Vetnuus | January 2025 17 These two factors combined lead us to four different situations. Thus, we have developed a model which helps to classify patient owners in terms of their willingness to pay in relation to their financial capacity. Based on this model, predictions of pet health insurance limitations and capabilities can be drawn. The two factors “willingness to pay” and “dispensable funds” of patient owners can be combined into four different categories: 1. High willingness to pay (WP) and high dispensable funds (DF); 2. High WP and low DF; 3. Low WP and high DF; 4. Low WP and low DF. WP depends on the human-animal bond. When the relationship of the owner with the animal is very close, the owner is more willing to spend money on her or his pet. (According to the NAPHIA Press Kit, pet owners spend more at the vet when they have pet health insurance in place. Reasons for purchasing PHI include that it “is helpful to pet owners,” “shows you love your pet” or “helps avoid the need to make painful choices about care.” In other words, many reasons for taking out pet health insurance indicate a close relationship with the pet and are intended to open the door to expensive diagnostic and treatment methods [16].) In the media, you often find only positive statements about the relationship, especially between man and dog [20,21], but this relationship can be very complex [22]. Owners rarely would admit that they have a more practical, less caring relationship with their pets. 3. Results Four groups of patient owners could be identified in the model above. Group 1: high WP/high DF This owner loves his pet and is willing to pay all the bills that come with it. This group is found in many households that acquire a dog or cat which lives with them inside the house. Health insurance for the pet is self-evident, as the vet has recommended it and the owners want only the best for their pet. Group 2: high WP/low DF This owner also loves his animal but has limited dispensable funds available. Often the animal is an emotional support or at the time of purchase the awareness of possible costs and the responsibility to care for the animal was low. This group is often found in socially weak households. In this case, if the owner is aware of possible veterinary costs, PHI is a good way to cushion financial peaks and convert them into monthly amounts. Groups 3 and 4: low WP/high DF and low WP/high DF This owner has a low emotional attachment to his pet. This may be the case if the animal has a specific task. In the case of dogs, for example, this can be the herding of sheep or personal protection. In the case of cats, this could be keeping away pests such as mice or rats. As part of the pet owner’s responsibility for the animal, a monthly payment might actually be more convenient for these owners than individual vet bills, as it makes costs more predictable. A low willingness to pay can also occur if not all family members agreed with the acquisition of the animal. Groups 3 and 4 differ only in the (non-)presence of financial means. 4. Conclusions As shown in Figure 1, pet health insurance is not needed for the high WP/ high DF group, but is a solution for owners who have been categorized either in high WP/low DF, low WP/high DF or low WP/low DF. However, for the high WP/low DF or low WP/low DF group, the question remains if pet ownership is in general justified. In the high WP/low DF group, owners would be willing to pay but their means are restricted, leading to the high frustration of owners and vets alike. The low DF is because the income or assets are generally too low to pay for veterinary bills. In Germany, anyone who “keeps, cares for or has to care for an animal” is legally responsible for “feeding, caring for and housing the animal in a manner appropriate to its species and needs” and for acquiring the Article Figure 1 Patient owners’ willingness to pay depending on dispensable funds. >>>18
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTc5MDU=