Briefing: When more care is possible, what care is right?

Pet insurance has achieved something the industry should be proud of. Over several decades, it has enabled millions of animals to receive veterinary treatment that might otherwise have been financially out of reach.

At the same time, veterinary medicine has advanced enormously, with more sophisticated diagnostics, referral pathways and treatments becoming increasingly available.

Insurance products have evolved alongside that progress. Where policy limits might once have been £2,000 or £4,000, there are now lifetime policies offering £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 of veterinary fee cover each year.

More cover might mean greater access to treatment, but perhaps the uncomfortable question the insurance industry should also be prepared to ask itself is, “has pet insurance made a rod for its own back?”

This isn’t about suggesting that clinical decisions are influenced by insurance limits, nor is it an argument against advances in veterinary medicine. The question is much simpler – does having more money available change expectations about what veterinary care should look like?

As new diagnostics and treatments become available, insurance can take much of the immediate worry about cost away.

That’s one of its great strengths. But can it also change expectations? Something that was once exceptional becomes possible, then more widely available and, over time, perhaps expected.

There is a risk that what can be done becomes confused with what is actually right for the individual animal.

This is where contextualised care matters. It doesn’t mean providing less care. It means considering what is right for that animal, taking account of their welfare and prognosis as well as the circumstances, preferences and resources of the person caring for them.

Money is part of that conversation, but it isn’t the whole conversation. So, if insurance can reduce the impact of treatment costs, can it also affect the choices that are made regarding an animal’s treatment?

Has insurance shaped the market?

Insurance hasn’t simply helped people access advances in veterinary medicine. It may also have helped support some of those advances.

As more animals became insured and levels of cover increased, more funding has been made available for specialist diagnostics, referrals and increasingly sophisticated treatments. That, in turn, may have supported further investment and innovation.

The benefits for animal health and welfare have been enormous. But is insurance simply responding to advances in veterinary medicine and the rising costs that come with them, or has it also helped support some of that development by making the funding available?

That isn’t a criticism of innovation. Far from it. But perhaps the insurance industry needs to think more about the part it has played in shaping the market whose rising costs it is now trying to insure.

There is an elephant in the room. For much of the market, the response to rising veterinary costs has been remarkably predictable – increase the amount of veterinary fee cover available.

The logic is understandable. If treatment costs more, increase the limit so people remain protected. But at what point does making the pot bigger stop being the solution and start becoming part of the problem?

Higher claims costs ultimately affect premiums. As premiums rise, insurance becomes less affordable and some people reduce their cover or leave altogether. The product designed to help people access veterinary care risks becoming less accessible itself.

Perhaps the more uncomfortable question for the insurance industry is whether increasing limits has sometimes become a substitute for genuine product innovation.

If the aim is sustainable access to appropriate veterinary care, there has to be more to the answer than simply increasing the amount available to spend.

Product design, prevention, earlier intervention, helping people better understand their cover, different approaches to sharing risk and the way insurance works alongside veterinary care all deserve consideration.

Simply lowering limits isn’t the answer either. That risks recreating the financial barriers insurance exists to remove.

Breaking the cycle

And how does it continue to support access to the right care without relying on an ever-larger pot of money? Contextualised care may be part of the answer, but it can’t be the whole answer – and this isn’t something for the veterinary profession to solve alone.

Insurers, veterinary professionals, people who have pets and the wider ecosystem all have a part to play.

Perhaps the next stage in the development of pet insurance isn’t simply about funding more care. Perhaps it is about supporting better decisions about care while keeping insurance affordable and accessible.

This is exactly the kind of question we are exploring through the Pet and Equine Insurance Association’s (Peia’s) Companion Animal Welfare Journey. We are looking at the whole journey, from someone first considering bringing an animal into their life, through acquisition, insurance and veterinary care, to changing health needs and end-of-life care.

The animal sits at the centre. We are looking at the journey from the perspectives of the person responsible for them, veterinary professionals, insurers and the wider organisations that influence what happens along the way.

We aren’t starting with the answers. We want to understand what influences decisions, where things don’t work as well as they could and, ultimately, what helps an individual animal get the right care.

For insurance, perhaps that requires a different measure of success. Rather than continuing to ask how much veterinary treatment this policy can pay for, perhaps the better question is “did it help the animal receive the right care?”

Because more care isn’t always better care. The real test is whether insurance helped make the right care possible.