CMA: Vets provisional decision released

veterinaryvoicesuk
Oct 15
6 min read

Today the CMA has released more information on their provisional decision. You have until 12th November to respond. Many of the suggestions are things many practices have already been doing, although there are certainly some suggestions that centralise information. Some of the suggestions have wider implications that perhaps the CMA has not considered; this is your chance to let them know more about the realities of working in veterinary practice, and how some of these changes may be unrealistic in some circumstances.

You can find the provisional decision in the ‘Documents’ section of this page: Vets provisional decision | CMA Connect

Interestingly, the media this morning that has covered this shared some interesting opinions - we are hearing how veterinary practices abroad manually restrain pets to avoid sedation and GA cost, or how they get to prescribe human medicine because it is cheaper. It is important for the CMA and the pet owning population to understand the ‘why’? Why don’t we do this in the UK? Well, as usual, there is nuance.

It isn't always that simple. Regardless of the fact that restraining sick pets can often be more stressful to the pet than if we use ‘chemical restraint’ e.g., medication to sedate/relax the pet, sometimes risking patient deterioration, for example if we don’t have a patent airway, or even hazardous to the teams from bite risks from anxious or fractious patients; UK veterinary professionals are advised against manual restraint with ionising radiation regulations - and that our teams would be exposed daily to radiation. For example one document states ‘No animal is to be manually restrained for radiographic examination unless there is a clinical reason for avoidance of sedation or anaesthesia.’

Furthermore, we are told about using cheaper human medicine - great, right? No, again, as veterinary professionals we have to abide by the cascade which controls the prescription of unauthorised medications. Additionally as veterinary practices we are not allowed to buy via online pharmacies, and have to buy via a veterinary wholesaler.

The Summary Of the Decision Can be Found Below:

Price Transparency for Pet Owners

Full price lists for standard services will have to be published online and made available to an independent comparison website (likely run via the RCVS “Find a Vet” tool).
Practices must clearly state their ownership — whether independent or part of a corporate group — so clients can make informed choices.
A national survey of pet owner satisfaction will be conducted regularly to compare experiences and quality between providers.

Cheaper Access to Veterinary Medicines

Vets will be required to inform clients that medicines are often much cheaper online and offer written prescriptions automatically for long-term medication (unless owners opt out).
A price cap of £16 will be set for written prescriptions (down from a current median of £20–£36).
Prescriptions must be ready on the same day or emailed before the owner leaves the clinic.

Clearer Treatment Costs and Written Estimates

For any treatment expected to cost £500 or more, vets must provide a written estimate (except in emergencies).
Practices must issue itemised bills after treatment to improve understanding and transparency.
Vets and registered veterinary nurses must be supported by their employers to give independent and impartial clinical advice, without commercial pressure from business targets.

‘Care Plans’ ‘Health Clubs’ etc.,

Practices offering pet health plans must show the cost of each component and the total price, so clients can see if the plan offers value.

Cremation Pricing

All practices must offer and clearly price both communal and individual cremations, allowing owners time to make an informed decision at a sensitive time.

Out-of-Hours (OOH) and Emergency Care

Out-of-hours providers will be banned from using long lock-in contracts (over 12 months) or charging excessive early termination fees.
This makes it easier for practices to switch OOH providers if prices are high or service is poor, improving competition and responsiveness.

Complaints

Every practice must have a clear complaints system and offer mediation if disputes can’t be resolved internally.
Data on complaints will be shared with regulators to improve accountability and highlight recurring issues.

Referrals

Telling owners that there are multiple options for referral may prompt owners to compare availability and price

Regulatory Reform – Modernising the Veterinary Surgeons Act (1966)

The CMA calls for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act to replace outdated regulation.
The RCVS would gain statutory powers to regulate veterinary businesses (not just individuals).
The regulator would have explicit duties to:
- Protect animal welfare, public health, and consumer interests.
- Oversee business standards, pricing transparency, and complaints systems.
- Remain independent from the profession’s leadership arm.

