Rising veterinary bills present pet owners with a painful choice - article

I find it hard to believe that the average pet owner only pays $200 per pet in vet bills a year.. although maybe they are taking into account people like my mother, who has 5 dogs and a cat and never gets any of them vetted.

I totally see the point this article is making however. My fiance and I have drained our savings and CareCredit account due to all the problems Fiona has had. We would definitely do it all over again for her, but it is not an easy road to go down.

I think many people get involved with pet ownership without realizing that medical emergencies can, and in all likelihood probably WILL, happen. The even sadder truth is that many people subscribe to the mindset of: Oh, it's just a [dog/cat/whatever].

What can be done about this? I really don't know. The same medications and procedures are used on animals as on humans, but the prices are incredibly lower. (Can you imagine a human getting a hysterectomy for $100? But some people complain that's too much for a spay.) There's no Medicaid for pets. It's a really tough situation.

Honestly, I don't fault a pet owner if they choose to euthanize over treating a seriously ill, old, or badly injured pet, as long as they've taken good care of their pet up to that point, and actually care enough to GO TO THE VET right away for a diagnosis. Those that just ignore the issue until their pet is half-dead, then just call for a euth appointment really bug me, though. I don't expect anyone to spend thousands on their pets, as long as they allow for normal expenses and are willing to spend a reasonable amount on vet care.

I think preventive care is essential in reducing the chances of having life-threatening and very expensive vet care.
IMO a lot of pet owners think that little "free for good home" pet will be just that, forever... Unfortunately we all know that is not the case...
I think there are different ways to prevent crossing that bridge (deciding in between treatment and euthanasia) - including very affordable health insurance.
Both my kitties are insured, and I will always make sure that any addition is also added into the policy.
It costs me $27/month for both of them, and this gives me the peace of mind that I will always be able to take care of their needs.
IMO this is a very small price to pay, and pet owners NEED to be responsible for their lives. IMHO, If you can't afford $15-20/month for your pet's health insurance, maybe you shouldn't have a pet at all, as responsible pet ownership will certainly cost much more than that.

Ah, but many people (including me) do not consider pet insurance to be cost-effective. You will usually pay more in premiums over the life of the pet than you will ever spend on vet bills (at $20 a month, if your cat lives to be 15 you'll spend $3600 in premiums), and most pet insurance plans don't cover very much. You usually end up paying about half the bill anyway. And they don't usually cover the really expensive procedures, such as kidney transplants (as mentioned in the article).

I definitely think all pet owners should have a savings account for pet emergencies. If they aren't capable of putting money in the bank every month, then I guess they'd have to go with insurance....but you always pay more for convenience.

True, but as you can see over and over, that $3600 can go really quickly in an emergency. If you have the funds to deal with emergencies, and are up to do so when it arises... your choice... but for me, it is much easier to pay $20/month than end up with a $4,000 bill.
Not true - it completely depends on the plan you choose. My plan for example: I pay $100 co-payment, + 20% of the illness cost - including whatever is necessary to cure the disease, including surgeries, tests, transportation, anesthesia, medication, etc.... You also choose the maximum amount the insurance is going to pay - mine is $7,500 per disease, $42,500 for the life of the pet.
Say I have a disease that will cost $4,000 without the insurance - I would instead pay $880. MUCH MUCH more affordable that $4,000, and considerably less than 1/2 - actually less than 1/4 of the cost.
One emergency that I had with Bugsy this year already paid for all my premiums this year.

Again, not true - you might pay more, you might pay less; but you will ALWAYS be able to afford care, and that for me is the bottom line.
In this economy, it is not a lot of people who can pop up 4-5,000 if they have an emergency with their pets tomorrow - we see that happening quite often, and you don't need to go too far to see that.
Again, it is not for everybody, BUT, if you can't afford an emergency like that, insurance is a very low cost way to insure your peace of mind.

People need to realise that accidents/emergencies happen, and it is always good to have some money put aside or have some means for vet costs if you are going to own a pet.

We live in a very tough economy right now, and alot of people are being faced with scenerios like: spending $1000 on a vet bill vs paying rent/food/bills for themselves and their families/children.

