RSA ‘are putting profits before pets,’ leading vets warn
“RSA has adopted the same mentality to caring for much-loved pets as it has getting a car fixed” - Vets for Choice.
A leading group of vets has criticised Royal & Sun Alliance (RSA) claiming that they are ‘putting profits before the care of beloved pets’ with the introduction of the ‘preferred referral network’.
Vets for Choice, a group of 11 leading veterinary specialists, warn that RSA - who underwrite Tesco and MoreThan policies - are reducing freedom of choice for thousands of families and could leave sick animals at risk.
They stress that it must be ‘the absolute right of pet owners, in conjunction with their first opinion vet’ to select the referral centre that is most appropriate for the case.
They believe the decision should be based on a number of factors, including geographical location, expertise and availability of specialist facilities.
“Just as in the medical profession, GP vets will explain the option for referral and recommend the specials or referral centre that he/she considers to be the most appropriate for the case,” said professor Dick White, Vets for Choice spokesperson.
“This recommendation must be based on clinical considerations and not on financial ones. Pet owners should then be free to make their choice.”
Vets for Choice are now calling on Tesco to scrap the new RSA policy and revert to its previous format. A petition has been launched which can be found at https://you.38degrees.org.uk/p/petsbeforeprofits. MoreThan is a brand of the RSA Group.
“RSA has adopted the same mentality to caring for much-loved pets as it has getting a car fixed,” professor White continued. “But as animal lovers across Britain will testify, the two do not compare.”
“Choice should not to be confined to a list of practices provided by an insurance company – particularly as some of the practices on the RSA list do not even employ specialists. We are urging Tesco to go back to its original policy.”
Launched in December 2015, the RSA’s scheme provides a network of ‘preferred’ veterinary surgeons for non-emergency procedures.
Under the new requirements, if a veterinary surgeon recommends a practice that is not part of the network, the client may be forced to pay £200 towards the referral practice’s bill.
Vets for Choice argue that the concept of insurance companies nominating preferred providers ‘will inevitably erode standards of care’.
More information on the group’s campaign can be found at www.vetsforchoice.co.uk.
FIVP has shared a survey, inviting those working in independent practice to share their views on the CMA's proposed remedies.
