4 ms·

Ideally you'd expect the market to deal with it how it normally does, which is to have people open up competing practices to undercut them. I think the problem

Ideally you'd expect the market to deal with it how it normally does, which is to have people open up competing practices to undercut them. I think the problem is that VC has correctly identified this as not only a field where people are willing to pay a lot based on emotion, but it's also regulated enough that their strategy of buying out existing practices leaves them fairly safe from a lot of competition. I wouldn't be surprised if non-competes factor heavily into their strategy either. In that case I would hope the government could at least step in to combat anti-competitive behavior (which I think this definitely is), but that always seems to lag a decade after it's first needed.

ceejayoz 2y ago
Locally, the answer was that the folks who could open up a competing practice were under non-compete agreements if they left the PE-owned place. (We had a local legislator step in to help void them.) https://news.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=210&catId=3115&Id=11865695 https://news.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=210&catId=3115&Id=1186... > Marion said early efforts to enlist former VSES doctors or others in the community to start an ER were discouraging. Some VSES doctors had already left the area, some had signed contracts for new jobs locally, most were worried about the constraints of noncompete agreements they signed with Thrive, and "no one seemed eager to take on the tremendous responsibility of owning, managing and running an emergency hospital even with the help and support of the local veterinary community."
- koolba 2y ago
  Will be interesting to see how the recent FTC non compete ban plays out in this space. It seems like a prime candidate to promote competition as the key licensing is held by the individual (the vet) as opposed to the company.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Yes, I'm hoping that holds up in SCOTUS.
    - aaronbrethorst 2y ago
      I hope you’re planning on voting in November.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Of course, but ask Obama if that guarantees anything as far as SCOTUS goes.
        aaronbrethorst 2y ago
        It doesn't guarantee anything, especially given the Republican super-majority already ensconced in SCOTUS, but there's only one small-d democratic way out of this situation...
    - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
      I don't it's a blatant power grab by a federal agency that doesn't have the authority. That being said I hope Congress takes up the issue and actually passes a law banning it.
      - thfuran 2y ago
        Congress already passed a law granting the ftc the authority to prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair practices affecting commerce.
- reactordev 2y ago
  Good thing non-competes are now illegal. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Maybe. After the inevitable judge shopping (I'd predict northern Texas; https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/politics/judge-shopping-northern-district-texas/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/politics/judge-shopping-north...) leading to a national injunction goes up to SCOTUS, we'll see.
    - WWLink 2y ago
      hahahaha. Imagine if SCOTUS decides said law banning non-competes is unconstitutional. Could they do it in such a way to kill the "non-competes are unenforceable" law in CA? that would suck.
      - dantheman 2y ago
        No, it's the FTC doesn't have the authority - this is an easy thing to do federally, just convince congress to ban them... most things should not be decided by the executive.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        The FTC has had authority to regulate unfair trade practices since 1914. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o... > Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress. It's hard to see non-competes as anything other than an "unfair method of competition", and it's shameful it has taken this long to act.
mattmaroon 2y ago
I don’t think it’s regulated much at all. It’s nothing like human medicine. Their moat is that there aren’t many veterinarian schools.
- kbenson 2y ago
  Requiring a degree or certification (at a legal leval) is a form of regulation. That it's costly and time consuming just makes that regulation a larger barrier. If you can somehow remove much of those people that already have the means to satisfy that regulation from the market, you've successfully controlled the supply for at least the amount of time it takes the pipeline to produce more of them. Now I'm wondering if the VC firms took steps to disrupt that pipeline as well in some way. That would be pretty overt, but I've never gotten the impression that these people feel the need to be at all subtle.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    I mean, it’s always been regulated if you count that. I think what’s really happened is pet ownership (and the amount of care per pet) has simply grown at a higher pace than vet schools.
    - amirhirsch 2y ago
      pet insurance has expanded the demand
      - mattmaroon 2y ago
        Yes. That must be true because every vet office I go to advertises it heavily. The way car dealers push warranties. And also, some theorize low birth rate is causing people to treat their pets like children thus necessitating more care. Think how many people call themselves a dog mon. Also, it’s really only been a couple decades since Frontline caught on and people largely let their animals live inside. Vet schools are largely for-profit, often in other countries. I have a good friend who does admissions for one in St Kitts, they turn down a lot of people. I bet they all do. Demand grows faster than supply, prices go up. Prices go up enough, PE firms start buying them.
willis936 2y ago
>always seems to lag a decade after it's first needed Not always. Back when the US enforced antitrust there was no decade wait for results. However these days all you can expect from the government are low corporate tax rates, high interest rates, and a thumbs up saying the economy is strong. There is no antitrust enforcement coming. The only thing there is an appetite for is to loot the younger generations.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rtkwe 2y ago
The other problem is private equity can burn money in the short term to undercut new competitors at their most vulnerable times and return to profit gathering soon after.
juujian 2y ago
There won't ever be enough vets to create a functioning market. And most have to go into agriculture anyways.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  >> And most have to go into agriculture anyways. This is patently false. There has never been money in cow doctoring like small animals, and the growth in new vets is almost universally for fur babies.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    I was going to say, if you've ever heard the devops analogy about cattle vs pets, the cattle don't get treated very well since the goal is that they're fully replaceable.
drewcoo 2y ago
> you'd expect the market to deal with it how it normally does I expect it to work just like it did with human health care. People happened before pets. https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/burgeoning-role-venture-capital-health-care https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/burgeoning-r... The short term effect of VCs managing budgets might mean more support for public health initiatives (which the AMA has historically opposed) because they lower costs. So maybe we'll all be a little less sick or even a little less fat. Assuming they can focus on timespans longer than 3 months. I'm concerned about what MBAs can do to us all after that honeymoon period because there are less benevolent ways to cut expenses, too.

