay the blame where it belongs; on the owners who do not provide for their pets and do not form a safety cushion financially. We have arrived at a point where we see the ownership of animals as an inherent right, but it is actually a privelage and a luxury, which comes to light when cost vs care becomes a real decision.
 
alliecat44 said:
One concept I'm big on is that of perceived value. If the customer/client PERCEIVES the value of our services, then they will be willing to pay an appropriate amount. Period. This is not the case for the destitute, or the small population of D and F clients who will always manage to find the low cost/high volume places; rather, this is true of the majority of the bell curve.
Click to expand...

But there is a big difference between willing to pay and able to pay. What happens after the client is rejected for Care Credit and Wells Fargo? Would do anything but cannot come up with the funds?

I live in a city with 150,000 people and an average household income of $30,400 per year. For many of our clients, its simply that they are unable to afford the services. And that brings up the question of how to address them.
 
david594 said:
But there is a big difference between willing to pay and able to pay. What happens after the client is rejected for Care Credit and Wells Fargo? Would do anything but cannot come up with the funds?

I live in a city with 150,000 people and an average household income of $30,400 per year. For many of our clients, its simply that they are unable to afford the services. And that brings up the question of how to address them.
Click to expand...

See the second half of the quote you pulled from my post.

I "would do" a lot of stuff if I could just "come up with the funds!" 🙂 Take a vacation, for starters!

As sumstorm said, owning a pet is not a right--it's a privilege. And as I stated before, there will always be veterinarians to cater to low-income clients.

But that still doesn't mean that we should--across the board--charge as though our services are not valuable and/or as though nobody can pay us.

Our time and expertise IS valuable. Again--there is a difference between charging exhorbitantly and charging appropriately.
 
I don't think a higher vet bill would deter those who acquire a pet without thinking about the cost of care.
As bad as it may sound to some, the clinic I work at works with a local pet store. Our doctor provides medical care for the puppies at the store, and people who purchased them come to us for their first exam (covered by the store). This pet store is located in a mall, so their prices aren't cheap. They charge about $3000 for an English bulldog and ~$1200 for a yorkie or pom. Most (if not all) of the puppies come from puppy mills and are not even that high quality....but people like cute little fluffy things, and they can buy the dogs regardless of their budget since the store provides financing options. I've seen way too many clients who come in for the free exam, complain about the cost of fecal test/dewormer/vaccines, and just outright declines everything we recommend.
Unless there is better public education telling people that pets cost money more than buying them and how much that cost is, a higher fee is not going stop people from getting pets. That said, there are also plenty of those who don't care how much veterinarians charge and think they can get by without any visit to the vet. Many of these one-time-only clients are affluent and can afford the cost of vet services, they are just unwilling to pay for them. I've had a few clients who told me "my previous dog never had any vaccines and was healthy his entire live, so vaccines are useless and my new dog doesn't need vaccines either." Stories like this I believe are very familiar to us all...
I definitely agree that we should charge appropriately for our services, although what that may be depends on our clientile demographic. However, based on how people perceive their animals now, it probably has little to no effect at all stopping irresponsible people from getting pets.
 
I'm glad sumstorm and alliecat brought up other, non-health professions. People don't expect their mechanic or their lawyer to work for free or at a steep discount because they are "in it for the money", whereas health professionals are supposed to be willing to work for free because it is a noble calling and we are not "in it for the money", we're in it for that warm, fuzzy feeling, according to some laypeople. However, these are not mutually exclusive, it is not a sin to want to live a comfortable life in return for busting your butt through endless years of school and practice beyond, and those warm, fuzzy feelings certainly don't pay the bills.

$80,000 per year does not go as far as it used to and is not commensurate with the educational loans, educational investment, and cost of living in many areas. If you have $200,000 in loans and repay it over 20 years (lowest monthly payments) with 6.8% interest, your payments add up to more than $18,000 per year, or almost a quarter of your income. That's with the lowest payments per month, and that means that you don't get out of debt until your mid 40's, at best. What about saving for retirement? What if you want to be able to own your own home? I know we've beaten the loan and debt subject to death, but it's scary to think about having to deal with that much debt and not make much more -- or make less -- than if I had just gotten a bachelor's degree in a more lucrative field, or even gone the research-only route, where you don't have to pay tuition to get your PhD, you get paid! (Peanuts, but it's better than hemorrhaging money.)

