Veterinary bills are climbing fast enough to change how Americans think about pet ownership. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that veterinarian services rose 4.7% year over year in June 2026, while the broader pets, pet products, and services category rose 3%. Routine pet ownership now costs an average of $4,272 per year. CBS News calls it the “Petflation,” as pet owners worry about rising pet food prices. Yet those figures leave unanswered questions about why a routine visit to the vet can now feel like a financial decision.
Inflation appears as the standard explanation. Industry discussions often point to rising labor costs, higher equipment and pharmaceutical expenses, and ongoing post-pandemic operational pressures as key factors. Those pressures are real. Yet the ownership structure behind veterinary medicine is changing at the same time, raising discussions about how prices are set and how much competition remains local.
Corporate ownership now accounts for roughly 25% of primary-care veterinary practices in the United States, according to a 2025 analysis published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, , while corporate consolidators control an estimated 75% of specialty and emergency practices. The growing concentration has drawn scrutiny from regulators and renewed questions about how ownership affects competition, pricing, and consumer choice.
The Federal Trade Commission has already taken action against consolidation in the veterinary sector. In 2022, the agency required divestitures connected to JAB Consumer Partners’ proposed $1.65 billion acquisition of Ethos Veterinary Health, citing competitive concerns in several markets, including Washington, D.C.
The consolidation trend extends beyond veterinary clinics themselves. In February 2026, Covetrus and MWI Animal Health announced a $3.5 billion merger, pending regulatory approval. Greater concentration among major suppliers could reduce the leverage independent clinics once had to negotiate prices, potentially adding another source of pressure to veterinary costs.
Ry Huegel has experienced these changes from inside the industry. He operates three independently owned veterinary clinics in Washington, D.C.: Palisades Veterinary Clinic, Union Veterinary Clinic, and Dupont Veterinary Clinic. He also comes from a family with decades of experience in veterinary medicine.
For Huegel, one of the most significant changes since 2020 has been the rising cost of labor. “I’m charging and paying people more than I was in 2020,” he says. Higher wages and increased competition for veterinary professionals have placed substantial financial pressure on independent practices.
Huegel believes corporate consolidation can intensify that competition. He says corporate groups have aggressively recruited veterinary employees, while some acquired clinics continue operating under familiar local names. “They keep the name, they keep the people for three years, and they keep advertising as locally owned,” he says. “Nobody is the wiser.”
For Huegel, the issue is not simply who owns a veterinary practice. It is whether pet owners know who ultimately controls the business and the decisions made within it.
Supplier consolidation has created another challenge. Huegel recalls a time when he could compare prices among roughly 10 veterinary suppliers and use that competition to negotiate better rates. He says that landscape has narrowed considerably.
“I used to be able to shop from 10 vendors, now there’s really only two or three,” he says. “I can’t shop around.”
He argues that reduced supplier competition can eventually affect patient care. When financial decisions are increasingly determined by corporate structures rather than individual veterinarians, he believes those business considerations can eventually influence medical decisions as well.
Independent practices are therefore facing pressure on multiple fronts: higher labor costs, increased competition for staff, rising medical expenses, and a supplier market that offers fewer alternatives. Huegel says his three clinics have remained independent through a period of rapid industry consolidation, but maintaining that independence has required scale and resilience.
“The biggest lesson I’ve learned is that if it was just one of us, we would be gone. And that’s frightening. That’s terrible for everybody,” he says.
Huegel also sees broader economic consequences. Independent veterinary clinics often purchase services and supplies from other local businesses, meaning their economic impact extends beyond the practice itself. He argues that corporate systems can centralize purchasing and administrative functions, potentially shifting spending away from neighborhood businesses.
“There are very few small ones out there just like me in the independent veterinary side that are keeping prices from totally ballooning,” he says.
For Huegel, greater transparency would be an important first step. He believes veterinary practices should be required to clearly disclose corporate ownership so pet owners can distinguish independently owned clinics from practices controlled by larger companies. He also favors closer regulatory scrutiny of supplier consolidation and stronger enforcement of existing rules governing corporate ownership of veterinary medicine.
The broader debate is ultimately about how the veterinary market should function as consolidation accelerates. Veterinary practices will continue to face higher costs associated with staffing, technology, pharmaceuticals, equipment, and increasingly sophisticated medical care. Those pressures are real regardless of ownership.
But Huegel argues that ownership and market concentration deserve equal consideration when consumers face rising veterinary bills. Independent practices, he believes, provide an important competitive counterweight by allowing clinics to compete on price, service, and relationships with their communities.
As corporate ownership expands across veterinary medicine, the central question may no longer be simply why veterinary care is becoming more expensive. It may be how much independent competition can survive in the market and what happens to affordability, access, and consumer choice if that competition continues to disappear.
