Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pharmaceutical Pricing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Private‑practice veterinarian warns board that unequal drug discounts by manufacturers harm independent clinics and pet owners

5429938 · July 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A private‑practice veterinarian told the board that major veterinary pharmaceutical companies offer steep discounts to corporate hospital chains while independent clinics receive rebates only, forcing higher prices for pet owners and threatening independent practices.

Dr. Laura Sal Barnes, owner of a general veterinary practice in Riverside County, told the board that discriminatory pricing practices by major veterinary pharmaceutical companies are harming independent clinics and driving up costs for pet owners.

Barnes named companies including Zoetis, Elanco, Merck and others and said large corporate‑owned hospital chains receive discounts in the range of 30% to 90% that independent clinics cannot access except through rebates. She said that puts independent clinics at a competitive disadvantage and ultimately makes veterinary care less affordable for many Californians.

"Who pays the price difference? Well, unfortunately, it has to be the pet owners," Barnes told the board. "Independent clinics are forced to pass those inflated costs onto their clients or absorb them at the expense of sustainability. Either way, the results are the same."

Barnes cited state antitrust and consumer‑protection laws — she referenced the Cartwright Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law — and urged the board to investigate whether current practices fall within the board’s consumer‑protection mission. She asked the board to consider the impact of discriminatory pricing on access and competition, particularly in rural and low‑income areas.

The board did not open a formal investigation at the meeting; members acknowledged the concern and noted that the board’s enforcement and consumer‑protection mandate could include examining conduct that restricts access to care. Staff said they would record the testimony and consider outreach to other agencies or stakeholders as appropriate.