Animal kingdom

Separate conversations with a couple of friends recently led me to a rather shocking conclusion about the provision of healthcare in the UK today.

One friend was bemoaning the experience of his mother, who is on an NHS waiting list for an operation on cataracts. The standard waiting time for this procedure, from referral to treatment, is 18 weeks, but she has already been waiting several months and has been told it could be up to a year before she receives her operation.

Meanwhile, another friend told me how he had to take his Jack Russell Terrier, Bonzo, to the vet after noticing that the dog was having trouble opening one of his eyes. Despite it being a weekend, he secured an out-of-hours appointment and, by the end of the day, Bonzo had been referred to a specialist and operated on to remove part of his cornea.

The £4,000 cost of the operation was met by the insurance company and, within a couple of days, Bonzo was back to his old self, chasing squirrels and barking at the postman. Meanwhile, my other friend’s mother continues to struggle to see two feet in front of her, leaving her housebound and with little quality of life.

The two stories led me to the shocking, almost unbelievable, conclusion that in today’s Britain, some animals receive quicker and better medical treatment than humans.

In short, if you are suffering from a serious but not urgently life-threatening condition, you are better off being a dog or a cat than a person.

While this claim might seem outlandish, a closer examination of waiting times, quality of care and the cost/market dynamics of medical treatment for animals reveals some unsettling truths about the current state of British healthcare.

At the outset, I should state some important caveats. It goes without saying that human healthcare is inherently more complex, encompassing a wider range of conditions, ethical considerations and regulatory frameworks.

The scale of the NHS, with its responsibility for the health of the entire UK population, dwarfs the veterinary sector, and it would be obtuse to draw wholesale direct comparisons between them.

Human medicine faces challenges related to an ageing population, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases and the need for long-term care, all of which place immense strain on resources.

The ethical considerations in human medicine are far more intricate than in veterinary medicine. Issues such as informed consent, patient autonomy and end-of-life care are paramount in human healthcare but less relevant in veterinary practice.

Nevertheless, while there are inherent differences between the two, animals in Britain are increasingly likely to receive more timely and readily accessible medical treatment than their human counterparts, albeit often at a direct financial cost to their owners.

Rapid access to veterinary care isn’t due to a surplus of resources. The UK has only around 25,400 veterinarians caring for more than 30 million pets, compared with approximately 132,900 doctors tending to a population of 68 million human patients – a difference of more than five times.

The issue of waiting times is perhaps the most glaring point of contrast. Backlogs for routine GP appointments can stretch into weeks, while specialist referrals often take months. The situation is even more dire in hospitals, where accident and emergency departments are frequently overwhelmed, leading to patients enduring long waits on trolleys.

Elective surgeries are routinely postponed, cancer treatment targets missed and mental health services stretched to breaking point. In some extreme cases, the delays in treatment are fatal. Pet owners, on the other hand, can visit a veterinary practice of their choice and expect to be seen instantly.

For a cruciate ligament rupture, a dog might be scheduled for surgery within a month – some veterinary clinics even offer same-day procedures. In contrast, humans often face an 18-month wait.

Similarly, animals needing cataract surgery typically receive it within two weeks, while humans may wait an average of nine months. Even when battling cancer, pets experience significantly faster treatment timelines, receiving care within weeks, while human patients can endure months of delays.

This is because veterinary practices operate on a market-driven model. While the NHS offers free healthcare at the point of access, funded through taxation, pet owners must pay directly for veterinary services or rely on pet insurance. The least well-off pet owners can access means-tested free care through charities such as the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA).

This financial incentive drives competition among practices to provide efficient and responsive care.

While the NHS grapples with staff shortages and resource constraints, many veterinary practices offer same-day appointments and often extended hours, ensuring that pets receive prompt attention.

Some vets, like Dr Ignacio Calvo – a specialist in veterinary orthopaedics – have suggested that pets often receive superior medical care compared with their owners, particularly in prosthetics where animal surgeries are more innovative.

While NHS doctors and nurses are undoubtedly highly trained and dedicated professionals, they operate in a system under immense pressure. Resource constraints and staffing shortages inevitably impact the time and attention they can dedicate to each patient. Meanwhile, bureaucratic processes and a rigid hierarchical structure can hinder innovation and responsiveness to individual patient needs.

While the NHS benefits from government funding, it often faces bureaucratic hurdles and budget limitations that hinder the adoption of cutting-edge technologies.  Regulatory and purchasing constraints that inhibit NHS managers are not present in animal care.

Because animals are treated in the private sector, the only constraint on purchasing is cost, and it’s up to the pet owners how willing they are to spend money on a product.

The direct financial cost of animal healthcare has created a thriving pet insurance market. While pet insurance can be expensive, it provides owners with the peace of mind that they can afford the best possible treatment for their beloved companions.

In contrast, there is no equivalent widespread insurance mechanism for human healthcare in the UK, outside of employer-provided plans, meaning that access to timely and high-quality medical care is often determined by an individual’s ability to navigate the complexities of the NHS or pay out-of-pocket for private treatment.

The financial burden of animal healthcare does, however, raise concerns about equity and access. While pet insurance can help offset the costs, not all owners can afford it, particularly those on low incomes.

Charities offer treatment for pets owned by people on low incomes but it tends to be limited to only serious or life-threatening conditions.

This can lead to situations where animals are denied necessary treatment due to their owner’s financial limitations, deterring them from purchasing treatment when there is an excess to pay. This disparity in access to veterinary care based on socioeconomic status highlights the limitations of a market-driven model and the need for mechanisms to ensure that all animals receive adequate care.

Despite these complexities, the disparities in waiting times, quality of care and the market dynamics of medical technology for animals hold true. While human medicine undoubtedly faces unique challenges, the current state of the NHS is leaving patients vulnerable and underserved.

Market incentives and investment in innovation that drive animal healthcare offer valuable lessons for improving the efficiency and responsiveness of the human healthcare system. 

Ivor Campbell is Chief Executive of Snedden Campbell