The True Cost Of Pet Insurance

It is five years to the day since Sainsbury's Pet Insurance first warned pet owners that vets fees were rising well above inflation. At the time this was estimated at 10% per year. Then in 2008 the company increased its estimate to, and today reiterated a figure of, a 12% annual rise in the cost of treatment.

Under the alarming headline: "Pets put to sleep due to soaring veterinary treatment costs", Sainsbury's reports that 28 out of 51 vets that it interviewed in December last year, had claimed to have euthanased pets in the last five years because owners could not pay for treatment.

In what appears to be the same set of interviews, the company reports that 88%, (45 vets), claimed to have experienced situations where owners had rejected recommended treatments or operations because of costs.

Vets reported notable increased costs in treating a number of commonly presented ailments including: skin tumours, dental traumas, gastroenteritis, lameness and diabetes. Improvements in sophisticated new treatments have also contributed to rising vets fees.

Joanne Mallon, Sainsbury's Pet Insurance Manager:

"Vet fees are increasing by around 12% a year(3), and as a result of this we may see more animals needlessly being put down because their owners cannot afford it."

Double jeopardy..

An animal that is suffering and requires treatment that its owner cannot afford faces a double jeopardy it seems:

If in consultation with the owner, a vet has recommended a course of treatment to relieve suffering, generally, welfare laws require the owner as keeper of the animal, to treat the suffering. The owner may infact have already acknowledged that they believe something to be wrong in taking the initiative to approach the vet in the first place. So once this has been confirmed then something must be done.

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, Section 4, Unnecessary suffering:: ============ (1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

(b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(c) the animal is a protected animal, and

(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

(2) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is responsible for an animal,

(b) an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,

(c) he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and

(d) the suffering is unnecessary. ============ Faced with the situation that his client has presented the suffering animal at the surgery but cannot afford to pay for the appropriate treatment to relieve suffering, the vet now also appears to be on dangerous ground in law. He now needs the problem resolved.

Of course the best option in this awful scenario, for the vet, the pet owner and under the law, is the worst of all possible outcomes for the animal. A humane, if premature, death.

In releasing its figures today, Sainsbury's warned:

"It should be an essential item on a prospective owner's list when weighing up whether to purchase an animal or not. Doing without insurance is simply false economy and worse still could result in some heart breaking family decisions being made later down the line."