The most extensive review of veterinary services in a generation is about to become law

In September 2023, the Competition and Markets Authority opened a review of the veterinary sector and asked the public what they thought. It received 56,000 responses. Around 45,000 came from the public and 11,000 from people working in the profession, a figure equivalent to roughly a fifth of all UK vets and veterinary nurses.

That is not a normal level of engagement with a competition inquiry. It suggested something the CMA went on to confirm: that a great many people, on both sides of the consulting room table, felt the market was not working.

On 24 March 2026, after a formal market investigation launched in May 2024, the CMA published its final report. Martin Coleman, who chaired the independent inquiry group, described it as the most extensive review of veterinary services in a generation.

The report is not, in the end, the story many expected. It did not find a sector systematically profiteering. It did not impose price controls, beyond a single capped fee. What it found instead was a market in which pet owners cannot see enough to make good decisions, and in which that opacity has weakened the competitive pressure that would otherwise hold prices down.

What the CMA found

The inquiry group identified three core problems.

Pet owners lack the information to choose well. Fewer than 40 per cent of practices published any prices on their websites, and where prices existed they covered few services and were often hard to find. Fewer than half of owners had received pricing information in advance of recent non-routine treatment, and only 29 per cent of those who did received it in writing.

Businesses have both the incentive and the ability to limit choice. This applies particularly, the CMA said, within large integrated groups where the practice, the referral centre, the out-of-hours provider, the laboratory and the online pharmacy may all sit under one corporate roof.

The regulatory framework is not fit for purpose. The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 is sixty years old and regulates individual vets, not the businesses that employ them. Whole parts of the system sit outside any regulator's reach.

On ownership, the CMA's finding was blunt. Fewer than half of the people using a practice belonging to a large veterinary group knew that it was part of a chain.

The six large groups named by the CMA are CVS, IVC, Linnaeus, Medivet, Pets at Home and VetPartners.

The remedies, and what they mean at the front desk

Fourteen remedies will be implemented through a CMA Order binding on veterinary businesses, alongside Undertakings given by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The changes that will be most visible to pet owners:

Comprehensive price lists. Practices must publish prices for standard services, including consultations, common procedures, diagnostics, written prescriptions and cremation options.

Visible ownership. Businesses must make clear whether they are independent or part of a group. Common ownership must be displayed on signage, at the premises, and online. A practice trading under a much-loved local name will still be able to use it, but it will no longer be able to leave the question of who owns it unanswered.

A comparison service. Price and ownership information will be gathered through the RCVS "Find a Vet" service, which will also share data with approved third-party comparison sites.

Written estimates. Practices must provide a written estimate in advance for any treatment expected to cost £500 or more, including aftercare, plus an itemised bill afterwards. Genuine emergencies are the only exception.

Prescription fees capped. Written prescription fees will be capped at £21 for the first medicine and £12.50 for each additional medicine. The CMA found many practices were charging £30 or more.

You must be told you can ask. More than 70 per cent of owners buy long-term medication from their practice. The CMA's view is that many could save £200 a year or more buying online with a written prescription, and practices will be required to tell owners the option exists.

Pet plans itemised. Plans must set out the price of each component, the total cost, and how any advertised saving has been calculated.

Cremation prices upfront. Practices must give clear prices for all cremation options and offer the lower-cost communal option. The CMA estimated owners may be paying around £100 more for individual cremations than a competitive market would produce.

Clinical independence protected. Practices must have written policies ensuring vets are empowered to give independent and impartial advice, insulated from commercial pressure.

A real complaints process. Practices must operate a transparent in-house complaints process and engage in mediation where a dispute cannot be resolved internally.

Out-of-hours contracts loosened. Providers will be banned from imposing unreasonably long notice periods, making it easier for practices to switch if they can get a better service elsewhere.

The timetable

This is the part most coverage has skipped, and it is the part that determines when any of it touches you.

The final report is not itself binding. The CMA has six months from publication to put a legally binding Order in place, giving a deadline of 23 September 2026.

A consultation on the draft substantive Order and the RCVS Undertakings opened on 21 July 2026 and closes at 11:59pm on 20 August 2026. The CMA has been explicit that it is consulting on whether the drafting achieves the aims of the final report, not reopening the decisions in the report itself.

Under the anticipated timetable, compliance is staggered by business size. "Large" means fifteen practices or more.

These dates remain subject to the final wording and timing of the Order.

