Pet Economics 101 Dolittler’s vetcentric take on pet health insurance (Part 1: Why insurance?)

March 6th, 2008  

Add Comment7 Comments

I'm wondering what you think about this... because while the pet insurance model of reimbursement certainly makes sense for vets and ensures we get paid, it strikes me as unfair and almost cruel to the owners. Basically, if you have pet insurance, you still have to be able to either pay a huge bill upfront or have good enough credit to pay for it with a credit card - and lose money paying interest on the credit card bill while the paperwork goes through. In theory, even paying up front is an interest-free loan to the insurance company that costs the client money - that few grand could have been gathering interest in the bank.

No other insurance system works like this. Auto insurance sends you a check. Human health insurance, as much as it has caused me to tear out my hair, eventually pays directly to the service provider, without me ever coughing up the cash.

I feel like every solution the vet field comes up with to help people pay - insurance, CareCredit, whatever - helps the relatively well-off who could probably pull it together if push came to shove anyway. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind making life easier for these people, I plan to be one of them. But the people that need the help most, who live paycheck to paycheck, who have bad credit, and completely love their dogs and kitties, they get left out in the cold. There's funds and resources to help them - my vet school has such a fund - but there's not nearly enough of such money floating around.

Julia March 6th, 2008 08:58:00 PM

Good point Julia, I had never thought of that with regard to pet insurance. I would hope as the pet insurance market matures they might offer a product that pays up front. It should not be much more expensive...even if you assume a 30% interest rate and a month that the company has to 'carry/finance' the procedure cost it would only result in a 2.5% increase in the payout for the insurance company.

Regarding people 'self-insuring' against high vet bills. . .I think the amount of people willing to do that will decrease with more sophisticated vet procedures. Even though it makes financial sense for many, you can't ignore the psychological aspect -- insurance provides some peace of mind and maybe more importantly lets people avoid having to weigh the cost vs. care decision in a pet emergency.

I for one *could* self insure. But I would buy pet insurance (preferably the high - deductible, catastrophic type) just to avoid even the briefest fleeting "is it worth $10k to try and save my best friend" thought at the vet hospital.

I guess I want guilt insurance as much as pet insurance. :-)

Larry March 7th, 2008 12:48:00 AM

YIKES! I shutter at the thought of pet insurance becoming the norm for petcare. Right now it's easy going to the vet. You take your pet to whatever vet you want, get your pet treated, you pay - and that's that. If pet insurance becomes like human hmo's, well gee, you want to go to what vet? Sorry, that vet's not on our list. You want what prescription, sorry we won't cover that. Your vet wants to do what procedure? Well, we don't agree that's necessary - and we will wait you out til your pet's probably on death row before we'll fancy the idea of reimbursing you, and maybe only 20 percent, if that - since the vet's not on our preferred list. Another thought, if the vet you want is tops in his/her field, they probably won't accept insurance. Heck, because of HMO's, it's even hard to pay cash for human medical treatment, since doctors have had to jack up their prices to make up for the pittance HMOs pay them. And then having to deal with the series of bills, insurance statements that never seem match up - only thing that's decipherable is "YOU PAY THIS AMOUNT NOW". Pet insurance, NO THANKS. It's the one place where things are still simple. It's expensive to want to be alive these days - for both humans and our pets. Just a fact of life.

Lyn March 7th, 2008 04:15:00 AM

A few years ago I could get pet insurance not because I couldn't pay for it, but because even if I could I didn't have the credit to pay up front so it would be pointless--I can cover the cost of vaccinations, i want protection for seriosu accidents, cancer, that sort of thing. Now I don't get it because I have 10k in term deposits and it would make more financial sense to use it as required--I doubt I would want to treat over 10k worth. I think insurance should be there for low income owners for whom it is an issue of getting treatment at all, not being bothered by a little paperwork. But as mentioned above, it just doesn't do this.

emily March 7th, 2008 09:06:00 AM

Pet insurance makes sense for people who are in between the extremes of being so low income as to not have available credit to pay up front and take a small hit on interest on the one hand and those who have 10K in savings on the other. And I think most Americans fall in to that "somewhere in the middle" category.

It has made sense for us. I can afford the $60 a month that insurance on my two dogs costs. And I have a high limit credit card. What I don't have is quadruple digit savings. If it wasn't for a generous gift from my parents, we'd still be paying off the $1700 bill from when one of my dogs ate a bottle of ibuprofen last year, before we got our act together and got insurance.

And ultimately, having a veterinary emergency is stress enough. I hated having the added "But how am I going to pay off my credit card bill after this is over?!?" stress on top of it.

cressida March 7th, 2008 12:01:00 PM

Emergency coverage makes total sense to me. Most of the places I looked into were like $10/month for my dog (emergency only). You can't go wrong with that. It may get more complicated for those with multiple pets....but it's still very reasonable. I have full-blown coverage and it has already paid for itself. And as long as it pays for itself once a year, I'm not going to second-guess it. I may at some point reduce ot emergency-only coverage, but I'm staying w/ full coverage for now (and I still have more than enough savings if I had to pay out of pocket).

Creature of Habit March 7th, 2008 03:37:00 PM

While it may seem like a bum deal to have to prepay and then get reimbursed by the pet insurance agent I think for now it's necessary. Veterinarians can't really afford not to get paid for several month to a year like hospital can. There is not any infrastructure for it. Given the rise of medical opportunities for pets combined with their increased family status (I.E. Suma is part of my family) I think insurance makes sense. I hope that that the premiums don't equal the money I would pay a vet, because that means my dog is healthy. But if you're having trouble justifying the cost, just think of the $250 bill for euthanasia, which many people have had to pay in alternative for a costly treatment. Many <a href="http://www.petfirsthealthcare.com"> pet insurance</a> companies like PetFirst Healthcare offer additional benefits too like Advertising and Reward coverage if your pet is lost, and Boarding Kennel coverage if you yourself is hospitalized. Great Post by the way!

Clay March 17th, 2008 03:32:00 PM

Add Commment

Your Name:

CAPTCHA Verification