Consumer Reports raises profession's ire

A concerted outcry of veterinarians, stung by a Consumer Reports (CR) article implying pet owners may be victims of veterinary pricing strategies, has fueled key associations to retaliate with letters to the editors and to the profession.

Sparking debate is a story published in the July 2003 issue, titled "Veterinary Care Without the Bite." The article, according to CR, provides information on how consumers can save money, how the business works and how to maintain quality care for pets.

But veterinarians argue the article paints them purely as "money-grubbing price gougers."

The six-page report, heavy on pricing and light on veterinary input, tells the consumer "how to save thousands of dollars on veterinary care by planning and shopping carefully."

Examples include:

• "You don't have to buy prescription drugs from vets. Shop for drugs at pharmacies, including online;"

• "Shopping around (for a veterinarian) is a must."

While CR interviewed officials with the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) for the story, the magazine says it contacted the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) communications office seven times in failed attempts to reach AVMA leadership. Dr. Bruce Little, executive director of AVMA, says he was aware CR called the office to obtain surveys, but he never talked to them.

Dr. Bruce Little

AVMA, AAHA bear brunt

Since the publication hit the newsstands in early June, AVMA says its home office as well as board members and officers have been flooded with calls and e-mails from incensed members.

In response, AVMA, as well as AAHA, are in damage control mode, preparing separate rebuttal letters for Consumer Reports and letters to the profession advising how to respond to the pet-owning public's inquiries.

The AVMA response is expected to focus on what the article failed to report. Little says the report could have been more beneficial to the pet and the owners if value, rather than dollars alone, was used as a measurement of good care.

Idea is born

Author Jeff Blyskal, CR senior editor, says the idea for the article stemmed from another editor's discussion about fast-rising prices in veterinary care. The editor, a pet owner herself, encountered a veterinarian who wanted to charge her $800 for a spay.

As part of his report, CR posted an online query, generating 135 e-mails from pet owners who described their veterinary experiences.

Contrary to veterinary opinion, Blyskal says the article is anything but controversial.

"It may be controversial if you think consumers should be kept in the dark," Blyskal tells DVM Newsmagazine. "We're not telling consumers go out and pick the lowest price vet. We say shop around and make your own decision."

Association miffed

Little tells DVM Newsmagazine the CR article is "another case of irresponsible, inferior journalism."

As an example he refers to the article's advice to consider the purchase of prescription drugs online. "It isn't good journalism for someone to recommend, as one of their four Internet outlets, to buy prescription drugs from an outlet whose license is on probation by the state licensing bureau."

From the opening statement, Little says CR took pot shots at the profession, when suggesting that since 1997, veterinarians have been hiking prices at more than twice the rate of inflation.

Dr. Link Welborn

"What about the price of human medicine? How does that rate (compare) to inflation?"

There's potential for there to be a fairly significant public reaction to this article, Little says. "You have a tendency to respond more when somebody calls you a dirty name than if it's about somebody else."

AAHA weighs in

Dr. Link Welborn, president of AAHA, acknowledges while the author raised good points, overall, the article is "misleading."

"Traditionally, Consumer Reports has focused on educating consumers about the relative value of various products and services. However, in this case, they seemingly chose not to address value or recognize differences in veterinary care," he notes.

He says the author made an unfair assumption that companion animal medicine is a commodity and that clients should choose an animal hospital based predominately on price.

Blyskal counters. "Just the fact that we talk about and focus on price doesn't mean that's the only issue and that we're saying veterinary care is a commodity. A veterinary practice is both a business and a medical service.

"Our coverage of veterinary care signals to the profession that vets need to pay more attention to consumer concerns, consumer rights and demand for a fair deal."

Welborn says the article additionally failed to recognize the increased costs incurred by veterinary practices as the quality of care provided has risen recently.

Blyskal did not comment.

Trust under fire?

If veterinarians are preoccupied with the almighty dollar, it would appear that the trust clients hold for veterinarians would be jeopardized.

Dr. Brian Huss

Nonsense, says consultant Dr. Gerald Snyder after reading the article, which he called "unbalanced." "There's a bond formed between the client and veterinarian, which Consumer Reports will not be able to harm," he argues. "No one believes that veterinarians are malicious."

Hard evidence supports his claims. From 1965 to 1995, the income growth of veterinarians in real dollars diminished 4.6 percent, compared to physicians who increased their position by 22.6 percent, according to Department of Labor statistics.

"Veterinarians do not raise fees except to keep in business at a time when business expenses are so high," Snyder says.

Veterinary reaction

At press time CR, with a paid circulation of 4 million, reported it had received two e-mailed complaints from veterinarians in regard to the article.

Avid subscriber Dr. Brian Huss, specialist at Veterinary Emergency and Specialty Referral Centers in Waltham, Mass., says his letter to CR is "in the mail."

CR has always been Huss' reference for purchasing big-ticket items. But now he says they've pushed the limit, providing a "great disservice" to the pet-owning public.

"Consumer Reports tends to do objective reporting on products. I think they overstepped their bounds in going more into services where I don't think they have the experience. Absolutely everything was based on what is it going to cost," he says.

Dr. Ann Middleton, of San Diego, Calif., is disappointed by the article's suggestion that "we are out to gouge our clients for every dollar we possibly can."

In response, Middleton is working on a "statement of defense" for clients who may question her about the article, although she's confident her clients will continue to support her.

"People who come to my office come for the quality of care, not for the price," she says.

In Roanoke, Va., what Dr. Karen Bowman found particularly offensive was how CR asserted that veterinarians recommend unnecessary tests.

The truth is, pet owners are demanding such tests, says Bowman.

"As pets are becoming more or less family members, people don't want to hear their dog has an inoperable tumor. They want to find the tumor before there's nothing you can do about it."

Healing wounds

Veterinarians shouldn't worry about setbacks stemming from CR's article, says Howard Rubin, president, National Commission on Veterinary Economic Issues, and a consultant.

"People look at their veterinarian as an individual and personal relationships are important to them," he says.

As for future financial hurdles, Rubin says, "If you do a good job on care of the animals and service, the money takes care of itself, not the other way around."

The bottom line is for veterinarians not to overreact but continue to communicate value to their clients on a daily basis, suggests Rubin. "If vets do that, they will not only do a good job in taking care of animals, but have the kind of economic basis to continue."