A Personal Note: If you’re reading this, you’re probably an animal lover and either had in the past or currently have a furry, feathered, finned, or even scaly, family member. I feel it’s important for you to know that this happened to us because it can happen to you.

Zoey had bladder cancer. For 10 years, she had been a member of our family and was truly one of the sweetest and most loyal dogs I have ever met. We wanted to do everything we could to give her the best chance at remission, which meant providing her with chemotherapy as well as several medications. As many of you know, chemotherapy itself can put a huge strain on a family’s financial situation.

When it came time to purchase the medications that were prescribed by the veterinarian who was conducting Zoey’s care, he wanted to begin with a 1 week course of Baytril which alone would cost $87.00, or roughly $12.42 per pill and, incidentally, the other medications that were necessary all boasted similarly high prices as well. He said these would be provided by their own pharmacy. We filled all of the necessary prescriptions but felt there must be a more reasonable way to provide these medications to Zoey. After doing some research, we found numerous online pharmacies that could provide the very same dosage of all of her required medications at far more practical prices. Out of curiosity, we also looked at prices for Baytril: providing a prescription is submitted by the vet, California Pet Pharmacy charges $3.40 per pill for the dosage that had been prescribed, meaning a 1 week supply would cost $23.80. When compared to what we were charged, it’s a difference of almost 73% and 1-800-PetMeds sells individual pills for $5.39 which would mean a total of $37.73 for a 1 week supply and a difference of about 57%.

At Zoey’s next appointment, we questioned her vet regarding these tremendous price differences. We requested that he submit all of her prescriptions to other pharmacies of our choosing in the future and he agreed.

We were lucky. I say that we were lucky because millions of pet owners are not afforded this chance. Perhaps you’ve already experienced this unscrupulous procedure.

The Current Situation: Right now, even once they are directly asked, most veterinarians refuse to provide their clients with the actual prescription for their pet’s medications which would allow them the opportunity to have it filled with an alternative pharmacy. This refusal forces a pet owner to pay prices that are often inflated by as much as 240% and, as a result, many veterinarians have essentially created a medical monopoly for their practices.

In our case, although we were eventually given the prescription, we were never made aware by our veterinarian that there was another alternative. Although it would be impractical to ask all veterinary practices to be aware of all current pricing from all pharmacies on all medications that they prescribe, they should not deny their clients the right to pursue and purchase the very same product at a price that is far more economically feasible and they should be required to tell their clients if an alternative pharmacy option exists for the necessary medication.

What’s Being Done: Some members of the Senate have finally realized this unethical system and are eager to do something about it. On July 31, 2014, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D—Connecticut) introduced S. 2756, a bill that is more commonly known as The “Fairness to Pet Owners Act Of 2014”. This bill was cosponsored by Senators Mike Lee (R—Utah) and Charles Schumer (D—New York).

Status: The bill was read twice and was then submitted to the U.S Senate Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation for consideration. As of January 20, 2015, according to Senator Schumer’s Washington, D.C office, this bill is still in Committee. As Congress' session has already expired, this bill is effectively dead and therefore, it is necessary for it to be re-introduced and co-sponsored. Senators Thune and Nelson, both the ranking members of their respective parties within the Committee, can be influential in this bill becoming a law.

What The Bill Entails: S. 2756 “directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to require prescribers of animal drugs to verify prescriptions and provide copies of prescriptions to pet owners, pet owner designees, and pharmacies, without the prescriber demanding payment or establishing other conditions.”

What The Bill Aims To Do: The Fairness to Pet Owners Act will “promote competition and help consumers save money by giving them the freedom to choose where they buy prescription pet medications.” Additionally, once enacted, any violation of this Act will be considered as an “unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act” and will therefore be treated as such.

Last Words: In 2012, The American Pet Products Association (APPA) estimated that there were 83.3 million owned dogs in the United States and 95.6 cats, meaning that pet ownership has tripled since the 1970s and these numbers are on course to experience a steady increase with over 60% of Americans currently owning at least one pet. Millions of pets require medications to just live with illnesses, such as diabetes and epilepsy, and millions more will face terminal illnesses, just like Zoey. This is a terrible reality that many pet owners face but what if some of this could be mitigated? What if we had a choice?

This is an issue that supersedes political party lines. With numbers like those stated above, it’s clear that whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, we all have a deep kinship to our pets. This is a bi-partisan bill and this claim is further supported by the co-sponsors, Senator Lee and Schumer’s, differing political alliances.

Let’s tell the Committee that their constituents believe their companions deserve a fighting chance at health and happiness. Tell them to vote "Yes" for the Fairness to Pet Owners Act because you believe in having a choice. The veterinary community is profiting from your pet’s pain and suffering.  It’s unprofessional. It’s immoral. It’s unethical. Now let’s do something about it.

 

Source: Information regarding the constitution of the bill was pulled from The Library of Congress website: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN02756:@@@L&summ2=m&