I'm not arguing that there isn't a need for cheap veterinary care for poor owners and discounts or free care in some situations, but the profession does not need to be subsidizing the pet addiction of the population at large. Frankly, willingness to spend money on pet veterinary care does not seem to be very strongly with income -- it's all about choices people make.
 
eventualeventer said:
I'm not arguing that there isn't a need for cheap veterinary care for poor owners and discounts or free care in some situations, but the profession does not need to be subsidizing the pet addiction of the population at large. Frankly, willingness to spend money on pet veterinary care does not seem to be very strongly with income -- it's all about choices people make.
Click to expand...

Part of the issue, in my mind, is the concept that owning a pet is a fundamental right instead of a wonderful privelage. I think pets have gone the way of driver's licences; we don't generally think of them as options and luxuries, but as necessities. In some situations, they are true necessities, but in most situations they are part of a large set of personal decisions.

When people say they can't afford vet care, I want to know some other things about their lives; can they afford cable TV, internet service and multiple phones? Do they eat out? What do they eat at home? I volunteer at a credit counseling service (non-profit) where we help people get their finances back on track. It always amazes me what people will not cut out of their budgets. There are a few situations here and there where nothing can realisticly be cut out of a budget, but I would say that is less than 5% of the people we see. There are a lot of people who won't bother to cut costs that amount to less than $100 bucks a week (with is $1,200/yr after tax dollars.) Most vet preventive care costs less than that. I do think vets need to be willing to prescribe cheaper alternatives if possible (Iverhart vs Heartguard) when clients ask about it, or over alternatives to frontline. At the same time, clients need to realisticly judge the value of the health and well-being of their pet against extra tv stations, extra phones, and other luxuries in life.

I say this realizing that once an individual has a luxury, it is harder to give it up than to have never had it in the first place. It is 'suffering' for my husband to eat really good meals cooked at home, while for me it is a luxury to have meals that consist of more than one or two ingredients (I grew up on beans and rice out of economic necessity.)

The other issue is that typically when vets short-change and/or give away services, they do it right off of the companies profit. Why aren't vets setting up non-profits in conjunction with the practice? At least there are some advantages to donating service to a non-profit and the vet can realisticly access what is going on....and also make it easy for clients who are feeling empathetic to assist other clients in providing reasonable care to pets. Or, possible even barter trade systems and/or work equity programs. I have been toying with what I would want to do in private practice and reviewing it with advisors to see what is realisticly viable. I strongly believe pets are beneficial to some families and that many people fall on hard times unexpectedly. I don't believe it is as common as some clients would like us to believe, but I fully intend to protect the value of the business and the veterinary occupation.
 
eventualeventer said:
If you have $200,000 in loans
Click to expand...

Both rebuttals quoting this figure are representing a worst case scenario... I was fair in throwing an $80,000 salary quote out there, taking into account other area's of the country (an average anyway.. I realize there are area's where the average is $60,000...). Where I live, and where I'm from, vet's make at least $100,000 in SA. These happen to both be cities with private ivy league schools (NY and Philly), so the debt incurred is that $200,000 figure or above for the majority of students. This isn't an accurate representation of most scenario's however, and you can't keep throwing back to it. If I went to NCSU as an IS applicant, my debt would be substantially less, and that would afford offering prices more reasonable in NC, where salaries tend to be lower.

Regardless, my main point was that higher vet costs in no way deter irresponsible owners... and the only ones it will deter are those who plan to be responsible. Yes, vets should get paid what they're worth... as someone who plans to make a living in this career, and to live in one of the most expensive cities in the country in the future, I'm hoping to bring home a nice salary. But that doesn't mean that an across the board increase in prices is the solution. I think there also needs to be some intitiative to educate the public as to what our degree entails, and the level of medicine we are capable of providing. One of my husbands med school classmates laughed last year when I was talking about the oncology dept at our hospital... the general public tends to think of vets as not being "real" doctors.. even the educated general public. I don't think price gauging will lead people to automatically assume we must be worth the price...

