Charity warns of impact of proposed changes to veterinary care

11 February 2026

“Vital hours lost to needless red tape with no benefit to pets or people”

PDSA, the UK’s largest charity providing free and low cost veterinary care to pets of those most in need, is warning of potential negative implications for pets and owners, if some proposed changes to veterinary care are given the go-ahead.

Following an investigation last year, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is suggesting a series of updates to veterinary practice, to enhance transparency, increase competition and protect owners.

PDSA is calling on CMA to reconsider some of these proposals, enabling charities to opt out of a selection of remedies designed for commercial veterinary practices, that will bring no benefit to charity clients and could adversely affect charities and their ability to operate.

The charity is supportive of many of the remedies, such as encouraging the Government to review and reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act. However, PDSA has actively challenged CMA on several key issues, both directly to the organisation itself, as well as in an open letter published in Vet Times yesterday (10th February).

Just some of the key areas of contention include:

Including charities in public price lists:
- Unlike commercial veterinary practices, PDSA vet care is offered either fully funded (free) or low cost to its clients who meet strict eligibility criteria.
- PDSA argues that including charity prices on a national list, or comparison site, will likely cause a surge in demand for services that most people are not eligible for and even the potential for people to try and access services fraudulently.
- The resulting confusion and rise in queries from ineligible pet owners will waste precious resources on administration that should be used to support pets.
Mandatory prescriptions:
- New proposals would mean prescriptions must be written as standard for ongoing medication unless clients actively decline.
- PDSA argues this would cause significant administrative challenges in its operations.
- Last year PDSA treated over 422,000 pets across its 43 pet hospitals and associated clinics. 75% of PDSA pets receive free care and the rest low cost compared to commercial practices, therefore creating prescriptions for each treatment so that client could search for cheaper care would not make a difference to the majority of charity clients.
- This measure would force the charity to waste countless hours needlessly communicating with and recording the responses of clients and potentially generating hundreds of thousands of prescriptions that will add no benefit to the client or pet.
- This carries a cost to the charity which is a poor use of precious donated charity funds which would be better spent helping more sick and injured pets.
Charging veterinary businesses to fund regulatory monitoring:
- Applying this levy to charities does not make sense because the issues being addressed relate to the commercial sector.
- A levy would take vital money away from charitable work to the detriment of animal welfare.
- PDSA argues a levy should not just depend on organisation size (as proposed) but also whether a practice is charitable or commercial.

Chief Veterinary Advisor at PDSA, Steve Howard, said:

“We welcome proposals to improve transparency and regulation in veterinary care as long as they, ultimately, benefit pets and people.

“Enforcing some of the remedies proposed by CMA could cause added costs, vital hours lost to needless red tape and operational burden to charities that will bring absolutely no benefit to our clients or their pets. We, therefore, strongly encourage CMA to differentiate between commercial and charitable practices by making certain remedies optional rather than mandatory for charities.

“Right now, PDSA is one of the last remaining charities in the UK providing free veterinary care, generously funded by public donations. Without us, for some pet lovers there would be nowhere else to turn when their animals need vital help.

“The cost-of-living crisis has seen demand for our services rise significantly. It has never been more critical for us to ensure that every donated pound we spend and every minute we have is spent helping those who need us most, yet some of these proposals look set to derail this.

“We are actively looking to work with CMA to ensure our valuable resources are used in the best possible way to keep more people and pets together.”

PDSA has raised its concerns with CMA. The charity is hoping there will be amendments to the current proposed plans, to ensure that charitable practices are not inadvertently negatively affected by the changes.

-Ends-

Notes to editors:

CMA’s proposed remedies

The CMA is proposing a wide-ranging set of remedies, including:

Requiring vet businesses to publish comprehensive price lists, be clear if they are part of a large group, and make sure that their policies and processes allow vets to act in the best interests of pets and pet owners. These measures will give pet owners the information they need to choose the right practice and treatment options for them.
Making it easier for pet owners to access cheaper medicines online, including by requiring vets to tell pet owners about savings they make by buying medicines online and, where a medicine is likely to be needed frequently, automatically providing a written prescription to enable the pet owner to purchase the medicine elsewhere (unless the pet owner chooses otherwise), and capping the price of providing prescriptions at £16. These measures will help prompt consumers to consider buying medication online and protect them from having to pay excessive prices for the prescriptions they would need to do so.
Requiring vets to give pet owners clear price information when they are choosing a treatment, with prices in writing for treatments over £500 and itemised bills. This will make it easier for consumers to consider different treatment options and providers.
Requiring the RCVS to enhance its Find a Vet website to include pricing data drawing on the price lists vets will be required to publish; this data can also be used by third party websites and apps. This will allow consumers to compare vet prices much more effectively, for instance when they first get a pet or move areas.
Requiring vets to give clear price information to pet owners arranging a cremation. This is important to allow pet owners to make the best decisions for their circumstances, at an especially emotional time.
Requiring vets to give pricing breakdowns for pet care plans. This will allow pet owners to better decide if these would provide good value for money in their own circumstances.
Recommending that the government urgently prioritises a new Veterinary Surgeons Act and updates regulation to include veterinary businesses, as well as individual vets and nurses, and give the regulator powers to set and enforce requirements and standards for these businesses. Reform is needed to make sure pet owners’ interests are protected and there is an effective complaints handling route if things go wrong.

