In Canada, veterinary teams already know the reality: more clients are struggling with costs, more difficult conversations are happening in exam rooms, and more care decisions are shaped by finances than by medicine alone. A new national report conducted by Gallup in partnership with PetSmart Charities of Canada now puts numbers behind those daily experiences.

“State of Pet Care Study: Veterinarian Perspectives on Canadian Veterinary Care,” surveyed 369 companion-animal veterinarians across the country in September 2025. The findings paint a picture of a profession deeply committed to patient welfare, while working inside a system strained by affordability pressures, emotional burden, and evolving expectations around access to care.

For veterinarians and veterinary technicians, the message is clear: financial barriers are no longer an occasional obstacle. They are now a defining part of practice.

Cost is the dominant barrier to care

Among all of the reasons that clients decline recommended treatment, cost was by far the most common.

According to the survey:

• 96% of veterinarians said clients’ financial limitations sometimes or often affect their ability to provide care;
• 76% said cost is often or almost always a reason that clients decline care; and
• Cost and financial limitations far exceeded other factors such as a pet being too old (39%), concerns about invasive procedures (24%), or distance to treatment or specialists (15%).

This finding is significant because it cuts across practice models and geography. Whether respondents worked in corporate, private, or nonprofit settings—or urban versus rural communities—cost remained the leading obstacle.

For clinic teams, this likely confirms what many already experience daily: medical recommendations are increasingly filtered through the lens of household budgets.

When medicine meets money

The study also highlights a tension many professionals feel but may rarely articulate openly: where does responsibility for affordability lie? When veterinarians were asked to choose between two statements, the split in how they responded revealed an important fault line in the profession:

• 57% agreed more that people should not own pets if they cannot afford care at current market rates; and
• 43% agreed more that the veterinary industry should be responsible for making care affordable.

On one side is the economic reality of running clinics amid rising wages, staffing shortages, equipment costs, rent, inventory expenses, and inflation. On the other is the welfare reality that pets still need care even when families are financially strained. Many teams are living in the middle of those competing truths.

Spectrum of care is known—but not always fully practised

One of the most encouraging findings in the report is that the concept of “Spectrum of Care” has broad recognition.

The survey defined “Spectrum of Care” as an approach in which recommendations are tailored to:

• the needs and resources of the client,
• the attributes of the pet, and
• the capabilities and experience of the veterinary team.

A striking 93% of veterinarians said they were familiar with the concept.

However, awareness did not always translate into consistent implementation. After completing a physical assessment,

• 72% said they typically present multiple options and allow the client to choose;
• 19% said they first try to understand the client’s goals, then recommend the most appropriate option—even if it is not the most advanced; and
• 9% said they start with the most medically advanced plan and adjust only if concerns arise.

This suggests that while flexibility is increasingly accepted, many appointments still begin with medicine-first frameworks rather than context-first conversations.

For technicians and CSRs, this may represent one of the greatest opportunities for practice improvement: understanding goals, limitations, and expectations earlier in the visit.

Financial conversations are still happening too late

The study found that many veterinarians do address affordability—but often only after recommendations for treatment have already been made. When asked when they explore financial concerns,

• 21% said before making recommendations,
• 51% said after making recommendations, and
• 28% said only if the client asks about cost or declines care.

The timing matters. When cost discussions happen late, clients may feel embarrassed, overwhelmed, or forced into declining a plan they never had a realistic chance of accepting. Teams, in turn, may experience frustration after investing time in diagnostics or treatment planning that cannot proceed. Earlier agenda-setting and proactive budget discussions may reduce these disconnects while improving trust.

Education gaps remain

Many clinicians appear to be learning affordability communication on the job rather than in school. The survey found that

• 75% of veterinarians said their education prepared them only a little or not at all to talk with clients about financial barriers; and
• 49% said their education prepared them only a little or not at all to offer a spectrum of care.

This has major implications for the profession.

Veterinary training traditionally emphasizes diagnostics, pathology, surgery, pharmacology, and gold-standard treatment planning. But modern practice increasingly requires skills in

• financial communication,
• shared decision-making,
• treatment prioritization,
• emotionally charged conversations, and
• balancing ideal versus achievable care.

These are learned skills—and increasingly essential ones.

Why some clinicians hesitate to offer lower-cost options

The report also explored why veterinarians may hesitate to present lower-cost or minimum-level options. Among respondents,

• 47% said this did not apply because they always offer a full range of options,
• 36% cited aiming for the best possible outcome,
• 28% cited recommendations from education or continuing education,
• 25% cited liability concerns, and
• 22% cited malpractice concerns.

This is an important nuance.

Reluctance is not necessarily about unwillingness to help. Often it reflects legitimate concerns, such as these:

• Will the pet suffer if we compromise?
• Will the client misunderstand the risks?
• Will peers judge the decision?
• Could I face professional consequences?

At the same time, 92% agreed that trying something—even if not ideal—is better than doing nothing. This suggests many veterinarians are philosophically open to pragmatic care, even if operational or emotional barriers remain.

Declined care affects teams emotionally

Perhaps the most powerful section of the report concerns emotional toll. When clients decline care,

• 98% of veterinarians worry the patient’s condition will worsen or become chronic,
• 91% worry about the emotional impact on the family, and
• 48% said inability to pay sometimes or often leads to euthanasia.

Most strikingly,

• Nearly three in four veterinarians said euthanizing a pet because the owner cannot afford treatment is one of the hardest parts of the job,
• 79% said it is difficult to see clients struggle to pay for care, and
• 44% said they feel frustrated when clients decline care because of cost.

These findings likely resonate beyond veterinarians alone. Technicians, assistants, CSRs, and managers often absorb the same moral distress, especially when they are the ones discussing estimates, witnessing tears, or supporting euthanasia appointments.

What practices can do now

While no single clinic can solve national affordability challenges, the study points toward some practical steps:

1. Normalize financial conversations early: Discuss budget ranges before diagnostics and treatment planning begin.

2. Train the whole team: CSRs and technicians can help identify concerns, explain options, and support communication consistency.

3. Use tiered treatment plans: Present essential, recommended, and comprehensive options when medically appropriate.

4. Make payment pathways visible: Many clients may not know financing exists unless it is proactively discussed.

5. Support staff wellbeing: Moral stress around declined care should be acknowledged, debriefed, and managed as a team issue—not a personal weakness.

The bigger picture

This report does not depict a profession lacking compassion. It depicts a profession carrying compassion inside an increasingly difficult economic environment.

Veterinary teams are trying to protect animal welfare, sustain viable practices, support staff, and serve clients whose financial realities may be changing faster than clinic economics can adapt. That tension is now one of the central stories of Canadian veterinary medicine.

The take-home message for veterinary teams

Affordability is no longer a side issue—it is a clinical issue, a communication issue, and a wellbeing issue.

For veterinarians and veterinary technicians, the path forward likely lies not in abandoning standards, but in expanding flexibility: earlier conversations, clearer options, stronger teamwork, and systems that allow more pets to receive some level of care rather than none.

Because in today’s practice environment, access to care is not separate from quality care. It is part of it.

Source

Gallup and PetSmart Charities of Canada. “State of Pet Care Study: Veterinarian Perspectives on Canadian Veterinary Care,” 2026.
https://www.gallup.com/analytics/659123/gallup-petsmart-charities.aspx