ceejayoz 2y ago

Locally, the answer was that the folks who could open up a competing practice were under non-compete agreements if they left the PE-owned place. (We had a local legislator step in to help void them.) https://news.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=210&catId=3115&Id=11865695 https://news.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=210&catId=3115&Id=1186... > Marion said early efforts to enlist former VSES doctors or others in the community to start an ER were discouraging. Some VSES doctors had already left the area, some had signed contracts for new jobs locally, most were worried about the constraints of noncompete agreements they signed with Thrive, and "no one seemed eager to take on the tremendous responsibility of owning, managing and running an emergency hospital even with the help and support of the local veterinary community."

koolba 2y ago
Will be interesting to see how the recent FTC non compete ban plays out in this space. It seems like a prime candidate to promote competition as the key licensing is held by the individual (the vet) as opposed to the company.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Yes, I'm hoping that holds up in SCOTUS.
  - aaronbrethorst 2y ago
    I hope you’re planning on voting in November.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Of course, but ask Obama if that guarantees anything as far as SCOTUS goes.
      - aaronbrethorst 2y ago
        It doesn't guarantee anything, especially given the Republican super-majority already ensconced in SCOTUS, but there's only one small-d democratic way out of this situation...
  - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
    I don't it's a blatant power grab by a federal agency that doesn't have the authority. That being said I hope Congress takes up the issue and actually passes a law banning it.
    - thfuran 2y ago
      Congress already passed a law granting the ftc the authority to prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair practices affecting commerce.
reactordev 2y ago
Good thing non-competes are now illegal. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Maybe. After the inevitable judge shopping (I'd predict northern Texas; https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/politics/judge-shopping-northern-district-texas/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/politics/judge-shopping-north...) leading to a national injunction goes up to SCOTUS, we'll see.
  - WWLink 2y ago
    hahahaha. Imagine if SCOTUS decides said law banning non-competes is unconstitutional. Could they do it in such a way to kill the "non-competes are unenforceable" law in CA? that would suck.
    - dantheman 2y ago
      No, it's the FTC doesn't have the authority - this is an easy thing to do federally, just convince congress to ban them... most things should not be decided by the executive.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        The FTC has had authority to regulate unfair trade practices since 1914. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o... > Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress. It's hard to see non-competes as anything other than an "unfair method of competition", and it's shameful it has taken this long to act.

mattmaroon 2y ago

I don’t think it’s regulated much at all. It’s nothing like human medicine. Their moat is that there aren’t many veterinarian schools.

kbenson 2y ago
Requiring a degree or certification (at a legal leval) is a form of regulation. That it's costly and time consuming just makes that regulation a larger barrier. If you can somehow remove much of those people that already have the means to satisfy that regulation from the market, you've successfully controlled the supply for at least the amount of time it takes the pipeline to produce more of them. Now I'm wondering if the VC firms took steps to disrupt that pipeline as well in some way. That would be pretty overt, but I've never gotten the impression that these people feel the need to be at all subtle.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  I mean, it’s always been regulated if you count that. I think what’s really happened is pet ownership (and the amount of care per pet) has simply grown at a higher pace than vet schools.
  - amirhirsch 2y ago
    pet insurance has expanded the demand
    - mattmaroon 2y ago
      Yes. That must be true because every vet office I go to advertises it heavily. The way car dealers push warranties. And also, some theorize low birth rate is causing people to treat their pets like children thus necessitating more care. Think how many people call themselves a dog mon. Also, it’s really only been a couple decades since Frontline caught on and people largely let their animals live inside. Vet schools are largely for-profit, often in other countries. I have a good friend who does admissions for one in St Kitts, they turn down a lot of people. I bet they all do. Demand grows faster than supply, prices go up. Prices go up enough, PE firms start buying them.

willis936 2y ago

>always seems to lag a decade after it's first needed Not always. Back when the US enforced antitrust there was no decade wait for results. However these days all you can expect from the government are low corporate tax rates, high interest rates, and a thumbs up saying the economy is strong. There is no antitrust enforcement coming. The only thing there is an appetite for is to loot the younger generations.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rtkwe 2y ago

The other problem is private equity can burn money in the short term to undercut new competitors at their most vulnerable times and return to profit gathering soon after.

juujian 2y ago

There won't ever be enough vets to create a functioning market. And most have to go into agriculture anyways.

skeeter2020 2y ago
>> And most have to go into agriculture anyways. This is patently false. There has never been money in cow doctoring like small animals, and the growth in new vets is almost universally for fur babies.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  I was going to say, if you've ever heard the devops analogy about cattle vs pets, the cattle don't get treated very well since the goal is that they're fully replaceable.

drewcoo 2y ago

> you'd expect the market to deal with it how it normally does I expect it to work just like it did with human health care. People happened before pets. https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/burgeoning-role-venture-capital-health-care https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/burgeoning-r... The short term effect of VCs managing budgets might mean more support for public health initiatives (which the AMA has historically opposed) because they lower costs. So maybe we'll all be a little less sick or even a little less fat. Assuming they can focus on timespans longer than 3 months. I'm concerned about what MBAs can do to us all after that honeymoon period because there are less benevolent ways to cut expenses, too.