Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them – and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners.

Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, and the government’s competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market – as it stands – is giving customers value for money.

One anonymous vet, who works for the UK’s largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options.

A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: “The group’s vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care.”

More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet.

Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills.

One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: “I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of.”

Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: “At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000.”

Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

In a provisional report at the end of last year, it identified several issues:

• Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing
• The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies – these now control 60% of the UK’s pet-care market
• Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits

A vet, who leads one of IVC’s surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company’s UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care.

It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests.

The vet is worried about the new policy: “We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you’re doing.”

If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company’s top 25% of achievers in the UK.

A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action.

The vet says this would create pressure to “upsell” services.

For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill.

While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis – the thickening of joints, for instance – could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment.

“Vets shouldn’t have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic.”

IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to “identify and close gaps in care for our patients”.

It says its vets have “clinical independence”, and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ (RCVS) code and IVC policy.

The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession.

Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups.

One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: “We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails.”

Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, “it was crazy… It was all about hitting targets”.

Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way.

UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 – equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA.

However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed.

Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA.

Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000.

Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis – and another operation – would cost between £5,000-£8,000.

However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure – £10,000.

“That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them,” he says. “It was like, I don’t believe that you’ve got our interests or Betty’s interests at heart.”

The family decided to put Betty to sleep.

Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company – IVC.

He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a “goodwill gesture”.

Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: “In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds.

“We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible.”

Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry.

Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities “to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits”.

Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market – up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA.

They are:

• Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices
• Medivet, which has 363
• Vet Partners with 375 practices
• CVS Group, which has 387 practices
• Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets
• IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices

When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024.

Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure.

They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs.

The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.

A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets – both corporate and independent – when it comes to quality of service.

But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies.

“I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they’re owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses,” says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite.

The CMA’s final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication.

In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership.

Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria.

IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future.

Pets at Home does not buy practices – it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices.

The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don’t put too high a burden on vets.

David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further.

“There’s good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies.”

The CMA says its proposals would “improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine – without confusion or unnecessary cost”.

For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late.

“I honestly wouldn’t get another pet,” he says. “I think it’s so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.”