I also think it would be helpful if there were a stricter standard of care across the board... a lot of the stories I hear about the goings-ons in small, local clinics certainly facilitate the belief that veterinary medicine is sub-par.
 
A couple of quick points:

--Whether or not higher vet care costs will/would deter some people from pursuing pet ownership is debatable--I will admit that. However, I'm willing to bet it would deter some people who took the time to research the obligations required when you own a pet. Whether this would be a significant number of people is debatable.

--Are you suggesting that people with less student loan debt be paid less for their services? That there should be some sort of sliding scale for pet owners/practice owners based on whether their veterinarian paid in-state tuition versus out of state? THAT would not be fair.

--What you mentioned regarding public education of the value of our services is exactly what I was talking about--PERCEIVED VALUE. That is, people having an idea of what our schooling/degree entails and the value of said degree. As perceived value goes up, so too do prices.

--"Price gouging" is an offensive term and I believe I (and others) delineated the difference between charging APPROPRIATELY versus charging EXHORBITANTLY. Nobody on here is talking about overcharging clients. The fact of the matter is that veterinarians as a whole have been UNDERCHARGING for decades, which is one reason why we're in this mess.

--Standard of care is a completely separate issue.
 
alliecat44 said:
--Are you suggesting that people with less student loan debt be paid less for their services? That there should be some sort of sliding scale for pet owners/practice owners based on whether their veterinarian paid in-state tuition versus out of state? THAT would not be fair.

--"Price gouging" is an offensive term and I believe I (and others) delineated the difference between charging APPROPRIATELY versus charging EXHORBITANTLY. Nobody on here is talking about overcharging clients. The fact of the matter is that veterinarians as a whole have been UNDERCHARGING for decades, which is one reason why we're in this mess.
Click to expand...

Yes, I really don't think I should be penalized for opting to move to a state and establish residency to reduce potential school costs. That is kind of like saying someone who buys a cheaper practice should automatically charge less than someone who buys a more expensive practice. I am setting myself up for financial success, which did cost more on the outset both finacially and emotionally. Also, many students will be entering vet school with undergrad loans, which will also affect their total debt at graduation.

As far as price, it is actually illegal to set prices in a given area. It is a form or monopoly that is explicitly illegal. I don't think anyone is saying that. I won't even suggest that the cost of vet care should be the same in an area where COL is 84 (on the index) vs a place that is 119. What I am suggesting is that vets need to determine a price that is reasonable to the area where they practice (there is actually a formula to do that) and then avoid shortchanging themselves and their business. We can't discount on any regular basis without damaging the profession, and yet many vets don't hesitate to help out the patient, and thus cheapen the service to the client, because we DO care. We look at the short term (helping a particular patient/family/individual) and forget the long term (burn out for us, difficulty paying reasonable salaries to our staff or short staffing, and difficulty providing sufficient services/equipment, not to mention paying off loans or dealing with other costs like retirement.)
 
alliecat44 said:
--Standard of care is a completely separate issue.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do think standard of care is an issue of cost, but not within the vet field. I think it becomes an issue when people who are not veterinarians can essentially practive veterinary medicine. If I can pay the guy over here $x to castrate my lambs, why would I pay a vet $x+ a head? As mentioned before, though, I have mixed feelings on this because the population that will feel the squeeze of such regulations are the small and family farms, including my folk's farm. At the same time, it would increase the willingness of someone to pay to have a vet perform a C-section if there are large fines and jail time associated with shooting the cow.
 
I really don't think Shanomong was saying that vets should charge prices based on their debt. I think she was just pointing out that someone that went to Cornell would probably have a higher chance of staying around New York than someone who went to NCSU. To some degree, people stick around their certain area because of family or personal preference for city/country or whatever. Obviously there are exceptions but I think this was meant as a general trend and not meant for anyone to take as telling them how much money to charge.

