Excerpts from the transcript of an As It Happens podcast:
A couple in Nova Scotia are desperately seeking a match for their five year old Goldendoodle Lucy, who was diagnosed with T-cell lymphoma. Her life expectancy is between six months and a year with standard treatments like chemotherapy. But Stéphanie Gauvin and Tim MacIsaac are saving up for treatment in Washington State, which includes a stem cell transplant and immunotherapy for Lucy. That could cost as much as a hundred thousand dollars. Fortunately, their pet insurance will cover most of it but what they really need now is a stem cell match.
This story was added to the podcast to assist the dog owners in their quest to find a biocompatible stem cell donor. But I have questions about the appropriateness of the situation.
I am gobsmacked that pet insurance would pay huge $$ for a stem cell transplant. I think pet health insurance should pay for immunizations, dental cleanings, blood tests, medications, and minor surgery. When coverage is extended to something like this, the result inevitably must raise the cost of pet insurance for everyone in the program, perhaps pricing such out of the budget of modest-income owners. If owners want something like this for life extension on a pet, perhaps a GoFundMe appeal could be set up to supplement the basic health insurance. Seeking opinions from readers on this.
I suppose it was inevitable that the animal medical industry would eventually ape the human medical industry in greedy profiteering, and now people are actually being priced out of owning pets. Of course they should blame themselves to a certain extent. I was at a friend's house the other day when a chiropractor came to treat his dog.
ReplyDeleteI’ve read with the advent of pet insurance vets have raised prices dramatically and people had to get insurance to cope with the increase. But everything has gone up dramatically so it’s questionable.
ReplyDeleteI September I went to the hospital for outpatient surgery. There from 6AM to 2:30PM, home for supper... $294,416.29.
xoxoxoBruce
I agree and am surprised. But I don't think pet insurance should be limited to minor surgeries. Our beloved Jack Russell terror, Rosie, got sick when she was about 4 or 5 and we brought her to the vet. They called us up and said "It's pyloric stenosis; pay $1500 or she dies on the table." We dug deep to pay it and she lived to be 18. It would have been nice to have pet insurance for that serious but treatable emergency.
ReplyDeleteBut when our St. Bernard got bone cancer, we just kept her comfortable until the pain meds didn't work, then 'put her to sleep," even though we had pet insurance.
I would think the insurance companies could figure this out for themselves. For example, one could offer a cheaper policy that omits high end treatments like bone marrow transplants and a more expensive no-limit policy. Personally, I am in the limited-treatment group and would resent paying for bone marrow transplants or cloning (“resent” meaning I would not purchase such a policy).
ReplyDelete((Some sort of login problem puts me in the Anonymous group. Likely a user error.))
I think insurance that only covered routine and preventive care would be kind of pointless. An owner who can afford insurance can afford those expenses.
ReplyDeleteI agree it is not right for that kind of money to be spent saving one dog when it could protect an acre of the Amazon from deforestation, buy several drones for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, or provide safe drinking water for a village somewhere. But then I feel the same way about money that people spend traveling for pleasure, driving luxury cars, and so on.
Insane, especially as animals have no way of agreeing to any of this shit. It's the human ego on overdrive. Also, Joe Broker nailed it.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. And this is very interesting when there are plenty of human children without sufficient medical coverage or care. 6 figures would pay the preventative medical care for many, many underserved children.
Delete