The practical consequence is worth stating plainly: the £21 prescription cap is not in force today. Until your practice's compliance date arrives, its existing fee stands. Some practices may choose to move early. If prescription costs matter to you, ask what your practice charges now rather than assuming.

The case for scepticism

It would be easy for a publication like this one to present the CMA report as a straightforward vindication of independent practice. That would be a misreading, and it would not serve you well.

The CMA declined to intervene on prices or structure. It ordered no divestitures and imposed no price caps other than on prescription fees. It found that four of the large groups had made returns above their cost of capital, and that some independent practices operated on relatively large margins. Its conclusion was that uneven profitability across the sector was a symptom of weak competition rather than evidence of systematic overcharging sufficient to justify direct controls.

Ownership is not a proxy for quality. The CMA found that average prices had risen faster at some large groups than at independent practices, and that most large groups scored poorly on client satisfaction with the cost of services. But it did not find that ownership determines clinical standards, and Pets at Home has pointed out that its Vets for Pets joint-venture practices were the one large group whose average prices the CMA did not find higher than independents', with cost-satisfaction scores in line with independent practices. There are expensive independents and excellent group-owned practices. The point of the transparency remedies is that you will be able to see what you are choosing, not that the choice is made for you.

Independent practices themselves objected to parts of this package. The Federation of Independent Veterinary Practices and the British Veterinary Association raised concerns about requiring vets to direct clients to online pharmacies, on the grounds that it could advantage the large groups that own them. The CMA considered this and concluded that the online pharmacy sector is competitive, and that it had not found evidence that group-backed pharmacies would enjoy a competitive advantage.

More broadly, small practices argued in their consultation responses that uniform remedies fall unevenly. A large group has a centralised compliance function. A three-vet practice in a market town does not, and the same administrative requirement consumes a much larger share of its capacity.

There is a cross-subsidy argument that deserves an honest hearing. Several respondents made the point that margin on medicine sales has historically subsidised the price of services, and that this is part of how mixed and rural practices, and practices still running their own out-of-hours provision, have remained viable. Push medicine sales online and that subsidy goes. Consultation fees are the most likely place for the shortfall to appear. It is entirely possible for an individual owner to save money on medicines and pay more for appointments.

Transparency may not do what people hope. Competition law academics at the University of Glasgow and the University of East Anglia, responding to the report, welcomed the push for clarity but warned there is no guarantee transparency remedies alone will bring prices down or hold them below inflation. They also noted that the risk of further consolidation is real, and that the CMA's principal tool for reviewing veterinary mergers has been significantly weakened by wider procedural reforms during the inquiry.

Someone pays for the regulation. The RCVS's expanded role will be funded by a levy on veterinary businesses, proportionate to size. The CMA's estimate is no more than £150 to £250 per practice in set-up costs and £450 to £550 annually thereafter. That is a modest sum for a large group and a more noticeable one for a single-site practice.

What happens to the law

The CMA was clear that competition remedies alone are insufficient, and it has called on government to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act. Defra announced reform plans in January 2026 and ran a consultation that closed in March.

The proposals would, for the first time, make veterinary businesses as well as individual vets accountable to an independent regulator, covering consumer protection and fair competition alongside clinical standards. They would also protect the title of veterinary nurse and expand the range of tasks nurses can undertake.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Emma Reynolds, said the government would respond to the report and set out next steps in due course. The RCVS broadly welcomed the remedies package while voicing concerns about certain recommendations.

Legislative reform will take considerably longer than the Order.

What to do before any of this arrives

You do not need to wait for compliance dates.

Ask who owns your practice. You are entitled to a straight answer now. The RCVS register at findavet.rcvs.org.uk lists registered practice details, and group branding often appears in a website footer or an "About us" page.

Ask for a written estimate. The obligation is not yet in force, but no reasonable practice will refuse. Ask what the estimate excludes as well as what it includes.

Ask about a written prescription if your animal is on long-term medication, and ask what the fee is. Then compare against a UK-registered online pharmacy. Whether it saves you money depends on the medicine.

Ask about out-of-hours before you need it: who provides it, where it is, and roughly what an emergency consultation costs.

Ask what a pet plan actually contains and add up the components against what you would otherwise pay. The CMA's finding was that plans can be poor value for owners who do not use most of what is included.

None of these questions is impertinent. The entire thrust of the CMA's work is that they are questions you should have been able to answer without asking.