Implementation & Impact

Large veterinary groups (LVGs) will have 3 months to implement changes once finalised; smaller independents will have 6 months.
The new system is expected to foster fairer pricing, clearer choices, and stronger trust between pet owners and vets.

What’s Next

These proposals are provisional and under consultation until 12 November 2025.
A final decision and legally binding CMA Order are expected in early to mid-2026.

How to respond

The CMA will now consult on the Provisional Decision. All interested parties are welcome to respond to the provisional conclusions by the deadline of Wednesday 12 November 2025 via their consultation page.

History and Background of the CMA Investigation

The CMA has set out their provisional decision that there are competition problems in this market.

They think this is primarily because of:

Pet owners not being given adequate and timely information (for example on ownership, prices for services and treatments, and options for purchasing medicines)
Barriers to pet owners making appropriate choices
An out-of-date regulatory framework

The changes could include requirements to:

Provide a price list for specific services and treatments and certain other information on websites (if you have a website) and in your practices
Provide itemised bills for treatments and services
Provide a written estimate for treatments that could reasonably be expected to cost more than £500
Inform pet owners that they can get written prescriptions and that medicines may be cheaper online
Cap the fee for providing a written prescription
Provide information to the RCVS (for example pricing information, to go on their Find a Vet page)
If you have more than one practice, making it clear that your practices are owned by a group
Have a complaint process that meets certain specified criteria
Confirming to the RCVS every year that you are doing these things

Background & Purpose of the Investigation

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a full market investigation into veterinary services for household pets because of concerns about rising costs, lack of transparency, and reduced competition in the sector.
The investigation draws on prior market review findings, public feedback (tens of thousands of responses), and evidence submitted by veterinary practices, industry bodies, consumer groups, and others.
The CMA sees this as necessary because the regulatory framework (dating from 1966) was designed for a different era and may no longer serve the current structure of veterinary businesses and ownership.

What the Provisional Decision Addresses

The CMA’s Provisional Decision (sometimes called the Provisional Decision Report or PDR) lays out its early findings and proposed remedies. Some key issues addressed include:

What were their main concerns?

Lack of consumer information / informed choice The CMA finds that pet owners often do not have sufficient, clear, comparable information on pricing, service options, or the ownership of practices to make informed decisions.
Consolidation and dominance by large veterinary groupsOwnership consolidation (by large chains, private equity, or corporate entities) may reduce competition at local levels, weaken incentives for price restraint, and limit choices for pet owners.
High medicine and prescription markupsThe CMA is concerned that veterinary practices often mark up medicines substantially compared to online or retail alternatives, which can add significant costs to pet care.
Regulatory constraints / outdated framework The investigation suggests that the current regulation focuses on individual veterinary professionals rather than business practices and does not adequately regulate non-veterinary owners’ influence over practice operations or pricing.

Key Findings & Proposals (Provisional)

The CMA’s provisional view is that reforms are needed to address identified concerns: transparency, competition, pricing, and ownership issues. The CMA has stated that it is mindful of balancing reform costs and ensuring that remedies do not harm viable practices, especially smaller, independent ones. It proposes a set of “remedies” (possible interventions) to correct the perceived market dysfunctions.

Some examples under consideration include:

Mandatory price transparency: requiring practices to publish prices for services.
Caps or limits on prescription fees to prevent excessive markups.
Measures to ensure clear disclosure of ownership (chain vs independent).
Rules to allow pet owners to purchase medicines from external sources (e.g. continued transparency about the ability to get from online pharmacies).
Enhanced consumer choice tools (comparison sites, standardized service definitions)
Regulatory changes so that vet businesses, not just individual vets, come under oversight.
Structural remedies in extreme cases (e.g. divestment or business reorganisation)
Safeguards so that clinical decision-making remains independent, and vets aren’t pressured by cross-subsidies or internal incentives.
Mitigations for smaller practices (to avoid disproportionate burden)