The veterinary world runs on communication

The principle that most client pushback about money isn’t about the price itself - but rather about the perception of value - is something that we come back to again and again. The job is to help clients see the value more clearly so they understand why it’s worth it.

That’s true in many cases, but what about when affordability is the true barrier to vet care?

We live in a world where budgets are squeezed more than ever, and we will all have come across times where cost is the genuine constraint. And when it is, the conversation needs to be handled differently - not to find a way to secure a yes, but to make sure the interaction itself doesn’t cause harm; to the client, to the animal, or to the relationship.

‍

Why does this conversation feel so difficult?

For most veterinary professionals, this is one of the most emotionally loaded moments in practice. The clinician has made a recommendation they genuinely believe is right for the animal. The client can’t follow it, which leaves a gap between ‘ideal’ and ‘realistic’, that’s tricky to bridge.

The emotional weight on the clinician is real. There’s often a sense of responsibility for the outcome, discomfort with the client’s distress, and a fear of being seen as money-focused at exactly the moment when that’s the last thing they feel.

Emotional discomfort tends to drive avoidance. In a clinical context, that often means softening the recommendation or rushing past this part of the conversation.

Neither serves the client, the animal, or the relationship. What’s needed instead is a third way - one that holds the clinical integrity of the recommendation, acknowledges the reality of the client’s situation, and keeps the relationship intact whatever the outcome.

‍

What does giving clients choice actually look like?

Research into how people make decisions tells us that people engage better with difficult conversations when they feel genuinely in control of their choices - when they’re given real options and the space to decide.

In a financial conversation, this matters enormously. A client who feels that their options are being presented honestly and without judgement - that they are being treated as a capable adult making a real decision - will respond very differently from one who feels the clinician has already decided what they should do.

But there’s an important principle that sits alongside this: the recommendation itself must be clear. If we soften or obscure the recommendation to avoid the discomfort of the conversation, we leave the client to carry both the financial decision and the clinical one.

The structure that works is a clear, confident clinical recommendation, alongside genuine, autonomy-retaining choice. The recommendation takes the clinical weight off the client’s shoulders, and the choice gives them control over what happens next.

In practice, this means:

Presenting options genuinely. If there are different ways to approach a clinical situation at different price points, those options should be presented as real choices, not as a gold standard and a series of compromises.

Giving the client time and space to think – which normally means getting comfortable with silence. Financial decisions rarely benefit from being rushed. A client who feels under pressure is more likely to become defensive or disengaged.

Asking rather than assuming. A question like “would it help to talk through the options in a bit more detail?” gives the client control over the pace of the conversation without the clinician having to guess what they need.

‍

How do you give a clear recommendation and present other options without judgement?

This is a tension felt by many. Giving a clear recommendation is one thing, but the moment we introduce other options, it can feel like we’re either retreating from that recommendation, or implying that a client who can’t follow it is somehow choosing a lesser path.

The answer lies in three things: how the recommendation is separated from the options conversation, how alternatives are introduced, and whether choice is normalised before the clinical conversation even starts.

‍

Separate the clinical view from the financial decision

The clinician’s job is to be unambiguous about what they believe is right. But the moment that’s been said, they need to signal clearly that the next part of the conversation belongs to the client. A phrase like:

“It’s important that whatever we do works for you as much as it works for Freddie, so let’s talk through the options.”

‍

Use the language of options, not fallbacks

The way alternatives are introduced shapes how they’re received. Compare these two approaches:

“The full treatment would be best, but if you can’t manage that, we could look at...”

versus

“There are a few other ways we can approach this. Here’s what each one involves...”

The first frames every alternative as a compromise on the gold standard. The second treats them as a genuine menu. The clinical recommendation has already been made, so the options conversation doesn’t need to repeat the hierarchy.

‍

Normalise options before the recommendation is made

Practices that handle this well often build the normalisation in early - before the clinical picture is even clear. Something like:

“Once I’ve had a look and we know what we’re dealing with, I’ll talk you through the options and what each one means for Freddie.”

