Originally Posted by marketsmart (Post 16433199)

so, long story short, one of my dogs gets bit by another dog.. she needs to go to the vet after hours to get stitches..

cost for after hours emergency visit, local anesthesia, antibiotics = $140.00

if a human would have went to the ER for a few stitches, total cost = $1500.00

so, what is the difference? my vet (3 vets total) has a lovely office and a staff of about 10, so overhead is not that much lower..

Originally Posted by kane (Post 16433272)

this is true Vets often have a decent staff. What they usually don't have, however, is the large amount of patients. A busy ER could see several hundred or more patients a day. A vet will maybe see a handful of patients a day so they have a lot smaller overhead when it comes to billing and such. Add in the nurses that it takes to care for all the overnight patients in a hospital and they far outnumber those in a vet.


Well, Kind of. Both doctors and vets go to regular college the 4 years of med school. But regular doctors also have to have at least 1 more year of supervised training. Most states then require you to do anywhere between 1-7 more years of residency before you can start to practice medicine on your own. So a vet can go to school for 8 years while the average doctor it is about 12.

Add in nurses that typically go to school for 4-6 years Vs vet techs that only take a few months up to 2 years of schooling.


The difference is that your vet doesn't have thousands of patients a year that come in and get service from them then not pay. Most vets require payment up front or at least a deposit. If you go into the ER they will treat you even if you can't pay. So the supplies cost the same, but pretty much all of the vets patients pay where an ER maybe not.


Malpractice insurance for doctors is through the roof. If you take your dog to a vet and something happens and the dog dies, chances are you will not be filing a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the vet. I did a quick search and found this article that says the largest vet malpractice award so far has been around 39K. The article is a few years old though so it could be the different. I also did a search and found the average doctor malpractice settlement is around 125K with the average jury award being around 239K. So regular doctors pay out a hell of a lot more and I would assume more often so you could guess their insurance will be a lot more expensive then vet insurance.


I think when it comes to animal care cost is often a big decider. If your kid or spouse was sick you would spend every penny you had, sell everything you own and borrow whatever it took to get them the treatment they needed. If it is your dog and it is going to cost 3K for a surgery to save them, you might not do it and just have the animal put down. So I think vets strive to keep costs affordable or they will just lose customers.

For me some of it is partially that hospitals and doctors can charge whatever they want and you don't really have much of a choice, but I also think a lot of it is simply millions of people every year getting treatment and not paying for it so that cost is passed on to those that can and do pay.

Originally Posted by marketsmart (Post 16433287)

congratulations... i give you the most thought out post of the year award... :thumbsup

you make some very valid points that i didnt really put a lot of thought into\..

my point was really just to try to understand why the difference is so high when there are a lot of similarities, but you made some valid points as to the difference..

i would still like to hear some more thoughts on this...

Originally Posted by marketsmart (Post 16433199)

so what is it? why is there such a discrepancy between human care and animal care costs when there are so many of the same factors involved?

Originally Posted by After Shock Media (Post 16433377)

Animals are property, simple as that and no matter how much you love them or think of them as family.

A vet could get stuck on the hook for the future bills a damaged animal has to go through after a fuck up. However if the vet kills the animal, all you get typically is replacement costs no matter how much you sue for. I say typically because there are some rare instances, like when it is a certified trained service animal, you could get that additional cost added.

Procedures, medications, and well all things related to treatment of animals is a hell of a lot cheaper to get approval for. Certain drugs or procedures can carry a much larger risk of side effects and or death when it comes to animals versus humans.

Vets also can deny service for any reason and is in no way required to treat your injured animal. You can sit there at the vet with a bleeding Fido with collapsed ribs and on the verge of death without immediate surgery, and they can demand payment in advance if they feel like it.

Many other factors were listed above. From training times to the sizes of loans they have to payback when they start working. They also have less insurance concerns, cheaper equipment, you name it. Yes a CT machine is cheaper for vets because it has to pass less safety levels than a human one.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 16433365)

I guess my point is that the billing and administration departments for hospitals are huge. Those people cost money. When people don't pay their bills, those salaries have to be made up too and all of that helps add to the cost of higher medical bills.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 16433409)

So, so far it seems costs are high NOT really because of the actual medical procedures but;

* Deadbeats that don't pay.

