UK Vet Sector Remedies May Fuel the Consolidation They Aim to Curb

The Competition and Markets Authority is preparing to announce remedies for the UK veterinary sector that could inadvertently accelerate the very consolidation it aims to contain. The regulator's proposed solutions – likely including forced pricing transparency and easier access to online pharmacies – may redirect revenue towards the dominant corporate players whilst squeezing independent practices. What appears to be a consumer protection intervention risks becoming an exercise in rearranging deckchairs on a fundamentally broken market.

The regulator's provisional findings identified clear problems: 84% of veterinary practice websites displayed no pricing information, ownership structures remained opaque, and pet owners across the UK were spending £6.3bn annually on care with no ability to comparison shop during emergencies. A consultation costing £209 on average nationwide might run £142 in Yorkshire or £295 in Manchester, according to Clear Vet's analysis of over 500 practices. That variability alone suggests a market dysfunction.

What's less clear is whether the CMA's proposed solutions will help or hurt.

Enjoying this article?

Get stories like this in your inbox every week.

Join the Community

The online pharmacy paradox

The anticipated push towards online medicine sales presents a particularly thorny problem. According to the British Veterinary Association, two large veterinary groups already control between 70% and 80% of online pet medicine volume. Forcing vets to cap prescription costs and actively direct customers towards online alternatives would, in effect, redirect revenue streams towards the dominant corporate players the CMA ostensibly wants to rein in.

Medicine sales subsidise clinical time – remove that revenue line and practices face a stark choice between raising consultation fees or cutting staff

Independent vets argue the maths doesn't work in their favour. Claire Batty, who opened her own practice in Whalley, Lancashire, after leaving a corporate employer in 2023, says her practice already offers online prescriptions. But she acknowledges the bitter irony that those sales often profit the large chains she left behind.

Corporate groups, for their part, reject the narrative that consolidation alone drove price increases. They point to genuine cost pressures: expanded treatment capabilities, wage inflation, and heightened customer expectations. The advancements in veterinary medicine over the past decade are real – practices can now offer procedures that simply weren't available in 2016. But that explanation sits uncomfortably alongside the ownership concentration figures.

Regulation designed for a vanished world

The structural problem runs deeper than pricing. Individual vets remain regulated under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, a piece of legislation drafted when practices were typically owned and operated by the surgeons themselves. That regulatory framework means individual practitioners face being struck off for misconduct whilst the corporate entities that employ them – and increasingly dictate their commercial decisions – face minimal consequences.

The asymmetry matters. More than 60% of practices now operate under corporate ownership, yet the legal accountability rests with individuals who may have limited control over pricing, staffing, or treatment protocols. The government has promised modernisation, but legislative change moves slowly. Until practices themselves become regulated entities, vets will continue bearing personal liability for decisions made in boardrooms.

Rob Williams, president of the BVA, welcomes the proposed changes but doesn't expect them to affect consumer costs. That's probably honest. Regulatory reform that shifts accountability towards corporate owners might improve professional conditions for vets, but it won't necessarily make treatment cheaper for pet owners facing emergency bills.

The demand side nobody wants to discuss

The uncomfortable truth is that some of this crisis originates on the demand side. Recent polling by a pet food company found half of 2,000 respondents viewed their pets as children – the "pet parent" phenomenon is measurable, not anecdotal. That emotional framing creates pressure for treatments that might not serve the animal's welfare or the owner's financial sustainability.

Williams suggests prospective owners should choose breeds more carefully, noting that brachycephalic breeds like pugs and French bulldogs come with predictable respiratory problems whilst Scottish Fold cats suffer chronic arthritis

Mixed breed dogs, Williams argues, tend towards better health than pedigrees, though pedigree advocates dispute this characterisation. Either way, the breed question highlights a market failure: buyers make decisions based on Instagram aesthetics without pricing in the medical consequences.

Some newer practices are experimenting with subscription models that bundle preventative care, attempting to shift the economic model away from emergency-driven spending. Francesca Verney, veterinary director at Pet People in London, argues subscriptions provide predictability and remove barriers to care whilst allowing vets to intervene before conditions become acute. Whether that model can scale beyond affluent urban markets remains uncertain.

Lord Trees, the only vet in the House of Lords and founder of the Veterinary Policy Research Foundation, argues the NHS has fundamentally distorted public perception of healthcare costs. According to the Foundation's recent estimates, the veterinary industry adds roughly £20bn in value to the UK economy. Trees points out that nobody waits months for elective surgery for their dog – emergency cases get seen within hours, elective procedures within weeks. That's a different service model from human healthcare, and it carries different costs.

What happens when transparency meets consolidation

The CMA's final report will likely mandate pricing transparency and ownership disclosure alongside measures to facilitate online medicine purchases. Those interventions assume that information asymmetry is the primary market failure. But if the remedy channels revenue towards the two dominant online pharmacy operators whilst forcing independent practices to raise consultation fees or reduce staffing, the regulator may simply be rearranging the deckchairs.

Batty believes increased scrutiny has already changed consumer behaviour, with patients "voting with their feet" once they understand ownership structures. Perhaps that represents the Lidl and Aldi moment Williams hopes for – new independent entrants undercutting established players on transparency and fair pricing. But grocery retail consolidation wasn't reversed by discounters; it just shifted who dominated.

The veterinary market faces a tension between emotional attachment and economic reality that regulation alone can't resolve. Pet owners want advanced care delivered immediately at NHS-adjacent prices. Vets want professional autonomy without personal liability for corporate decisions. Corporate groups want returns that justify consolidation. And animals, who have no say in any of this, need treatment appropriate to their welfare rather than their owners' emotions.

The CMA's remedies may force more information into the market. Whether that information translates into lower costs or simply makes the consolidation more visible depends on factors the regulator can't control: breeding trends, consumer expectations, and whether anyone is willing to have the conversation about contextualised care that prioritises animal welfare over unlimited intervention. The final report, expected shortly, will reveal whether the watchdog understands that distinction.

More articles by Ross Williams