Over the course of Sylvie’s illness, Emily spent thousands of pounds in total on veterinary care and medication
As sweeping reforms promise to make vet care clearer and potentially cheaper, one dog owner says the changes could spare families the agony of discovering that keeping a beloved pet alive has become a question of money
For Emily, from York, the medication that helped keep her beloved dog Sylvie alive was never an optional extra. It was what gave them more time together.
Over the course of Sylvie’s illness, Emily spent thousands of pounds in total on veterinary care and medication. She was fortunate enough to be able to find the money. But one thought stayed with her: what would have happened to Sylvie if she could not?
“I spent thousands in total keeping Sylvie alive with medication, and I would do it again because she was part of my family,” Emily said.
“But I was always very aware that I was in a position where I could pay. The reality is that a lot of people simply couldn’t have afforded it.
“That’s the heartbreaking thing. You can love your animal just as much as anybody else, but if the medication they need is too expensive, what are you supposed to do?
“No one should have to lose a much-loved pet simply because they cannot afford an unnecessarily high price for the medicine keeping them alive.”
Emily’s experience goes to the heart of why major reforms to Britain’s veterinary sector could matter far beyond household budgets.
For some animals, cheaper medication, clearer prices and the ability for owners to compare costs could potentially mean the difference between continuing treatment and having it stopped.
For some families, it could mean the difference between keeping a pet and surrendering it to an already overwhelmed rescue system.
And in the most devastating cases, affordability can become part of a life-or-death decision.
A £21 cap on prescription fees
The Competition and Markets Authority concluded its investigation into the UK veterinary market in March 2026 after finding competition problems in a sector worth billions of pounds.
Its package of reforms includes clearer price information, a price-comparison service and caps on the fees vets can charge for written prescriptions, making it easier for owners to obtain prescribed medicines elsewhere rather than automatically buying them from their veterinary practice.
Under the measures announced by the CMA, the fee for a written prescription is to be capped at £21 for the first medicine and £12.50 for additional medicines.
The Government has since set out wider plans for what it describes as the biggest overhaul of the veterinary sector in half a century, including requirements for practices to publish prices for common treatments and greater transparency for pet owners.
For an owner whose animal needs one short course of treatment, a saving may be relatively modest.
For somebody caring for a pet with a chronic illness who needs repeat medication, however, costs can accumulate month after month and year after year. That is where reform could have its greatest human — and animal — impact.
When the cost of care becomes too much
Britain’s animal charities are already dealing with the consequences of families struggling with the cost of pet ownership.
The RSPCA has warned pet owners struggling with the cost of food and healthcare that it does not want animals to “pay the price” of financial hardship.
The charity also advises owners who are struggling with veterinary costs to speak openly to their vet about what they can afford, acknowledging that modern veterinary medicine can treat conditions that were once untreatable — but that, unlike human healthcare, there is no NHS for pets.
The pressure on rescue organisations is stark. The RSPCA received a record 22,503 reports of animal abandonment in 2024, according to figures reported last year as food and veterinary costs continued to rise.
Meanwhile, Blue Cross has reported huge increases in animals arriving at its UK rehoming centres, with the number of dogs rising by 122% and cats by 80% in figures reported in March.
Not every surrendered or abandoned animal is given up because of a veterinary bill, and it would be wrong to claim that cheaper prescriptions alone could solve Britain’s animal welfare crisis.
But charities have repeatedly identified financial pressure — including the cost of veterinary care — as one of the problems confronting pet owners.
For a family already struggling with rent, mortgages, food and energy bills, a sudden veterinary bill can be impossible to absorb.
A lifelong prescription can become another monthly bill that never goes away.
What happens to the animal whose owner cannot pay?
Emily believes the debate needs to focus not only on whether owners are being charged fairly, but on what happens to animals when essential treatment becomes financially impossible.
“When Sylvie needed medication, I paid for it because the alternative was unthinkable,” she said.
“But every time I paid another bill, I thought about people who didn’t have that money sitting in their account.
“What happens to their dog? What happens to the pensioner whose pet is their whole world, or the family who suddenly gets a bill they simply cannot meet?
“If these reforms make medication more affordable and make it easier for people to see what things really cost, then that isn’t just about saving money. In some cases, it could help keep an animal with the family who loves them.”
The emotional reality is often missing from a debate dominated by competition rules, corporate ownership and price lists.
A pet owner standing in a consulting room is not an ordinary consumer calmly shopping for the best deal.
They may be frightened. Their animal may be in pain. And they may feel they have little time or ability to compare prices before making a decision.
That imbalance was one of the reasons the veterinary market came under such intense scrutiny.
A sector transformed by corporate ownership
The veterinary industry has changed dramatically. More than 60% of veterinary practices are now owned in whole or in part by six large groups, according to figures cited during the debate over reform.
The CMA’s investigation concluded that competition in the market was not working as well as it should for pet owners.
The new measures are intended to make prices easier to understand and compare, while giving owners more information about who owns their veterinary practice.
The reforms are not an attack on individual vets, many of whom work under enormous pressure and have themselves raised concerns about the direction of the industry.
The British Veterinary Association has stressed throughout the CMA investigation that veterinary care is complex and that reforms must work for animals, clients and veterinary professionals.
But for owners such as Emily, greater transparency is essential. “When your pet is ill, you are vulnerable,” she said.
“You are not thinking like somebody buying a television and comparing five different shops. You are thinking, ‘Please make my dog better.’
“That is exactly why people need clear prices and clear choices before they are in that desperate situation.”
The animals behind the numbers
The RSPCA says advances in veterinary medicine mean conditions that were previously untreatable can now be managed. That is an extraordinary achievement. But treatment only saves an animal if the owner can access it.
For thousands of households, the real crisis is not necessarily that treatment does not exist. It is that the cost of accessing treatment, medication or ongoing care can become impossible.
That can leave rescue centres dealing with animals whose owners may desperately have wanted to keep them. It can leave charities trying to meet a level of demand they cannot sustain. And it can leave families carrying the guilt and grief of a decision they never wanted to make.
The Government says its wider reforms will require vet practices to publish prices for common treatments and be more transparent about the options available to owners. An enhanced “Find a Vet” service is also planned alongside the £21 cap on written prescription fees.
For Emily, any reform should ultimately be judged by what happens to animals such as Sylvie. Sylvie was able to receive the medication she needed because her owner could pay.
The question now is whether the system can become fairer for the animal whose owner cannot. “People shouldn’t be judged by how much money they have in the bank,” Emily said.
“They can love their pets just as much as someone who can afford a bill of thousands of pounds. If making veterinary care more transparent and medication more affordable means even one family gets more time with an animal they love, then that matters.
“For some pets, it really could be the difference between life and death.”
