After nearly two and a half years, the CMA has published its final report into veterinary services.
It runs to over 1,000 pages, split across Part A and Part B, with 21 appendices and a 34-page summary. That alone tells you the scale of the exercise.
The report drew significant engagement from consumers, with 56,000 responses — many raising concerns about pricing and standards of care.
The headline figure is striking: the CMA estimates consumers have overpaid by around £1bn over five years.
But that number needs context.
Spread over five years, that equates to roughly £200m per year. Against a market estimated at £6.3bn, that’s around 3.2%.
Still meaningful, but a very different perspective from the headline.
With that framing in mind, the CMA proposes a range of measures which, on the surface, appear sensible. The question is whether they address the real issues.
CMA finding: Lack of price transparency
CMA response
CMA finding: Consumers are overcharged
CMA response
CMA finding: Lack of ownership transparency
CMA response
CMA finding: market concentration (Large veterinary groups (LVGs) control ~60%)
CMA response
Supporting data cited by the CMA includes:
(For full detail, the 1,000+ page report is available.)
The 63% inflation figure is another attention (read misleading) grabbing headline. It has been measured over seven years, which equates to 7.2% per annum. That is high, however it’s only an issue issues because it is widening the gap with earnings. Over the same period, wages increased by 31.1% (around 3.95% per annum, ONS).
In simple terms: the cost of veterinary care has risen at nearly double the rate of consumer earnings. That is not a veterinary issue, it is a broader challenge that whole UK economy faces.
Looking at the CMA’s proposed remedies, they all fall under the banner of good corporate practice:
None of these are particularly onerous, and they would all be minimum expectations from any business. They are consistent with the “values” and “ethical standards” that the LVG’s and independent practices already claim to uphold. The CMA’s response implies a gap between stated intent and actual delivery.
The financial market response is also telling.
Share prices of listed veterinary groups increased following the announcement. Public statements welcomed the CMA’s clarity. There is little expectation of material financial impact or real change.
This raises a fundamental point.
When customers complain about price, they are rarely complaining about price alone. More often, it reflects a gap between what they are paying and the value they believe they are receiving.
That value is shaped by two things: the quality of the product or service, and the experience around it. In a service industry such as veterinary care, quality is expected. The experience is how customers feel they have been treated.
Customer experience is shaped by leadership and culture. And culture is set from the top.
This is where the response feels limited. It does little to truly hold leadership to account.
Yes, an independent regulator may increase accountability. But it will also add cost, raise barriers to entry, and potentially reduce competition. And it will take time for any benefits to translate into better customer outcomes.
More importantly, we should not need regulation to drive better customer experiences. That is the role of leadership, and the principles organisations already claim to stand for.
Has the CMA done enough?
No.
It’s taken two and a half years and a 1,000+ page report – which explains the WHAT very well, but the WHY… not really.
It is my opinion that the CMA is asking the veterinary industry simply to meet minimal expectations, in that it is mandating vets to state their costs and lets consumers escalate if the standards delivered are below reasonable expectations.
Essentially, after all this, they are just asking veterinary practices to meet a baseline that should already be in place.