PDSA Letter to the editor of Vet Times

As the UKs leading veterinary charity operating across 43 pet hospitals and a number of associated clinics, PDSA is dedicated to supporting those pets and people who need our help most. We welcome the CMA aim to make veterinary care easier to access, transparent and more affordable.

However, we have raised concerns with CMA around some of the of the remedies proposed and the impact they will have on us as charitable providers.

We support transparency and the regulations aimed at improving consumer choice. However, CMA’s intention to target its remedies at first opinion practices, will also impact non-commercial (e.g. charities) practices.

These recommendations will significantly impact upon PDSA during what are already challenging times. The rise in pet ownership in recent years, set against economic volatility and a spiralling cost of living crisis means more people are being pushed into financial difficulty. Meanwhile charities continue to experience growing cost pressures, leading to difficult decisions for some to reduce or withdraw services.

Many of the CMA remedies are aimed at improving choice for clients in the commercial marketplace, however, access to PDSA services is secured through pet owners satisfying specific eligibility criteria when they are unable to afford commercial practice fees, not through market comparisons. The proposed remedies will increase administration and cost burdens for PDSA but would bring no benefit to the pet owners we help. Furthermore, some of the remedies will also impact smaller independent practices, if their viability and availability is reduced, this could drive demand for charitable care.

PDSA is therefore standing with those who are calling on CMA to reconsider some of its recommendations; and crucially, to differentiate between commercial and charitable practices by making it voluntary, rather than mandatory, for charitable veterinary practices to implement the remedies.

The solution is more complex than simply publishing standard price lists. However, for us to do so outside those we already make available to our clients adds administrative burden and costs to our charity but does not resolve the commercial market issues that CMA is trying to address. Furthermore, including PDSA prices as part of a wider national price comparator will cause confusion, increase demand from ineligible owners, and may drive attempted fraud to access charitable services. This will all place additional strain on valuable charity resources.

CMA proposes mandatory written prescriptions for ongoing medication unless clients actively decline. PDSA strongly opposes this being applied to our services where approx. 75% of our patients receive free care and the remainder low cost compared to commercial practices. This would create a major operational burden for PDSA, requiring us to communicate with, and record, the responses of hundreds of thousands of clients unnecessarily, or creating hundreds of thousands of prescriptions, for no added value to the client.

Regarding surveys, we already conduct extensive client surveys. Additional surveys suggested by CMA, would not add any additional benefit to our clients and would not contribute to market assessment by general pet owners; but would increase administrative burden and cost.

PDSA receives thousands of client survey responses annually with an average 90%+ satisfaction and 83%+ Net Promoter Score. Our paying clients’ value for money score (86%) far exceeds CMA’s metrics for commercial providers (26% at LVGs, compared to 47% at independents), therefore we do not believe we should be required to do anything further in this area.

CMA suggests a levy on veterinary businesses to fund regulatory monitoring. Applying this levy to charities doesn’t make sense because the issues being addressed relate to the commercial sector. A levy would take money away from charitable work to the detriment of animal welfare. We suggest a levy should not just depend on size (as proposed) but also whether a practice is charitable or commercial.

We have also highlighted some missed opportunities to CMA in our response.

Specifically, current prescribing rules (the “Cascade”) prevent vets from considering more affordable human medicine even when clinically equivalent. The Cascade requirements have had a negative impact on animal welfare since their introduction and have led to outcomes such as financially driven euthanasia, increased demand for charity services and suboptimal treatment plans driven by the cost of veterinary licensed products. For context, six medicines alone cost PDSA an extra £370k more annually because human equivalent products cannot be used by default.

We have shared our views with CMA and are keen to collaborate to ensure remedies that will deliver the best possible service and support for as many pets as possible.

We rely solely on donations to fund our work – without which, for some there would be nowhere else to turn. It is imperative that every pound we receive and every minute we have available is spent helping those who need us most and is not needlessly diverted to comply with measures aimed at the commercial arm of the sector.

Steve Howard, Chief Veterinary Advisor at PDSA