Introduction: A push for transparency in UK veterinary care
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has signaled a potential overhaul of how veterinary services operate in Britain. After an investigation into claims that chain-owned surgeries reduce consumer choice and inflate bills, the CMA proposed a suite of reforms designed to force greater price transparency and clearer disclosures about ownership. If adopted, these measures could reshape how pet owners compare care and pay for medicines across the country.
What the CMA found
The CMA’s investigation concluded that the £6.3 billion veterinary market is not fit for purpose and needs modernization. Key findings included that many pet owners are unaware of the prices for routine services and have little to go on when determining if their local practice is part of a larger group. The regulator also highlighted a lack of easy comparability for prices when moving between areas or choosing between clinics.
Another striking finding was that veterinarians could be charging significantly more for commonly prescribed medicines from practice to online sources. In many cases, medicines bought online could cost hundreds of pounds less than those dispensed in clinics.
Upon examining the market, the CMA noted that price increases followed acquisitions among larger veterinary groups, with average prices rising by about 9% within four years after such consolidation. The analysis drew attention to six dominant groups that together own most UK practices, several of which are not run by veterinarians themselves.
Who owns the major veterinary groups?
The CMA’s report identifies several ownership structures within the sector. Two groups are publicly listed companies (CVS and Pets at Home), while three—IVC, VetPartners, and Medivet—are backed by private equity. Linnaeus is owned by Mars Petcare. The mix of non-veterinary ownership and corporate scale raises questions about incentives, pricing strategies, and how best to balance pet welfare with corporate interests.
The CMA’s 21 proposed measures
To modernize the market and restore consumer confidence, the CMA proposed 21 concrete steps. Central to these is requiring vet businesses to publish comprehensive price lists and to clearly disclose whether a practice is part of a larger chain. The CMA also urged reforms to ensure that policies and practices enable vets to act in the best interests of pets and their owners, rather than prioritizing corporate financial goals.
Other recommendations include:
- Greater transparency around diagnostic and treatment costs
- A price cap on written prescriptions to curb excessive pharmacy charges
- A new, comprehensive price comparison website to help pet owners shop around
- Clear information about ownership and governance of practices
The CMA stressed that these measures would empower consumers to evaluate the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to obtain medicines—reducing confusion and unnecessary expenditure.
What happens next?
The CMA described the findings as provisional. Stakeholders have until next month to submit comments before the regulator publishes a final decision in the following year. The regulatory framework for veterinary services in the UK largely dates back to 1966 and currently only governs individual professionals, not the business entities that own many practices. If the CMA’s proposals are adopted, the sector could see a significant shift toward price transparency and consumer-driven choice.
Implications for pet owners and veterinary practice
For pet owners, the potential reforms promise clearer pricing, easier comparisons, and better access to affordable medicines. For practices, especially those within large groups, the changes may require new pricing policies, more explicit disclosures, and updated patient communications. The balance will be finding a way to maintain high standards of veterinary care while ensuring that costs are fair and predictable.
Expert voices and public response
Industry observers say the CMA’s measures could catalyze a much-needed shift toward consumer empowerment in veterinary care. Critics fear that too-stringent price controls could hamper practice viability, especially in rural areas where competition is already limited. The coming months will reveal whether policymakers strike the right balance between protecting animal welfare and maintaining incentives for innovative veterinary services.
Conclusion
The CMA’s investigation has spotlighted a market long compared with other essential services for its opacity and consolidation. By pushing for price publication, ownership disclosures, and a centralized price comparison tool, the regulator aims to restore choice, price visibility, and trust in UK veterinary care—benefiting pets and their owners alike.