* High malpractice costs.

* Over testing and other cover your ass costs associated with malpractice costs.

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 16433419)

Note, it's very common for a group of doctors to own the same labs most of their tests are sent to.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 16433411)

Great point. Also, doesn't something like 15% to 30% of all medical dollars spent go to insurance company overhead alone?

Originally Posted by kane (Post 16433430)

I'm not sure what the amount is, but I know there is a decent amount of insurance company overhead.

You could also put in our own price watching ignorance as part of it. Here is an example:

If your dog gets cut and needs some stitches you go to the vet, they tell you what the cost will be and you agree to pay it. You know up front what it costs and you are aware of it. If vet #1 told you that it would cost you 2K for the stitches and you know there is another vet 10 blocks away, you might drive over there and see what they would charge. If they charge you $400 for the same thing, you give vet #2 your business. When it comes to non life threatening or emergency vet care you may shop around for the best deal.

Now under the same idea you go to the ER and get stitches. Unless you ask they don't tell you how much it will be. If you have insurance, you probably don't even bother to ask or care. So a few weeks later the bill comes from the hospital and it cost 2K for your stitches. You have insurance that is going to pay it so you don't even bat an eye. You may look at the price of things and be shocked that they charged you $40 to use a warm blanket and $50 for some water to drink, but you laugh it off, you aren't paying the bill. If you are paying the bill you would call back and dispute some of these charges and try to work a deal. So when people don't care about the costs it does very little to encourage the hospitals/providers to lower the costs.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 16433272)

this is true Vets often have a decent staff. What they usually don't have, however, is the large amount of patients. A busy ER could see several hundred or more patients a day. A vet will maybe see a handful of patients a day so they have a lot smaller overhead when it comes to billing and such. Add in the nurses that it takes to care for all the overnight patients in a hospital and they far outnumber those in a vet.


Well, Kind of. Both doctors and vets go to regular college the 4 years of med school. But regular doctors also have to have at least 1 more year of supervised training. Most states then require you to do anywhere between 1-7 more years of residency before you can start to practice medicine on your own. So a vet can go to school for 8 years while the average doctor it is about 12.

Add in nurses that typically go to school for 4-6 years Vs vet techs that only take a few months up to 2 years of schooling.


The difference is that your vet doesn't have thousands of patients a year that come in and get service from them then not pay. Most vets require payment up front or at least a deposit. If you go into the ER they will treat you even if you can't pay. So the supplies cost the same, but pretty much all of the vets patients pay where an ER maybe not.


Malpractice insurance for doctors is through the roof. If you take your dog to a vet and something happens and the dog dies, chances are you will not be filing a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the vet. I did a quick search and found this article that says the largest vet malpractice award so far has been around 39K. The article is a few years old though so it could be the different. I also did a search and found the average doctor malpractice settlement is around 125K with the average jury award being around 239K. So regular doctors pay out a hell of a lot more and I would assume more often so you could guess their insurance will be a lot more expensive then vet insurance.


I think when it comes to animal care cost is often a big decider. If your kid or spouse was sick you would spend every penny you had, sell everything you own and borrow whatever it took to get them the treatment they needed. If it is your dog and it is going to cost 3K for a surgery to save them, you might not do it and just have the animal put down. So I think vets strive to keep costs affordable or they will just lose customers.

For me some of it is partially that hospitals and doctors can charge whatever they want and you don't really have much of a choice, but I also think a lot of it is simply millions of people every year getting treatment and not paying for it so that cost is passed on to those that can and do pay.

Originally Posted by WoW! (Post 16433650)

As soon as you said 'and such' in the 4th sentence, I was out.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 16433535)

True!

But I saw something on one of my own bills recently and asked somebody I know in the medical field about it.

When I had insurance it seemed like CT scans always cost $1200 to $1500. I recently got the bill from my last uninsured ER visit and the CT scan was only $500.

I asked her what's up and she said that it's now common to give the uninsured discounts.

That's actually kind of bogus when you think about it. Depending on how you look at it, it could be a discount for the uninsured or a ripoff of insurance companies.

They figure I'm more likely to pay a $500 bill since I don't have insurance.