That primes the client to expect a conversation about choices, so when options arrive, they feel like a normal part of good care - not a signal that something has gone wrong, or that the client has failed to meet an expectation.

‍

What language keeps the door open?

The words used in these conversations matter more than we often realise. Here are a few distinctions worth being aware of:

‍

Avoid language that implies judgement

Phrases like “if budget is a concern” or “if you can’t stretch to that” can feel othering, even when well-intentioned. “Would it help to look at different options?” or “would you like to talk through what else is possible?” invites the client into the conversation rather than labelling their situation.

‍

Don’t soften the recommendation to ease the moment

It’s a natural instinct, when a client is distressed, to soften the recommendation to reduce the tension. But a client who leaves believing the situation is less serious than it is hasn’t been helped, even if the intention was kindness.

The recommendation should remain clear.

‍

Don’t disappear emotionally when the client says no

One of the most damaging things that can happen in this conversation is a sudden shift in the clinician’s warmth or engagement when a client indicates they can’t afford something. Whether it’s intentional or not, the client feels it, and it confirms their fear that the relationship was conditional on their ability to pay.

Staying present, staying warm, and continuing to engage with the client’s situation regardless of their decision is one of the most powerful things a clinician can do. It keeps the relationship intact for future interactions, and it signals that the practice genuinely has the animal’s interests at heart.

‍

What about the rest of the team?

These conversations don’t only happen in the consultation room. RVNs and the client care team often find themselves handling cost conversations at the reception desk, on the phone, or in the waiting area.

Consistency across the team - in language, in approach, and in the options available - is as important here as it is in any other aspect of client communication. A client who gets a different response depending on who they speak to will feel less comfortable with their decision.

‍

What does a good outcome look like?

A good outcome in this conversation isn’t necessarily a yes. It’s:

• A client who leaves feeling respected, informed, and still connected to the practice, whatever decision they made.
• An animal whose owner understands the clinical situation well enough to make a choice that’s as good as it can be for them.
• A relationship that remains intact for the next conversation, and the one after that.

If you’re a practice leader and you’re wondering where the real communication opportunities are in your practice, Practice Pulse is a good place to start. It’s a free report and 30 minute consultation that helps you identify opportunities to build client loyalty, improve retention and create better outcomes.

There’s a conversation happening in most veterinary practices right now. It’s about fees, transparency, and what clients need to know and when.

Much of it has been prompted by the CMA’s final report, which has confirmed that greater price transparency will become a legal requirement for practices. The direction of travel is clear.

But here’s what that conversation often misses: price transparency and good, proactive fee communication are not the same thing. One is about making information available. The other is about building understanding and removing uncertainty before it has a chance to become anxiety.

‍

Why do clients find fee conversations so uncomfortable?

Often, it's not the fee itself, it's the uncertainty that builds before it's mentioned. When a client arrives at a consultation without any sense of what things might cost, they’re already in a state of low-level uncertainty. 

Behavioural science tells us that uncertainty is uncomfortable and that people manage it by filling in the gaps themselves. A client who doesn’t know what a consultation might involve will imagine one. A client who has no idea what treatment could cost will guess. And those imagined scenarios are rarely more optimistic than reality.

The result is a client who may arrive already on the defensive, even if they don’t know why. They’re braced for a bill they can’t predict, for recommendations they haven’t anticipated, for a conversation that might be uncomfortable.

Proactive fee communication doesn’t just give clients information. It removes many of the conditions that make fee conversations feel difficult in the first place.

‍

What does ‘proactive’ fee communication look like in practice?

It doesn't mean publishing a price list and hoping clients read it. It means identifying the moments in a client's journey, before they walk through the door, where a little more information would reduce uncertainty and build confidence. Here are some examples:

‍

At the point of booking

A brief, warm summary of what to expect - what the consultation involves, roughly how long it will take, and an indication of likely costs - costs nothing and can change a lot. It signals that the practice is organised and transparent, it gives the client a frame of reference and it means the fee conversation in the consult room isn’t the first time money has been mentioned.

