Pet health care prices are so high that most owners are skipping treatments
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Nationwide dropping pet insurance in some states
Nationwide says inflation and pet veterinary care are among the reasons for dropping pet insurance.
Fox - 35 Orlando
Whether their bestie is Fido or Fifi, owners are getting more finicky about the costs of their pets' healthcare.
More than half of owners – including those in high earning households – have skipped necessary veterinary care in the previous year or declined recommended treatment at some point in the past, mostly because of the associated costs, a national study has found.
Seven in 10 people who skipped or declined care cited cost as the main reason, saying they couldn't afford it or didn't think it worth the expenditure, according to the study conducted by PetSmart Charities and Gallup.
The results were surprisingly similar across all income levels, PetSmart Charities president Aimee Gilbreath said, demonstrating the need for vets to better accommodate their clients' financial concerns.
'There's a narrative that says this only affects folks in the bottom part of the income spectrum,' Gilbreath said. 'But it's all across the spectrum. That surprised me – and it worries me. If folks in the top half are struggling to afford primary vet care, who can afford vet care now?'
According to 'The State of Pet Care' report, vet care costs in the U.S. have soared more than 60% since 2014, forcing many owners to forgo recommended treatment for their pets, sometimes with life-threatening consequences.
'At least 60% of households have a pet, and people love them as family members,' Gilbreath said. 'We don't think they should be a luxury item. They're good for people's mental, physical and emotional health, and if it becomes unaffordable that's a really sad situation.'
Pet owners were expected to spend an estimated $39 billion in 2024, according to the American Pet Products Association, and a survey of dog owners conducted that year by PawSafe.com found more than 44% of respondents felt their costs of care had risen significantly; 84% blamed veterinary care.
Even higher income owners feel the pinch
The survey of 2,498 U.S adults owning at least one dog or cat, conducted between November 2024 and January 2025, found that 52% of pet owners had skipped or declined care.
Diagnostic procedures (22%), vaccinations (18%) and elective surgeries (16%) were the most commonly declined pet health care services, but 11% said they had turned down recommended medications and 7% said they had refused lifesaving surgeries.
Of those who skipped or declined care, 71% of respondents said cost was the key factor. While that response was highest (80%) among those with a household income of between $36,000 and $60,000, nearly two-thirds (66%) of those earning $90,000 or more said the same.
For those with higher incomes, it wasn't necessarily a matter of affordability: Only a third of those earning $90,000 or more said they couldn't afford the expense, compared to 72% of those with incomes between $36,000 and $60,000. However, 44% of those in the higher bracket said the cost wasn't worth it, compared to just 21% of those in the lower one.
Gilbreath said pre-pandemic surveys had hinted at the growing issue as veterinary costs ballooned.
'If you look at vet pricing over the last five years, it has shot up faster than other indexes,' she said; inflation has compounded rising medical costs prompted in part by more expensive diagnostic testing and higher vet staff wages.
'For a lot of pet families, that dramatic cost increasing over a short period of time is making things very painful,' Gilbreath said. 'We're in a time when families are really stretched, and unexpected expenses like a big vet bill are hard to manage.'
Payment plans could be a lifesaver for pets
Animal shelters around the country said they're seeing the effects.
'We have seen an increase in owners surrendering their pets due to their inability to afford care or to find pet-friendly housing,' said Guinnevere Shuster of the Humane Society of Utah in Murray. Last year, the number of owners who turned in pets because they could not afford to care for them increased by more than 22%, she said.
In Tennessee, the Nashville Humane Association partners with the Banfield Foundation to fund monthly low-cost clinics to help owners access more affordable veterinary care for their pets.
'With the cost of living increasing year after year across the United States and many private veterinary practices opening up, the cost of care has skyrocketed and appointments are filling up months out,' Whittemore said. 'We hope these clinics will alleviate some of the financial strain pet owners in our community are currently experiencing.'
Additionally, Gilbreath said as owners have increasingly treated pets as part of the family, they've begun exploring medical options for animals not considered 20 years ago.
'There's options now that they didn't used to have, and that may be pulling costs up,' she said. 'There are treatments for dogs with cancer. You can get a CT scan and an MRI for your pet, or advanced orthopedic procedures. There's certain injuries where if a dog had them 20 years ago you would go with crate rest and pain management, and now you can have a surgery that costs $7,000.'
PetSmart Charities estimates about 15% of pet households can afford gold-standard care.
'They want the best and most technologically advanced care,' Gilbreath said. 'But there's a lot of other households where that's not an option, and those folks should be able to get more affordable care.'
Despite the financial constraints preventing access to vet care, 73% of owners who declined treatment weren't presented with more affordable alternatives, the study found, and fewer than one in four (23%) said they'd ever been offered a payment plan option.
