Vetnews | Januarie 2025 18 « BACK TO CONTENTS relevant knowledge. This includes nutrition, care (also in case of illness) and accommodation, but also the necessary “knowledge and skills” [9]. In the Animal Welfare Act, it is equally written that owners must protect their animals from pain and suffering [8]. It is therefore questionable in this case whether keeping animals is ethically justifiable. Another scenario for a low DF is a low willingness to save money. Most owners are aware of the annual costs for a general health check, vaccinations, flea/tick treatment and deworming when they purchase a pet. However, there is a limited understanding of the costs which arise due to an illness. Most people have neither the foresight nor knowledge of how high veterinary costs can be. If that were the case, there would be no price discussions and fewer people would keep an animal unless they consciously accept the risk of a veterinary shortage. They might also not have the discipline to set aside a fixed monthly amount. Even if an owner does save money on health costs for their pet, it might exhaust their savings quickly. It is therefore obvious to consider animal health insurance as a possible solution. The relationship of the low WP/high DF group to the animal is rather pragmatic. It is possible to keep the animal for a certain benefit, for example, a cat to keep the mice at bay or a guard dog for personal or property protection. Veterinary expenses are limited in this case to keeping the animal healthy, always with a cost-benefit calculation being carried out, which of course quickly reaches its limits when higher expenses are incurred. It is important to inform the owner that keeping an animal is also associated with the obligation to care for it in a species-appropriate manner. This naturally includes adequate veterinary care. Paragraph 1 of the Animal Welfare Act provides the basis here: “The purpose of this Act is to protect the life and well-being of the animal as a fellow creature out of the responsibility of man for the animal. No one may inflict pain, suffering or harm on an animal without reasonable cause” [9]. As mentioned above, the UK’s Animal Welfare Act demands freedom from “injury and disease” [8]. Predictable costs are easier to accept than one-off, large sums of money that are covered in an unscheduled manner and appear to be lower overall than the full amount of costs. This is the reason why instalment payments are very popular with consumers [23]. Pet health insurance, together with legal and ethical argumentation, can therefore certainly represent a solution here as well. Group four has both a low WP and a low DF, so if there are no available funds because the money has been spent on something else, pet health insurance could be a solution in that the patient owner can be convinced of the relevance of the product and monthly costs are better accepted than isolated monetary spikes. If there are no available funds due to low income and a lack of reserves, the question arises as to why the owner owns this animal. If the farm is supported by dogs and cats (herding dogs, guard dogs), then in the absence of financial resources, the starting point is not likely to be PHI. In summary, the following possible scenarios can be identified here which could potentially be solved by pet health insurance. An insufficient willingness to save (whether due to a lack of financial education or a lack of will) can be solved by pet health insurance. The monthly contribution is then deducted from the account without the owner’s intervention. A low WP in combination with a low DF could also be solved by pet health insurance. In all situations, the decision for or against pet health insurance or the importance of informing about it remains the same. The fact that the veterinarian plays a major role in the advice given has been demonstrated, at least in North America: “The survey among pet owners demonstrated that 50 per cent more pet owners would likely purchase pet health insurance if their veterinarians actively recommended it” [16]. Pet health insurance could bring added value to animal welfare in the mentioned situations. Animal welfare can be improved if the choice of the optimum diagnostic and therapeutic method can always be made based on ethical considerations rather than financial limitations, and if an animal is regularly presented for a preventive health check-up [24]. Some pet owners do not bring their pets for regular health checkups due to financial concerns: “In a study of pet owner expenditure, Henderson [ . . . ] found that financial issues were a barrier for pet owners when it came to preventive, sick, and emergency care” [25]. However, early detection of diseases can be essential and significantly improve the quality of life. As described in depth here, pet insurance could help to cover the costs of veterinary care. However, the actual costs might not be the biggest challenge for the veterinary profession. According to Brennecke and Münow, the reason for a lack of acceptance of prices is not to be found in the price itself but in the way, a patient owner feels treated. Guido Bentlage writes about this: “Above all, owners want to be treated friendly. They want a committed, caring veterinarian who takes time for them and their animal. [ . . . ] Contrary to what most veterinarians actually expected, the price, i.e., the costs, was even at the bottom of the ranking. As already mentioned, friendliness was by far in the first place” [26]. “The focus or, rather, the entire objective of veterinary activity should be on customer satisfaction, in which medical quality, although a very important part, is just one part.” “Pet owners’ expectations according to ranking (Brennecke 2009)” [26]: • Friendliness; • Attention; • Helpfulness; • Telephone/personal availability; • Speed; • Reliability; • Professional/social competence. As we have seen in the results of Kirsty Hughes, it is important to first build a base: the animal’s welfare plays a fundamental role. Only if this need of the owner is fulfilled is there the opportunity to win over the owners with friendliness and empathic communication and to profit from the interaction due to professional competence and customerorientated service. Information about the costs involved is also part of good advice and even contributes to customer satisfaction [26]. Empathic communication and active listening can reduce a large part of both price discussions and the resulting ethical dilemmas, as well as have a positive effect on the economic profit of a veterinary practice [27]. Vets often focus too little on costs and see costs as a limitation to better pet health care. Pet health insurance seems to be an easy solution to address discussions around costs. However, as aforementioned, owner needs are not cost-related, but perceived value-related, and can be addressed with professionalism and verbal and non-verbal communication with empathy, helping to build a trustful relationship between the veterinarian and patient owner [28]. Therefore, the pet health insurance debate might be over-inflated and play a smaller role than anticipated. Moreover, unless pet health insurance is obligatory, mainly owners with appropriate financial means will spend their disposable funds on health insurance, and they are most likely also able to afford care without insurance. Still, situations remain where pet health insurance is not a solution either, because owners can neither afford the veterinary costs nor a premium for pet health insurance. Article
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTc5MDU=