The CMA also called on the government to prioritise a new Veterinary Surgeons Act (VSA) to strengthen regulation and improve the complaints process. The Vet’s Hub spoke to the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC) to understand how South Africa’s regulatory landscape compares to the UK’s proposed measures – and whether similar reforms might be on the horison locally.

While the UK proposals are still under consultation, they have already sparked global discussion about transparency, pricing, and consumer rights in veterinary care – including in South Africa.

Price transparency in South Africa

In South Africa, there are no formal requirements for veterinary practices to publish price lists or provide standardised fees for common treatments. According to Dinamarie Stoltz, the SAVC’s Director of Legal Affairs, it is currently up to each veterinarian to ensure that an estimate of costs is provided to each client.

Even for so-called ‘standard’ procedures, the SAVC notes that complications or adverse reactions may arise, which can increase costs beyond the original estimate. As such, setting or publishing fixed prices for procedures is not considered practical or fair in many cases.

Under Rule 9 of the SAVC Rules for Veterinarians, practitioners are legally required to provide clients with an estimate of fees before rendering services, except in emergencies. The rule specifies that:

• An approximate fee must be given as soon as reasonably possible after examination.
• In emergencies, estimates must be provided once the patient is stabilised.
• Clients must be kept informed if further expenses are likely.
• Veterinarians must provide an itemised account within 30-days of the service.

In addition, fees for standard procedures may be advertised in a clinic’s reception area, which removes the obligation to provide individual estimates for those procedures.

Why South Africa cannot standardise fees

In December 2013, the Competition Commission Tribunal determined that the SAVC’s historical fee guideline for veterinary services amounted to anti-competitive behaviour, notes Stoltz.

For decades, the SAVC had published guidelines for minimum and maximum fees to help standardise pricing across the profession. However, the Tribunal found this practice violated the Competition Act, amounting to price fixing and market allocation. The Council was forced to withdraw the guidelines immediately, facing a potential administrative fine of 10% of its annual turnover, >R1m at the time.

As a result, the SAVC is now prohibited from issuing or endorsing any form of fee guideline, leaving pricing entirely at the discretion of individual practices. This position also means the SAVC cannot monitor or regulate pricing practices, even among large corporate-owned veterinary groups.

Access to affordable medicines

One of the CMA’s more consumer-friendly proposals is the cap on prescription fees at R375 (£16), alongside a requirement that veterinarians automatically provide written prescriptions to pet owners. This would allow clients to purchase medications from online pharmacies or alternative suppliers, improving competition and affordability.

In South Africa, however, prescription and medicine pricing fall under the jurisdiction of the Medicines and Related Substances Act (Act 101 of 1965) – not the SAVC. The Council therefore has no authority to regulate medicine costs or prescription fees, nor can it mandate that veterinarians provide written prescriptions for clients to buy medicines elsewhere.

Understanding the SAVC’s role in veterinary fee complaints

The SAVC mandate is limited to cases involving double billing, charging for services not rendered, or failing to provide an estimate of fees. It is not authorised to address pricing matters, explains Stolz.

She notes that the outcome of any complaint depends on the specific facts of the case, and the disciplinary process may result in anything from the dismissal of a complaint to sanctions against the veterinarian involved.

However, Stolz emphasises that pricing disputes alone do not generally constitute grounds for disciplinary action – especially when additional costs result from complications or unforeseen circumstances during treatment.

Ongoing communication and education

To promote transparency and accountability, the SAVC periodically reminds veterinarians of their obligations regarding estimates and itemised billing through its regular newsletter. This serves as an ongoing educational effort to ensure compliance with Rule 9 and to reinforce good communication with clients.

Still, these measures fall short of the CMA’s more systemic transparency approach, which seeks to empower consumers through public access to pricing and ownership information, a concept currently absent in South African regulation.

The flip side of transparency

According to Stolz, the flip side of providing estimates can be challenging in practice. “I often get confronted by pet owners accusing veterinarians of being in it only for the money if the veterinarian discusses the costs upfront, she explains.

“Then the veterinarian is seen as greedy and unconcerned about the welfare of the patient. Even worse, the veterinarian is often accused of inflating the account or performing unnecessary procedures just to charge more. These arguments tend to intensify in emergencies, where the veterinarian is accused of caring more about money than the immediate needs of the patient. It’s a case of being damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.”

The practicality challenge

While greater price transparency sounds ideal in theory, the SAVC points out several practical limitations. Veterinary treatment is inherently unpredictable.

“Even standard procedures may lead to complications,” explains Stoltz, “and if complications do arise, those will not be provided for in the original cost estimate.”

For this reason, fully itemised pre-procedure price lists—particularly for elective surgeries—could create unrealistic expectations among clients, who might later insist that post-operative complications be treated as part of the ‘standard’ fee.

Looking ahead

Asked whether the SAVC is considering some reforms inspired by the CMA’s recommendations, Stoltz reiterates that it cannot regulate prices or set fee caps, due to competition law constraints. It also lacks jurisdiction over medicine pricing.

Nevertheless, transparency and ethical pricing remain a professional responsibility under existing rules. South African veterinarians must provide estimates, communicate cost changes, and issue itemised accounts, standards that mirror many of the CMA’s transparency objectives, albeit within a more decentralised framework.

As the debate over veterinary affordability continues abroad, the UK’s reform agenda has placed renewed focus on the balance between consumer protection and professional autonomy, a balance that South Africa’s regulatory framework continues to navigate with caution.

For now, the SAVC’s position is clear: While it supports ethical conduct and open communication between veterinarians and clients, price regulation and standardisation remain outside its legal authority. Whether future consumer pressures will drive change, as seen in the UK, remains to be seen.