Providing payment-plan options would make a huge difference, the survey found. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of respondents said $1,000 or less would be the most they could afford if their pet had a life-threatening condition; however, if given a one-year, no-interest option, most said that would double what they could pay.
'We would love to see options like 18-month, interest-free financing,' Gilbreath said. 'More vets are starting to offer options, but it's relatively new.'
While some cases – for example, a blocked intestine requiring surgery – mandate a single course of action, 'we would have thought far more people would be offered a payment plan or more affordable treatment option,' Gilbreath said.
PetSmart Charities plans to survey veterinarians later this year in hopes of learning more about why, she added.
'Pets are family'
Forgoing necessary or recommended pet care is linked with poor outcomes, the study found. Among those declining care, one in seven (14%) reported that their pets either worsened or died.
Three in 10 pet owners (30%) said they had a friend or family member whose pet died in the past five years because of unaffordable treatment, and one in 10 (11%) knew someone who'd had to relinquish a pet because of care costs.
Gilbreath recommends pet owners discuss possible treatment alternatives or payment options with their vets to find a solution that meets their needs. In addition, veterinary care or other resources can sometimes be found through community non-profit organizations or animal shelters with public-facing medical clinics.
She noted the experience of a 'relatively well-off' woman who adopted a cat as she settled into her just-purchased home. The cat developed a dental condition that would have required expensive treatment.
'This woman was heartbroken,' she said. 'She didn't want the cat to suffer, so she gave it up to a shelter in hopes it would get the care it needed.'
Wracked with guilt, the woman returned to the shelter the following day to retrieve the cat and learned that a community organization could provide the necessary care at a more affordable cost.
'She was able to get the cat back and get care she could afford,' Gilbreath said.
Providing payment-plan options would make a huge difference, the survey found. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of respondents said $1,000 or less would be the most they could afford if their pet had a life-threatening condition; however, if given a one-year, no-interest option, most said that would double what they could pay.
'We would love to see options like 18-month, interest-free financing,' Gilbreath said. 'More vets are starting to offer options, but it's relatively new.'
Additionally, Gilbreath said, veterinary schools could help by making students aware of low-tech treatment alternatives to high-tech ones so that they're comfortable offering a range of options.
'The data shows that many pet parents are not being presented with alternative care options that could make veterinary services more accessible, despite interest in such options," said Zach Hrynowski, a senior researcher at Gallup, in a press release accompanying the report. "Our analysis of the data points to a clear opportunity for the veterinary industry to expand affordable, flexible solutions that meet pet parents' needs.'
Gilbreath said she hoped the report helps pet owners not feel alone or ashamed of their decisions, given how common such situations are.
'Pets are family,' Gilbreath said. 'For a lot of folks, they're the only family. That's why we do this work. We want pets and their people to be able to stay together.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
21 hours ago
- Forbes
The 3 C's Of Impactful Healthcare Innovation
Frank Harvey, Chief Executive Officer for Surescripts. Complicated. That's the word that comes to mind when I think of healthcare. Even for a thing as simple as seeing the doctor for a nagging cough and getting a prescription at the pharmacy, the whole process can be surprisingly complex and costly. Despite incredible advancements in medicine and technology, we've yet to solve some contributors to clinician burnout that can add stress to the entire healthcare ecosystem and, most notably, erode patients' trust in their providers. According to Gallup's annual rating of U.S. professions, trust in medical doctors has fallen 14% since 2021, and at 53%, is now the lowest since the mid-1990s. This doesn't have to be the case. As technology innovators in healthcare, it's up to us to improve healthcare with access to technological innovation that enables better quality, safer and less costly care for patients. We can meaningfully transform our industry with three C's: collaboration, comprehensive solutions and commitment to purpose. 1. Collaboration What it means for healthcare: The different parts of healthcare have more in common than helping care for patients. Physicians, pharmacists, care managers, life sciences companies and healthcare technology providers are just some of healthcare's parts that often face the same challenges, including burnout, rising costs and the complexity of providing quality care, but they may require different solutions. Cross-industry collaboration is key. We need to work together to diagnose the problems each healthcare sector faces and develop technologies to solve collective challenges, like prior authorization (an area in which my company works). In context: Prior authorization is intended to protect patient safety and manage costs. But with over 37% of medical plans using a manual prior authorization process dependent on phone, mail, fax or email, according to a 2023 CAQH Insights report, this can be very tedious for patients. For providers, prior authorization delays and administrative burden stoke frustration and burnout. Ninety-four percent of physicians surveyed by the American Medical Association say that the process always, often or sometimes delays care, and virtually all (95%) said prior authorization somewhat or significantly increases burnout. And at the pharmacy, prior authorization issues can keep pharmacists from filling prescriptions and spending more time with patients, with over half of pharmacists and prescribers describing following up on prior authorizations as 'very frustrating' in a 2021 survey from my company. These care providers tend to have the same prevailing concern: Prior authorizations take too much time and manual work, which negatively impacts their ability to focus on their patients. Collaboration can help identify the nuances and similarities of their challenges—a critical first step. Leaders need to leverage their existing ability to exchange health intelligence to take collaboration to the next level and develop solutions that meaningfully improve how they care for patients. 