June 12, 2003

Dear Colleague:

As you may already know, the July issue of Consumer Reports contains an article titled "Pets and Vets — Veterinary Care Without The Bite."The authors focused on increasing costs for veterinary services, but failed to address consumer demand for advanced care and value for services received. The result was an article that conveyed a negative picture of the profession.

Many of your clients will likely have read the article, and even more will have heard about it. For this reason, if you have not had an opportunity to review it, I urge you to do so.

Your AVMA leadership believes this article warranted a response and, as your president, I sent the enclosed letter to Eileen Denver, Executive Editor of Consumer Reports. You may wish to express your concerns as well. An AVMA news release emphasizing the profession's efforts to ensure good value in delivery of quality care has been sent to the consumer and professional press. Copies of this cover letter, my letter to Consumer Reports, and the news release have been sent to the executive directors of state and allied veterinary organizations.

We hope that Consumer Reports will print our letter; however, we cannot be assured of that. We wanted to alert you to the article and provide you with a copy of our letter to assist you in responding to clients who may want to discuss related issues.

Sincerely,

Joe M. Howell, DVM
President

June 11, 2003

Eileen Denver, Executive Editor
Consumer Reports
101 Truman Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10703-1044

Dear Ms. Denver:

On behalf of the more than 69,000 members of the American Veterinary Medical Association, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern and indignation about the Consumer Reports July story, "Pets and Vets—Veterinary Care Without the Bite." The article failed to report the most important component of modern veterinary medical care. That is, how to provide high tech, quality veterinary service at a fair and competitive price for today's animal owners. Your report could have been more beneficial to pets and their owners if value, rather than dollars alone, was used as the measurement of good care.

The sidebar "20 Ways to Cut Vet Costs" includes many of the very same suggestions that the AVMA and most practitioners routinely recommend to animal owners. However, I deplore the overall cynical tone taken toward veterinarians. This profession is committed to providing owners and their pets with the highest quality healthcare at a reasonable cost. Over the years veterinary medicine has been used as an example of how the human medical community could deliver exemplary care in a cost-efficient manner.

Because pets cannot speak, veterinarians must use diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a medical problem. Ultrasounds, x-rays, blood tests and biopsies are often the only way to accurately diagnose a medical condition. Owners do not want their pet's doctor "guessing" at what the problem might be, especially when modern diagnostic tools are available. As veterinarians, we must be exact in our assessments and writings; our patients' lives depend on it.

Veterinarians, unlike other doctors, must purchase the diagnostic equipment for these tests. Community-supported hospitals do not provide this equipment for veterinary use. The cost for an ultrasound machine at a private practice is approximately $30,000 to $50,000, and an x-ray machine costs approximately $15,000 to $40,000.

Veterinarians choose this profession because they care for animals and the people who love them. Most are math, science and biology scholars with the potential to earn triple what a career in veterinary medicine offers. They know they have chosen a profession where they will graduate, with a basic veterinary education after approximately eight years of college, with a mean educational debt of $72,719 to be covered by an average starting salary of $46,339. Doctors who pursue advanced degrees and specialty recognition require more education and incur greater debt.

Your article lacked a balanced perspective. It suggests that veterinarians are looking to "get rich quick." Suggesting that most veterinarians increase the price of a prescription by 100 to 250 percent is a disservice to the veterinarians who offer many products at little or no mark-up as part of their practice.

All medicine is based on trust and a strong relationship between doctors and the people and animals they serve. Veterinary medicine is a very public service-oriented profession. In emergencies, veterinarians have an ethical responsibility to provide essential medical services necessary to save life and relieve suffering. Unlike our colleagues in human medicine who practice from tax-free, community, or endowed hospitals, veterinarians must often absorb at least a portion of the cost of these emergency medical services themselves. The cost of these services comes directly out of the net profits of their hospital.

Trust is critically important. Your article compared prices of select animal products from on-line pet pharmacies, without acknowledging that one of the most visible on-line pet pharmacies is on probation as a result of disciplinary action by the state licensing authority. Would you want to obtain drugs for your pet from a provider whose license is on probation? Many pet owners do not, and choose instead to buy locally from a veterinarian who offers good value rather than test the "buyer beware" atmosphere of some Internet businesses.

The AVMA was pleased to assist Consumer Reports by providing the statistical data we have available. We are disappointed that the care, concern and compassion of our more than 69,000 dedicated members was not communicated to your readers in your July article.

Sincerely,

Joe M. Howell, DVM
President