Costly visit to vet for simple problem

RacingSilver

Hi
Our 1 year-old dog swallowed some balls from a child's game last week, and over the course of about two days vomited 3 times; each time one of these little white balls appeared.
Anyway, we decided to take her to the vet just to see if there was any obstruction.
She was in such good form going in that we wondered should we bother, but anyway we did.
The vet rang me in the afternoon saying that he thought it would be a good idea to take some blood tests. I said ok as I didn't really know.
Anyway, they said they would keep her under observation for the night.
Went to collect her the next morning, and was presented with a bill of 394
euro !
Needless to say, I was a bit shocked.
This bill included 70 euro for blood tests, 80 euro for a drip (as they said she seemed to be a bit dehydrated), 60 euro for x-rays, 25 euro for examination, 20 euro for medicines, and a few other things (I'm waiting for the invoice to be posted).
They asked us initially if we had insurance, and we said that we had.
I'm wondering if people think this is excessive ?

I think it's a case of taking advantage as we have insurance.

All comments appreciated.


When I asked for a breakdown, it was 5

seamus

Well, when you tell them you have insurance, they'll just go ahead an do everything "just in case". If you had said that you didn't have insurance, they would probably have said to take the dog home and come back in if her condition worsens, that'll be €30 for the consultation please.

Blood tests and a drip seem excessive without even determining if there is a problem in the first place.

Wisco

I wouldn't say they've inflated prices, but were just covering everything. Yes, they may have done more tests b/c you're insured, but any vet worth his or her salt who's presented with a dog who's eaten strange things will take xrays and drip depending on stage of dehydration. In my experience, those costs are pretty reasonable, especially when you see how it's broken down.

RacingSilver

Thanks Seamus, that's what I think too.

Wisco, I appreciate your response. However your comment that any vet 'worth his salt' will do those tests doesn't really stand up in my opinion. We told the vet exactly what the dog had swallowed, so it wasn't something to be suspicious of, and certainly did not require blood tests. We were not worried about what the dog had eaten, but that there may be an obstruction. The nurse on duty said that the dod didn't have any physical symptoms of dehydration but the blood tests showed that she was dehydrated.
Thanks again for the response.

morganafay

That seems a bit excessive to me. I know my vet would probably just say to watch the dog for a few days and bring her back if there was any problem.

That's why insurance is good though, they can just do all those tests just in case.

Sigma Force

I think it's excessive, one Xray fine to ensure that there's nothing lodged anywhere and for the exam etc. but for blood tests..bit much.
If the balls were from a childs game they were prob non toxic anyway so can't see why they did blood tests.
If the dogs was slightly dehydrated a bowl of water or lectade should of been enough most dogs will drink something like lecdate readily.
Drip was a bit much too.

Ok I'm not a vet just a dog owner and of course if your dog is ill you want the best for them but I do think that was a bit mad. This kind of thing is what's driving pet insurance up.

80 euro for a dog that seemed to be dehydrated is steep..they are vets they should know wether the dog is dehydrated or not. I'd be going back and questioning it your premium might go up next year because of the claim.

mollymascara

IME there would generally have been a physical examination, if the animal isnt out of sorts, and had bowel movements and not continuously vomiting, chances are, to be on the safe side, maybe keep in for obs, given some lectade to counteract previous vomiting, esp if there were no physical signs; tacky gums, tented skin, sunken eyes etc, and then discharged if animal is eating, not vomitting and passing a stool.

It is a wee bit excessive but its always better to air on the side of caution, esp if a FB or obstruction is suspected, an animal can deteriorate quickly in these cases, so IMO prevention is better than cure

Glad to hear doggy is well

Kalahari

Tbh unless they are a very reputable vet i'd be looking elsewhere for somewhere which is still good quality but with more reasonable fees. If you are going to be charged so much for simply checking whether something is wrong, i'd hate to think what they'd charge you if your dog ever needed surgery or admission for over a week etc. I would have expected them to do a general check up and an x-ray and maybe keep her in if they had reason to be worried, but over 300 euro is excessive. I had a similar problem with a rabbit (different animal but had an obstruction so procedure kind of the same) and it cost less than 100 for 2 x-rays, fluids, medicine and overnight stays. It would be different if your dog was in a bad way when you brought her in and they NEEDED to do all the tests but since she seemed fine I think they could have waited until the X-rays developed... only takes a few hours.

oppenheimer1

Uncalled for.

The Sweeper

What would bother me is the sheer unethical practice that is subjecting a dog to potentially unnecessary medical intervention just because the animal is insured.

I took my cat to the vet recently because I was concerned he had a blockage in his airway. I knew it wasn't just a hairball cough, so they sedated him and put a camera down his throat, discovered it was just a viral infection causing irritation (but making the cat miserable), so they gave him a voren injection (corticosteroid, lasts a few days) and an antibiotic injection. He came good about 48 hours after being discharged from the vet.

Arguably he didn't need the scope, but there are too many things in my house that he could have chewed on or swallowed. The vet was covering all bases by including the scope. It meant the cat had to be sedated, which isn't brilliant, but I wasn't unhappy afterwards. Then again, the vet consulted with me fully (I'm a terrible customer - I demand to know everything, what the meds are, what they do, what effects I can expect, the various things an illness could be, so on) and I knew what I was paying for.

RacingSilver

Thanks to everybody for responding - much appreciated. I had a long conversation with the vet who stressed that it was done in the best interests of the dogs. he seems to have been given incorrect information by the nurse i.e. he was told that the dog had swallowed a child's 'toy', was vomiting all night, and was still vomiting on an emoty stomach. I haven't received the invoice yet. I'm still debating on whether I should pay for the drip and blood tests.
Thanks again.

anniehoo

If the vet was given wrong info by the nurse its not their fault. Although why the vet didnt do the consult is confusing to me?

Granted if you were paying out of your own money id argue paying it, but if its insured then i wouldnt worry.Itll be dealt with by the insurance company.

Sigma Force

If the nurse is giving a vet the incorrect info then I wouldn't be paying at all that kind of incompetence can lead to all sorts of problems and can end up with a dog being put through all sorts.

Either way it was excessive hope your pooch is feeling better today anyways.

The Sweeper

Plus be careful because the insurance company may refuse to pay the invoice on the basis that the procedures were unnecessary. It very much depends on how the vet writes up the claim form - if he insists on you paying the bill for work done in full, I'd put the onus on him to manage the expectations of the insurance company.