Like the above quote, waiting untill the animal is half dead and calling for a euth appointment, is not very humane.... and I don't agree with it.

But I'm also not going to judge those who are in financial difficulties and the decisions that they make (as long as the decisions are humane).

... a very good posting indeed

regards,

Christine

... what really bothers me is when people don't spay their cat on purpose becaue they would like a litter of cute little kittens - but don't have the money if something goes wrong and the cat needs a c- section. I suspect that these people also don't have the money to have the litter vaccinated, either.

If you really must have a litter although there are already too many kittens born then at least make sure you can afford the vet.

regards,

christine

I have yet to find a health insurance for pets in Canada for $20 a month, never mind one that covers much of anything. We had one a few years back that was supposed to be good but it was much more than $20 per month and when I dug a little deeper into it, it appears there were many exceptions to what it would cover. So, with deductibles, non-coverage items, it turned out to not be a very good deal so we quit it.

If I were to buy insurance for all of my gang at $20 per critter, it would cost me $280 a month, or $3360 a year. I've spent close to that in emergency room visits over the last year, but I'm not sure that a health plan would have covered it anyway. My largest expense is not health care, but preventative care (heart guard, flea treatments), medications, good quality food, litter and toys, none of it would be covered under a health care plan.

As far as making the choice between spending the money for vet care versus a choice to euthanize? It's always based on the situation. Putting a feral cat through heart surgery and life long medications when I can barely touch the cat is not a wise choice. Having my greyhound's leg amputated due to bone cancer when he would probably only live for 2 months would not have been a wise choice. But having a tumor removed for diagnosis is the right thing to do, and doing a full tooth extraction to allow a cat to live pain free for many more years is also right. I will always pay for treatment when the condition is treatable, the prognosis is good, and it does not cause undo stress to the animal.

Really? Mine covers a lot - it won't cover wellness, dental (they do cover dental emergencies) or pre-existing conditions, but the rest is all covered... All illnesses and emergencies, diagnostics, holistic vets, even acupuncture and chiropractors... I used 2x, and had no problem in getting reimbursed...
Again, I don't think it is for everybody, but it is definitely an option to make sure you do have the funds available for emergencies... It costs me $27.00/month for BOTH Bugsy and Lucky. I do have the $$$ for wellness, but I know for a fact that if my kitties need surgery, or have something serious going on, I would NOT be able to afford without insurance... SO for me it is the responsible thing to do.
IMO, you need to be able to pay for your pets' care somehow - from the moment you adopt them, you are responsible for their lives. If you don't have insurance, you better make sure you can afford emergencies, either with a kitty fund, a credit cards, loan, whatever, but IMO if you can not afford emergencies, and are not willing to take the necessary precautions to have the funds available, then you have no business having pets. Emergencies will happen more often than not, and it comes with pet ownership.

and what # do you deem a reasonable amount?

I am interested in your response. Currently I treating an animal with an expensive life long health problem.

Maybe off topic.. Carolinalima, which insurance company do you use for your pets? I was looking for something that wasn't pre-pay/reimbursement.

I used pet insurance for the first year of each of my cats. It covered their spays and I ended up coming out ahead. Eventually I cancelled it, but I'm considering getting it again, in case something unforseen happens. When my cat Abby got Feline Leukemia we went close to $1000 on her treatments, since they were not covered by the insurance. It came to the point where treating her was prolonging her suffering, and we decided to have her put to sleep. That was a rough decision. I think each person has to weigh the options when deciding on expensive care- or any care. Are you delaying the inevitable or giving a longer, healthier life?

When health insurance for pets became readily available here, all of my cats were already too old to qualify for any decent insurance plans. I simply set aside a certain amount of money each month into savings for them. As long as I have the money available to treat them, the prognosis is fair, and the treatment itself isn't going to make the animal's life so stressful that it becomes miserable, I'll continue to do what I can for my pets.

But I do get frustrated when people say you shouldn't have pets if you can't afford them.