2. Comprehensive And Impactful Technology Solutions What it means for healthcare: Technology and innovations that focus only on a single segment are likely just shifting the burden or creating a new challenge somewhere else. As a result, patients often face the most significant consequences of siloed innovation. Comprehensive technology solutions depend on collaboration and can lead to a more holistic approach where every part of healthcare sees improvement—especially patients. In context: While AI tools will grab headlines, these tools are likely only addressing one element of the system and may not be truly alleviating the burden on care providers. Instead, I believe we need collaboration between health plans and care providers to develop systemic innovation. Together, we can build on the nationwide interoperability that exists today to deliver a swift, consistent and comprehensive experience for patients and those who care for them. Collaboration can take many forms but really relies on the opportunity for discussion and sharing ideas. So next time you're at a conference, meeting a stakeholder from another organization or a former colleague for coffee, remember to be intentional about connecting ideas and seeking out different points of view. It could lead to the next comprehensive fix that leads to meaningful impact for care providers and their patients. 3. Commitment To A Shared Purpose What it means for healthcare: It's important to remember why we're doing this work in the first place. Regardless of what part of healthcare we represent, we're all in this industry with the same purpose in mind—improving patient care. In context: When we recognize that across healthcare we are committed to a shared purpose, the ability to collaborate and develop comprehensive, innovative technologies becomes far easier. Recognizing the purpose behind organizations that compete in the same industry can be challenging—especially when focusing on a recent product launch, earnings report or partnership announcement. But when we peel back a layer to look beyond the headline, we ought to ask ourselves why this announcement matters. Looking closer, you'll see that launching a new product or announcing the latest financial report is simply a way to measure success toward achieving that organization's underlying purpose. In my experience, this purpose is always about making healthcare better for patients and those who care for them. It's important to keep this in mind and work to deliver messages that connect us back to our purpose. When we do this across an industry, we can see more clearly that we're all committed to something bigger, and it's a reminder that collaboration toward this end is our greatest strength. Conclusion The ability to impact or even save lives is the purpose we ought to be working toward. It reinforces why collaboration is critical to tackling difficult problems but can also help amplify impact and fuel continued innovations. And when all of the pieces come together, I think the result will be bringing meaningful improvements to healthcare for patients and those who care for them. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Just Let It Slip That He Knows One Of His Health Initiatives May Have Terrible Consequences, And I Knew It Was Bad, But Damn
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has touted his plan to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), which includes stances backed by questionable scientific evidence. He has spoken out against vaccines, called on states to ban fluoride, and made ableist comments about autism. Just last week, he actually let it slip that he's well aware that at least one of those initiatives could have some terrible consequences. Related: On Fox's The Faulkner Focus, news anchor Harris Faulkner asked RFK, Jr. about his stance on removing fluoride from drinking water. In particular, she questioned him about dentists' concerns that children from low-income families may not be able to get the preventative care that they'd need to protect them from tooth decay. Kennedy replied, "You know, it is an issue. It's a balance. You're gonna see probably slightly more cavities." The secretary went on to say, "Although in Europe, where they banned fluoride, they did not see an uptick in cavities. The issue is, parents need to decide because the science is very clear on fluoride. The National Toxicity Program issued a said there's a direct inverse correlation between the amount of fluoride in your water and loss of IQ." The American Dental Association (ADA) released a statement in April 2025, saying that the ADA "believes that good oral health depends on proper diet, nutrition, oral hygiene, and optimally fluoridated water. Eighty years of community water fluoridation at optimal levels has proven to be safe and effective at reducing tooth decay to improve oral health." And not all European countries have banned fluoride in their drinking water. In May 2025, the BBC reported that some areas have naturally occurring fluoride in their water, while others choose to fluoridate their milk, salt, or bottled water. In addition, the National Toxicology Program's study that the secretary cited specifically says that "lower IQ in children" can occur with the consumption of water containing "more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter," which is twice the CDC-recommended saturation of 0.7 milligrams per liter. They added directly, "It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children's IQ." Related: Historically, there are cities in the US and internationally that have removed fluoride from their water supply and seen increased cavities as a result. The New York Times reported that Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, is reintroducing fluoride into its water supply after 10 years, starting just this week. They noted that "The Alberta Children's Hospital saw a stark increase in the number of children from Calgary who needed antibiotics to treat dental infections after fluoride was removed from the drinking water." Unsurprisingly, people on Reddit had some thoughts on the secretary's comments. "Could we, instead, maybe focus on banning lead in our drinking water? We'll tell him it's to reduce obesity." —Stank_Dukem "So, honestly asking says it's a balance…so what are we gaining for the increase in dental costs to the tune of $300/year average for all Americans?" —pixiegod Related: "I used to be a dental hygienist. All this will do is cause people who have no money to now have to spend it on dental, but they can't. They won't because they can't. Increasing poverty. I hate this MF." —Apprehensive_Cheek77 "For the kids and adults who don't have access to dental care for whatever reason, this is going to be devastating. It hurts nothing and helps those who need it most." —brookmachine "How does having more cavities in children's mouths make us great and healthy again?" —Impressive_Car_4222 Related: The conversation continued over on Twitter (X), with one user saying, "More cavities for kids in families who can't afford dental care." "Gonna see slightly more cavities, but luckily in exchange for that we're going to get absolutely no benefits whatsoever so I guess it's a fair tradeoff," said another. And finally, "This isn't public health. It's policy by privilege." If you'd like to watch the full clip, you can do so below. And I'd love to know: Are you concerned about the levels of fluoride in Americans' drinking water, or do you think it should be left as-is? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Just Let It Slip That He Knows One Of His Health Initiatives May Have Terrible Consequences, And I Knew It Was Bad, But Damn
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has touted his plan to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), which includes stances backed by questionable scientific evidence. He has spoken out against vaccines, called on states to ban fluoride, and made ableist comments about autism. Just last week, he actually let it slip that he's well aware that at least one of those initiatives could have some terrible consequences. Related: On Fox's The Faulkner Focus, news anchor Harris Faulkner asked RFK, Jr. about his stance on removing fluoride from drinking water. In particular, she questioned him about dentists' concerns that children from low-income families may not be able to get the preventative care that they'd need to protect them from tooth decay. Kennedy replied, "You know, it is an issue. It's a balance. You're gonna see probably slightly more cavities." The secretary went on to say, "Although in Europe, where they banned fluoride, they did not see an uptick in cavities. The issue is, parents need to decide because the science is very clear on fluoride. The National Toxicity Program issued a said there's a direct inverse correlation between the amount of fluoride in your water and loss of IQ." The American Dental Association (ADA) released a statement in April 2025, saying that the ADA "believes that good oral health depends on proper diet, nutrition, oral hygiene, and optimally fluoridated water. Eighty years of community water fluoridation at optimal levels has proven to be safe and effective at reducing tooth decay to improve oral health." And not all European countries have banned fluoride in their drinking water. In May 2025, the BBC reported that some areas have naturally occurring fluoride in their water, while others choose to fluoridate their milk, salt, or bottled water. In addition, the National Toxicology Program's study that the secretary cited specifically says that "lower IQ in children" can occur with the consumption of water containing "more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter," which is twice the CDC-recommended saturation of 0.7 milligrams per liter. They added directly, "It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children's IQ." Related: Historically, there are cities in the US and internationally that have removed fluoride from their water supply and seen increased cavities as a result. The New York Times reported that Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, is reintroducing fluoride into its water supply after 10 years, starting just this week. They noted that "The Alberta Children's Hospital saw a stark increase in the number of children from Calgary who needed antibiotics to treat dental infections after fluoride was removed from the drinking water." Unsurprisingly, people on Reddit had some thoughts on the secretary's comments. "Could we, instead, maybe focus on banning lead in our drinking water? We'll tell him it's to reduce obesity." —Stank_Dukem "So, honestly asking says it's a balance…so what are we gaining for the increase in dental costs to the tune of $300/year average for all Americans?" —pixiegod Related: "I used to be a dental hygienist. All this will do is cause people who have no money to now have to spend it on dental, but they can't. They won't because they can't. Increasing poverty. I hate this MF." —Apprehensive_Cheek77 "For the kids and adults who don't have access to dental care for whatever reason, this is going to be devastating. It hurts nothing and helps those who need it most." —brookmachine "How does having more cavities in children's mouths make us great and healthy again?" —Impressive_Car_4222 Related: The conversation continued over on Twitter (X), with one user saying, "More cavities for kids in families who can't afford dental care." "Gonna see slightly more cavities, but luckily in exchange for that we're going to get absolutely no benefits whatsoever so I guess it's a fair tradeoff," said another. And finally, "This isn't public health. It's policy by privilege." If you'd like to watch the full clip, you can do so below. And I'd love to know: Are you concerned about the levels of fluoride in Americans' drinking water, or do you think it should be left as-is? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