For a small animal practice, this might be a short, automated message confirming the appointment, what to expect and ideally also including a payment link to enable the client to pay earlier in their experience.

In equine practice, where call-out fees and visit costs can vary considerably, a brief conversation at the point of booking - “the call-out fee for this visit will be £X, and we’ll go through any additional costs with you on the day” - removes a significant source of uncertainty before the vet even arrives.

In farm practice, where the relationship is often longer-standing and visits can involve multiple interventions, setting clear expectations at the start of the year about how costs will be communicated and invoiced is part of good client management.

‍

On the practice website

Most practice websites describe services. Fewer answer the question clients are actually asking before they book: “what is this likely to cost me?”

A simple, honest explanation of how fees work - what a consultation covers, how treatment costs are communicated, and what to expect if further investigation is needed - does more for client confidence than a page of service descriptions. It signals transparency before the client has even made contact.

‍

In the waiting room

The time a client spends waiting is an opportunity that many practices underuse. A short, clear video explaining how the practice handles estimates, options and fees - framed around the client and their experience rather than practice policy - can reduce the anxiety that builds in that waiting period and prime the client for a more open conversation.

‍

Is proactive fee communication just a CMA compliance exercise?

In short, no. Practices that treat it as one will miss the point. Compliance sets a floor but good communication goes further.

Practices that approach this as a communication opportunity will reduce the friction that makes fee conversations hard, build client trust before the consultation has started, and create the conditions which help value land more effectively.

There’s a difference between a practice that publishes its prices because it has to, and one that communicates proactively, in a client-focused way, because it understands that an informed client is a more confident client. 

‍

What stops vet practices from communicating fees earlier?

Most resistance comes from one of two fears: that talking about money upfront will put clients off, or that it's the vet's job to have that conversation in the room. 

It’s common to fear talking about money in case clients feel that we’re only focused on money. In practice, and when the communications are managed well, the opposite tends to be true. Clients who know what to expect are more comfortable, less uncertain and often also less resistant.

The assumption that it’s the vet’s job to have this conversation is also common. Of course, when treatments or tests are recommended it is crucial that vets explain both the value of their recommendation and the costs. But good systems and a deliberate approach to how the practice communicates at every stage of the client journey will serve to help make those conversations smoother and easier for all concerned.

‍

So, should vet practices talk about money before the consultation?

Yes - clients who arrive informed are likely to be more settled, more open, and better placed to make decisions about their animal’s care. That’s better for them, better for the animal, and better for the consultation.

Ultimately, an informed client is easier to talk to and better placed to make the right decision for their animal.

‍

At InsideMinds, we take veterinary teams through the WorthIt^TM Method - a structured, step-by-step approach to value-led conversations. If you’d like to explore how our workshops and training could help your team, get in touch.

Ask ten veterinary professionals what it means to communicate value and you may get ten different answers. Some will talk about justifying fees. Others will mention explaining the clinical rationale. A few will say it means helping clients understand what they’re paying for.

Those things do matter, but they don’t quite capture what communicating value is to us.

Communicating value isn’t really about the fee at all. It’s about helping a client understand why something is worth doing and what it will change - for their animal, and for them. That’s a subtly (but importantly) different thing.

A quick note: With the CMA's final report now confirming that price transparency will be a legal requirement for practices., the temptation is to focus only on making fees clearer. That’s necessary, but it isn’t sufficient. Transparency about price, without clarity about value, leaves clients with a number they can’t interpret.

Value isn’t a fact. It’s a feeling.

This is the first and most important thing to understand. You cannot tell a client that your service offers good value. You can only give them the context they need to feel whether it’s of value to them.

Think about it from a client’s perspective. They arrive at the practice already holding a set of expectations, worries and assumptions. When a recommendation is made, their brain isn’t running a logical cost-benefit calculation - it’s making a rapid, largely instinctive judgement based on what they’ve been told, how it’s been said, and how it makes them feel.

This is why two people can recommend exactly the same procedure at exactly the same price and produce completely different reactions. One client walks away feeling the investment is obvious; the other walks away uncertain and a little resentful. The clinical recommendation was identical, but the communication of value was not.