What exactly does that mean? How do you define what is an appropriate amount to spend? Should we be willing to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt and risk our homes and long-term future for the sake of care that merely delays the inevitable? Does that mean that if someone can't or won't go that far, that they should try to find another home for their pets with someone who can and will? Realistically, how many homes like that exist, compared to the number of pets in need of caring homes? Does that mean that a person of limited means should leave a stray out on the streets, rather than providing it with a loving, caring home, good quality food, and regular veterinary care (just not what I consider extraordinary measures)? Food for thought.

With a health insurance policy of our own that dictates we spend about ten thousand dollars out of pocket before it will cover any of our own medical care, I really am not in a position to spend that kind of money on a pet at this time. Does that make me a bad pet owner? I don't think so.

I would not judge anyone who tried their best to provide their pets with good basic care, and to take the best possible care of their pets' medical needs, humanely and within the limits of their budget, for reaching a point of saying 'enough, I can't afford to continue this', when faced with a serious illness or extroardinary expense beyond their means.

Honestly, while I am glad that veterinary medical advances have allowed people with the means to go to extroardinary lengths to save their pets to do so, I don't believe it should create moral pressures on people with limited means to get into a financial situation over their heads. IMO a good vet should offer a client multiple options to care for a pet within their budget if at all available, and not be judgemental if a client can't afford only the most expensive, most ideal option.

It depends. If the family has 6 kids, is on welfare, and Dad makes $20,000 a year, then I'd just be glad if they just take their cat to the vet for $20 worth of antibiotics. As long as they try their best. It's a personal choice based on your circumstances at the time, and I don't think anyone should feel too guilty (of course you'll always feel guilty) as long as they did all they could and were not neglectful.

It is just way too subjective. Who decides if they really did "all they could" and were not neglectful. The person? You? Their salary? Their bar tab? Their last vacation? Their spending money? Their monthly entertainment expenses? Their addictive habits, like smoking or excessive shopping? Government money they take? Their bills? Their "real" children? Animals fully depend on us for their care, that is the situation they are in, when people get animals, they are responsible for their care, like infants and children are too.
In the end, people do what they can live with, which varies greatly. And for many, that doesn't involve keeping a pet for life and especially not changing their lifestyle to fit that pet and their needs, like when the pet needs treatment (like for worms or other basic conditions) but they want to keep going out to eat/etc., or they are having a baby, or the newest love interest doesn't like cats/dogs, so pet automatically has to go, and other such scenarios. A quick look on petfinder and craigslist and in the newspaper reveals just how expendable pets are to our society. The reasons always vary, and the reasons are always justified by the person, even when those reasons would be completely off base and bizarre to most animal lovers, they make sense to that person and to them are perfectly reasonable.

With my pet, we are not rich by any means, but could have many more years if we treat this pet's condition, so we are opting to treat. By choice, we have made great lifestyle changes to accommodate pets along the road of life.

I Use Pets Best Insurance, as they were the most affordable, had good coverage, and pretty much the only one I found having the option to pay the vet directly (the vet needs to accept this arrangement, but if you have a relationship with him/her, you are good)

Sorry, but IMO this person shouldn't have pets...
So many time I have seen here at TCS people who hasn't thought about all the costs with pet ownership, and end up with litters and litters of kittens because they don't have the $$ to spay their kitties.
Sometimes momma cat is suffering through a life threatening labor, and the owner, who had no $$$ to spay, now has no $$$ to take the kitty to the vet.
IMO, like responsible breeding, there HAS to be responsible pet ownership. IMO, leaving an animal without care because of lack of $$$ is animal abuse.
There are many many diseases that will cost $$$ and will not be a case for euthanasia - violent diarrhea for example... You kitty has it in the middle of the night, and is getting in a bad shape FAST. That alone can cost over $250... So what you do? Let your cat die because of something that trivial?
Even euthanasia costs $$.You don't have $$ to pay... Do you just leave the kitty to suffer until it dies on its own?
I am sorry, but IMO if you can not afford decent care, you should not have a pet. Having a pet is a privilege, not a right...