ETA: I think the problem with using specific amounts of money is that $60,000 in New York versus $60,000 in Pittsburgh versus $60,000 75 miles from Pittsburgh in rural PA have very different values as far as what they will buy you - in rural PA you could live very well on that, in Pittsburgh you would do OK, and in New York I imagine that you would be having a hard time (correct me on the New York part - only been there once). So while you might make a lower absolute salary in some areas it might translate to an equal standard of living.
 
Last edited:
In no way am I advocating for price setting, creating a monopoly, or creating minim charges across the board regardless of an area's COL.

Rather, as has been explained by others (including sumstorm), since COL varies so widely, $X is not equivalent between point A and point B. Absolutely agree with this.

However, I am referring to veterinarians undercharging REGARDLESS of an area's COL/what the market will bear in that particular area. In no way did I mean to imply that every clinic's prices should be the same across the country, or even across a state/county.

As far as standard of care--that really IS a completely separate issue. The main reason it's related to cost is in questions such as, should a routine spay require pre-anesthetic bloodwork? What if the bitch is 3 years old? 6? 10? Should an IV catheter be mandatory for a cat neuter? etc etc ad ininitum for whatever procedure at whatever level of care you might be talking about. All of these things do add to cost--but again, standard of care is a different issue. An IVC might cost $25 in one location and $75 in another.

As veterinarians, we are loathe to charge for our expertise and education. It's easier for us psychologically to apply markups to things like drugs, fluids, labwork, etc because we see the tangible, immediate outlay for the clinic (but many times these things are undercharged, too). It's more difficult psychologically for a veterinarian to charge appropriately for 30 minutes of consult time, or for interpreting radiographs/bloodwork/etc. We feel guilty, we're compassionate people, our primary concern is the patient, etc etc.

It's a hard balance. Right now, I feel like we're so far behind that this massively disproportionate rise in education vs. rise in salary has really screwed us over, and the only way we're going to change things if we gradually begin to get closer to charging what we are worth.
 
Bunnity is correct in her interpretation (sp?), probably because she's actually reading what i"m writing, and not just looking for an argument.

Price gauging was intentionally inflammatory, and is withdrawn 😀. I figured you'd flame me regardless, so I might as well get a jab in.

And standard of care is the same issue... you're entire argument is based around the perception of veterinarians and the perception of what they are worth... standard of care is possibly the largest part of that perception. The majority of clients base their perception on their own interactions/experiences. They're not going home and researching how one obtains a DVM/VMD... If they come in and your walls are paneled, your office is dirty, your mannerisms unprofessional, or your procedures sub-par, they expect to get what they pay for... and in this scenario, they're only getting what they paid for if you're undercharging. That kind of treatment isn't worth what the newfangled office the next town over is fetching, because it's not providing the same standard of care.

And just out of curiosity... have you heard that old adage about what happens when you assume?... I mean, implying that I'm saying a state degree means you're worth less... hell it probably means you're smarter than the person who chose to pay more to end up with the same degree. I was referring to cost of living and locale... people who end up with the highest debt probably live in the cities that pay the most. And really I was mostly just trying to point out that, while you jumped on it as a talking point, I was being modest by saying that veterinarians bring home only $80,000, because the one's that I know don't. And no, in NY that's not a great salary esp. if you're paying off a debt to your "in state" school... but in most places in the country, it's plenty even with the debt. You, however, were not being modest when you and the other poster kept driving home that our education costs over $200,000 when, in most cases, it doesn't. That's a pretty big jump to assume I'm insulting the majority of vet schools (and therefore the majority of vets) in the country...
 
Last edited:
Shanomong said:
Bunnity is correct in her interpretation (sp?), probably because she's actually reading what i"m writing, and not just looking for an argument.

Price gauging was intentionally inflammatory, and is withdrawn 😀. I figured you'd flame me regardless, so I might as well get a jab in.