So what does communicating value actually involve?

When we work with veterinary teams on this, a few consistent patterns emerge - things that distinguish conversations where value lands clearly from those where it doesn’t.

The problem is framed before the solution is offered

Clients don’t care about procedures or line items on an estimate. They care about their animals (and in the case of commercial animal owners, their business too). This sounds obvious, but it shapes everything about how value should be communicated.

A canine dental is not only valuable because it removes pain sources and improves long-term systemic health. To the client it may be valuable simply because it removes the smelly breath that gets in the way of cuddles on the sofa. 

In equine practice, a worm count isn’t only valuable because it helps manage parasiticide resistance. The client may find more value in not having to give their beloved horse unnecessary medications and preventing spend on medications they don’t need.

In a farm context, a herd health visit isn’t valuable because it’s included in the plan. It’s valuable because the farmer gets ahead of problems before they become expensive ones, having an opportunity to ask questions and creating a business built on good welfare with fewer unexpected (expensive) hiccups. 

The clinical rationale and the client’s reason for caring are not always the same thing. Value communication means bridging that gap, and it starts with making sure the client understands the problem before they hear the solution.

Outcomes matter more than features

There’s a tendency in veterinary communication to describe what a service involves rather than what it achieves. This distinction is so key.

Clients aren’t buying a procedure. They’re buying a result - comfort, reassurance, a better quality of life for their animal, the confidence that they’re doing the right thing. When a recommendation is framed around outcomes, it becomes much easier for a client to connect with the value.

It’s also worth being honest about what’s at stake if the recommendation isn’t followed. Not in a way that feels pressurising - but loss is a real part of value. A client who understands what they might be protecting against is better placed to make a genuine decision than one who only hears the upside.

The price lands after the value, not before it

Behavioural science is clear on this: when price is communicated before value, the client’s brain gets stuck on the number. They’re stuck processing “do I want to spend that money?” rather than “is this the right thing for my animal?”

Flip the order and the dynamic changes completely. Compare these two approaches:

“We’re looking at up to £1200 for the dental. His teeth are causing him real discomfort - can you see that the build-up is starting to affect the gum line? Getting it sorted now will protect the teeth that are still in good shape."

Versus:

"His teeth are causing him real discomfort - can you see that the build-up is starting to affect the gum line? Getting it sorted now will protect the teeth that are still in good shape. We're looking at up to £1,200 for that.”

In the first version, the client is unlikely to really hear much that comes after “£1,200”. The second version costs the same. But the client is much more likely to have heard why it’s important, and so their decision is more likely to be based on a weigh up of value versus cost.

Delivery matters here too. Phrases like “I know it’s expensive, but…” or “Are you ready for the painful bit…” are well intentioned but they prime the client to feel that the cost is uncomfortable. The clinician has effectively pre-objected on the client’s behalf. Confident, calm delivery of fees at the right time, and without apology will help avoid the fee getting in the way of value landing well.

What gets in the way?

Most of the barriers to good value communication are about habits and confidence rather than knowledge:

- Teams rushing the value conversation because they’re under time pressure 

- Teams who have had a difficult reaction to a fee in the past and unconsciously brace for another one

- Teams who assume the client can’t or won’t afford it, so they subconsciously soften the recommendation

None of these habits are intentional. But they’re worth examining, because they consistently get in the way of clients making the decisions that are right for their animals.

The bottom line

Communicating value isn’t a soft skill – it’s an essential communication skill, without which no clinical expertise will land. Like all communication skills, it can be practised, refined and made consistent across a whole team.

When it’s done well, clients feel informed, confident, and they feel that the team genuinely has their animal’s interests at heart - because the way the recommendation was explained made that clear.

That’s what value communication actually means.

At InsideMinds, we take veterinary teams through a structured, step-by-step approach to value-led conversations - covering everything from how to frame a problem clearly, through to presenting options and handling price with confidence. If you’d like to explore how our workshops and training could help your team, get in touch.