But what constitutes "decent care"? IMO, if they spay/neuter the cat, vaccinate appropriately, and are willing and able to deal with small health issues, that would constitute decent care. I don't expect everyone to cough up hundreds or thousands of dollars on health care for their pet, especially for health issues that may not improve even with vet care (for instance, my mom's cat was rushed to the emergency vet today, but died anyway despite the vets doing all they could, and it cost $230.....my parents both have excellent jobs and can afford this easily but I don't expect everyone to do that kind of thing for a dying cat. It would have cost around $100 if they had just put him down right away, due to e-vet fees). No I would not consider allowing a cat to die without at least consulting a vet to be "decent care".

Besides, "people like that" WILL have pets no matter what we think. And, just consider how many cats would be put down if those kinds of people weren't allowed to have pets. So as long as they maintain a certain standard of care, I don't try to hold them to the same standards I have.

I think I did give quite a few examples of what decent care constitutes on my post.
Take a good look at Craig's List, and you will see that many many pets DO DIE because of, as you put it, "people like that".

Actually NOT really ... Old age is/ wearing out is a NON preventive issue... and ER stuff ( lets see in just five yrs I have had one anaphalatic shock , one ingested toy, one constipation( likely will be a vet board issue as they diagnosed a new thing every 6 or so hours and did not figure out the real issue) , five utis ( sudden and NO crystals luckily), two seizures , and several vomiting/ allergic reactions in my house ... NON of them would be covered by any pet policy( I have checked all avail policies in my area many times) nor were preventable

First of, I said "essential in reducing the chances", I didn't say "Eliminating the chances". If you go to the vet every year, you can catch diseases in their beginning instead of advanced stages. Second, all of those things you are saying that are not covered (in bold), are covered by my policy. (provided that they are not consequences of pre-existing conditions)

Third: I am pretty sure you DO take preventive matters to make sure these things don't happen again - I know for a fact you changed the kitties diet to prevent UTIs, and if I am correct, haven't had another case since - that IS preventive care. Allergies - I also know you worked to figure out what they were allergic to, and have cats on restricted diets - that IS preventive care. So yes, I stand by the notion that preventive care is very important on a cats life, just as it is on ours. And yes, it will save money on the long run.

I totally agree. I am on a couple animal forums and have known some of the posters for five years or so and many of them do rescue. They all have multiple pets. All of them have said pet insurance is just not worth the money.
Much better to put that money in a savings account every month IMO, but many people have a hard time not touching it for something else I guess.

We all have our limitations of how much we could afford to spend if, God forbid, one of our pets was seriously ill or hurt and the cost was going to be high. Also it depends on so much, the age of the animal, the prognosis, quality of life after treatment. Many things.

In all cases they would have called it prexisting thou only the utis were truly ... I do try to fix any fixable s, the PH is corrected time will tell about the actual infections .......

Regarding the unspayed cat, that is ignorance, nothing else.

I think the day you set income levels for pet ownership is the day pet euthanasia rates will skyrocket. Personally, I think they are high enough.

No one has the right to tell someone they do not make enough money to have a pet IMO.

For sure. You don't know an animal is allergic until you see evidence it is allergic. You don't know an animal is prone to UTI's until they get one.

I don't think preventative care would turn up allergies. I have a dog with allergies and allergy testing is expensive and not something that is done as part of a yearly exam.

As long as people do the best they can for their animal and IF everyone did do their best for their animal I would be fine with that.

I have checked - UTIs are NOT considered pre-existing, and I can not see how ingesting a toy, or an anaphalactic shock would be either. You are assuming they would call pre-existing. I have used this insurance for an URI, a severe diarrhea, and an eye infection - this includes regular and emergency vets, and I had NO problem whatsoever getting paid for the everything, including medication.
So, I am not sure if you had experience with insurances, but it sounds to me you are assuming they would deny your claims.

Nobody here is setting an income level for pet ownership, but IMO if you can not afford it, you should not have them. Same thing with kids, or most things in life, for that matter.
Not spaying a cat can very well be a matter of budget, as we have seen here at TCS. Which goes back to my point.

I did PRE calls, starting about 12 yrs ago to a few months ago ... and do to age and the fact all of my kids had seen a vet for some ailment they called it preexisting... NOTE MOST vets in my area do not take insurance or help with claims so you may have hit the jackpot of a decent carrier and willing vets