And standard of care is the same issue... you're entire argument is based around the perception of veterinarians and the perception of what they are worth... standard of care is possibly the largest part of that perception. The majority of clients base their perception on their own interactions/experiences. They're not going home and researching how one obtains a DVM/VMD... If they come in and your walls are paneled, your office is dirty, your mannerisms unprofessional, or your procedures sub-par, they expect to get what they pay for... and in this scenario, they're only getting what they paid for if you're undercharging. That kind of treatment isn't worth what the newfangled office the next town over is fetching, because it's not providing the same standard of care.

And just out of curiosity... have you heard that old adage about what happens when you assume?... I mean, implying that I'm saying a state degree means you're worth less... hell it probably means you're smarter than the person who chose to pay more to end up with the same degree. I was referring to cost of living and locale... people who end up with the highest debt probably live in the cities that pay the most. And really I was mostly just trying to point out that, while you jumped on it as a talking point, I was being modest by saying that veterinarians bring home only $80,000, because the one's that I know don't. And no, in NY that's not a great salary esp. if you're paying off a debt to your "in state" school... but in most places in the country, it's plenty even with the debt. You, however, were not being modest when you and the other poster kept driving home that our education costs over $200,000 when, in most cases, it doesn't. That's a pretty big jump to assume I'm insulting the majority of vet schools (and therefore the majority of vets) in the country...
Click to expand...

I apologize for misunderstanding what you were saying regarding salary:cost of education. (That is why I ASKED if that was what you were saying--you should perhaps take your own advice about assumptions.) However, the most recent numbers indicate that the average vet school debt is approximately $127,000, which is including people who have $0 debt (and people with over $300K). When you consider that the vast majority of seats at veterinary schools in this country are the cheaper, in-state seats, $127K is a very high number for an average. It sounds like you're implying that $200K in debt is pretty rare--when increasingly, it is not.

As far as standard of care, what your walls look like have NOTHING to do with the standard of care you are providing. Think of the beloved "Old Doc" down the street who gives dex and Penn G for everything. The client's PERCEPTION is of GREAT value--but the actual standard of care is very low. "Well, gee, my previous veterinarian could fix him right up with a shot, didn't need to run any of those fancy tests." Clients perceive they're getting a great value, when the medicine practiced is questionable at best...Standard of care refers to high quality medicine and has nothing to do with the exterior trappings of your clinic. Perceived value =/= standard of care. Clients have no idea how to judge the quality of medicine you practice--they did not go to vet school!

Standard of care definition: http://patients.about.com/od/glossary/g/standardofcare.htm

In your post, when you quoted $80K salary I (and others) read that as you thinking that $80K and over was being paid extravagantly--which is why we responded the way we did. I certainly didn't take that as you being "modest"--and yes, I read every word you wrote.
 
Last edited:
Alliecat, thank you for posting that link. I think there is some misconception here as to the meaning of standard of care and it's good to have a link to clarify for everyone.
 
Regarding school costs I think everyone should take a quick stop by here:

http://www.aavmc.org/students_admissions/documents/Table42WEB.pdf

And keep in mind this data is from 3 years ago, and costs have been going up consistently(and faster than inflation) since then.

The average in-state cost of attendance was $36,914 then. The average OOS cost of attendance was $52,831 then.

Now if you consider that many schools have had significant price increases this year due to the economy beyond the normal price increases. I wouldn't be surprised if the average 4 year cost of attendance for those of us in the class of 2013 might just be $200,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kiwiowl
Foreign Veterinary Hours
Replies
2
Views
520
JaynaAli
JaynaAli
W
GroupMe for Black Veterinarians/Veterinary Students
Replies
0
Views
226
wvn1002
W
A
LMU Pre-Veterinary Mission Trip!
Replies
0
Views
948
andrea.doty
A
M
Veterinary Blogs
Replies
0
Views
602
MooV
M
WildWing
[Announcement] Mike Dunn, DVM Veterinary Student Scholarship
Replies
0
Views
918
WildWing
WildWing
Top Bottom