Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 299 posts

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#231

Post by jakear »

SkyBelow wrote: post #220
jakear wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no element of choice. Calling around my local vets every one is 3+ month wait for new patients. Even existing patients have week or longer lead times. But of course if you choose Banfield (PE shitshow), they’ll see them same day (drop off in the morning, pet waits in kennel surrounded by other sick dogs all day until a vet is free, pet goes back to kennel to wait until end of day). The charge is significant,…

Where is the market for the vets who are a bit more expensive but only have a wait time of a few days, with emergency services available at a premium comparable to the PE's but with better treatment? Are we saying that vets would rather be unemployed than to work such a market or is something preventing them from serving that market or does the actual demand for such services not exist?

That’s probably the emergency animal hospital. Sees the pet same day 24/7, pet waits with you in parking lot until they’re ready, and is taken immediately back to you when they’re done. Prices are high, and non-emergency services aren’t available. For instance vaccines/microchipping.

I do not know why such places don’t offer standard services. The one by my house was nearly always empty, but still would not give my dog vaccines.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#232

Post by rentfree-media »

SomeBoolshit wrote: post #177
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #61

Vet clinics became very popular private equity targets recently. One of the people I know in PE described their profit margins as being surprisingly high even before PE roll-ups. They said that some PE firms were on a mission to acquire all of the vet firms in metro areas and then drive prices up even further because the demand is so inelastic. There was a secondary rush where people were trying to acquire vet clinic…

It all started going a very wrong way when animal health insurance became a thing. I've always had vets peddle weird stuff but that was a real eye opener.

Maybe we should try insurance for people going to doctors and see if that turns out any different, oh wait lol....

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#233

Post by lotsofpulp »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #206
jacksnipe wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why can’t local clinics get new vets? Because they can’t pay them enough, because they don’t price gouge?

In addition to what snapetom said, there are about 4400 annual vet jobs and 3200 new grads. Someone is going to miss out. Graduates who want to make money will go to commercial or fisheries operations, which pay better overall. We're in the bay area, one of the highest-demand regions in the highest-demand state. There aren't many people left to compete over. Corps are currently offering 5-6 figure sign-ons and bonuse…

>There aren't many people left to compete over. Corps are currently offering 5-6 figure sign-ons and bonuses in our area.

They simply are not offering enough money. If 5 to 6 figure bonuses do not work, then they should be increasing pay to high 6 figures or 7 figures. I would be surprised if 7 figures does not solve their supply issue.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#234

Post by AlotOfReading »

SkyBelow wrote: post #220
jakear wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no element of choice. Calling around my local vets every one is 3+ month wait for new patients. Even existing patients have week or longer lead times. But of course if you choose Banfield (PE shitshow), they’ll see them same day (drop off in the morning, pet waits in kennel surrounded by other sick dogs all day until a vet is free, pet goes back to kennel to wait until end of day). The charge is significant,…

Where is the market for the vets who are a bit more expensive but only have a wait time of a few days, with emergency services available at a premium comparable to the PE's but with better treatment? Are we saying that vets would rather be unemployed than to work such a market or is something preventing them from serving that market or does the actual demand for such services not exist?

Boutique practices exist, they're just a relatively new business model and targeted to wealthy urbanites. Take a look at Modern Animal [1] or Small Door vet [2]. Traditionally, the answer has been to just go to an emergency vet if you need rapid treatment.

[1] https://www.modernanimal.com/

[2] https://www.smalldoorvet.com/

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#236

Post by wing-_-nuts »

snapetom wrote: post #101
Freebytes wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emergency vets in many places will demand you pay $5,000 upfront (within minutes before surgery is performed) or your pet dies. Then, your pet will die anyway. It is a sad and exploitative industry.

>It is a sad and exploitative industry. What an insulting, belittling comment. I don't know why you think veterinarians are charities, and don't know why feel entitled to pay people less than they're worth. Veterinarians hold doctorates. Four years of undergrad, four years of vet school. Many emergency vets are board certified, meaning they've done an additional 3+ years in internships and residencies. In running a p…

>Don't blame the vet for charging $5000 for a surgery. Blame owners who can't afford to raise a pet but have one anyway.

What an utterly callous statement. We're mostly well paid professionals here on HN, but to suggest that the average american should be able to come up with $500, much less 5k, on a moments notice is laughably out of touch with most people's financial situation.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#237

Post by [deleted] »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #233
AlotOfReading wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to what snapetom said, there are about 4400 annual vet jobs and 3200 new grads. Someone is going to miss out. Graduates who want to make money will go to commercial or fisheries operations, which pay better overall. We're in the bay area, one of the highest-demand regions in the highest-demand state. There aren't many people left to compete over. Corps are currently offering 5-6 figure sign-ons and bonuse…

>There aren't many people left to compete over. Corps are currently offering 5-6 figure sign-ons and bonuses in our area. They simply are not offering enough money. If 5 to 6 figure bonuses do not work, then they should be increasing pay to high 6 figures or 7 figures. I would be surprised if 7 figures does not solve their supply issue.

[deleted]

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#238

Post by rozap »

Freebytes wrote: post #35
AlotOfReading wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My partner works in this industry and in fact has friends that are affected by this merger. While the FTC can and does have the ability to do many things simultaneously, the current situation in the vet industry is dire . Corporate vets are more profitable (through price-gouging), have a virtual stranglehold on increasingly limited labor pools, and are pretty much the only ones that can afford to invest in specialty…

Emergency vets in many places will demand you pay $5,000 upfront (within minutes before surgery is performed) or your pet dies. Then, your pet will die anyway. It is a sad and exploitative industry.

Yep. This happened to us. After the dog was prescribed something (bravecto) she didn't really need, which had big risks we didn't know about, so much so that the FDA issued guidance about seizure risks. She had a seizure 48 hours after we gave it to her, and was dead within 72 hours. We paid like $3k in emergency vet care before they did any work, and she died within 30 minutes of them starting on her. 2 year old collie. Edit: just looked it up and the vet in question is owned by JAB.

Sorry to vent. Still makes me so angry and depressed. None of the vets wanted to entertain the fact that it was the drug, despite mountains of evidence. It doesn't feel like there's a culture of learning, just one of deflecting fault. I hate to be one of those "I've done my own research" types, but with animal care you really are on your own. This happened a few months ago, really miss that dog.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#239

Post by pclmulqdq »

pc86 wrote: post #163
pclmulqdq wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not capitalism because a licensing cartel artificially keeps the supply of vets low by keeping out qualified PAs and nurses who could handle easy cases.

Capitalism doesn't become "not capitalism" because practitioners need to be licensed and public safety and/or public opinion demands regulations be put in place.

Capitalism kind of does become "not capitalism" when a small cartel of individuals uses these public safety rules to arbitrarily cap the number of professionals who can be certified. At that point, you have something approaching mercantilism. Rules can be good for markets, but in the medical industry in the US they are far past that point.

I haven't checked, but I assume that today there are more rules and regulations on doctors in the US than there were on the entire Soviet economy. Some of those rules are good, but most of them are in place because a hospital system or a medical association lobbied to put them in place so that they could keep barriers to entry high.

Re: FTC acts against private equity firm’s acquisition of veterinary clinics

#240

Post by newsclues »

munk-a wrote: post #36
markovbot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One wonders what the Private Equity firm's intention was here. no, i don't think anyone's wondering that. private equity firms have one purpose and one purpose only.

I guess it might be fairer to then say "I wonder why nobody says out loud that such an acquisition will definitely lead to a decline in service for consumers".

Generally people with knowledge of shady stuff have a financial incentive not to speak out.
Post reply on HN