Introduction

Private equity is an ever increasing presence in US veterinary care. In 2024 is reported that over 30% of general veterinary practices are under corporate ownership up from 8% just over 10 years ago. When it comes to specialty care which includes vets that provide 24/7 emergency care it is estimated that over 75% of practices are now under corporate ownership. AAHA estimates that in 2024, 50% of all veterinary practices will be corporate/private-equity owned.

What is Private Equity?

Private equity firms invest in companies by acquiring a controlling interest, typically using a mix of their own capital and borrowed funds. Their goal is to increase the value of these companies over a period of several years through strategies like streamlining operations, cutting costs, expanding into new markets, or restructuring management. Once they’ve improved the company’s financial performance, they aim to sell it—either to another company, another investor, or through a public offering—at a profit. Private equity firms generally focus on maximizing returns for their investors, which can sometimes lead to short-term decision-making focused heavily on financial metrics.

Why is Private Equity interested in Veterinary Care?

Private equity firms are increasingly targeting veterinary practices because they see an opportunity to extract strong profits from a growing and emotionally driven industry. Pet ownership is on the rise, and spending on veterinary care tends to hold steady even during economic downturns, making it a dependable source of revenue. Most clinics are still independently owned, allowing firms to buy them up relatively cheaply, consolidate them into larger groups, and boost margins through cost-cutting and standardization. The goal is to scale quickly and increase short-term profits, often by raising prices, pushing unnecessary services, and pressuring vets to meet financial targets. While the industry’s stability and growth are appealing to investors, the shift in focus from patient care to profit can erode trust, reduce the quality of care, and harm both veterinarians and pet owners in the long run.

What are the possible consequences of consolidated Private Equity ownership of veterinary practices?

The consolidation of veterinary practices by private equity firms brings some efficiencies, such as centralized administration and purchasing power, but it also raises serious concerns—especially around the quality of care. As firms focus on maximizing financial returns, veterinarians can face pressure to hit revenue targets, limit appointment times, and recommend more billable procedures, sometimes at the expense of what’s medically necessary or appropriate. Staff levels may be cut to reduce costs, leading to overworked teams and less attention for each patient. Corporate protocols may replace individualized treatment plans, reducing a vet’s ability to tailor care to each animal. Continuity of care can also suffer, as frequent staff turnover and clinic rebranding disrupt long-standing relationships between pet owners and their trusted providers. Ultimately, the shift from care-first to profit-first can undermine the very foundation of veterinary medicine: the health and well-being of animals.

What happens if interest rates rise and continue to remain high in the current economy?

If interest rates remain high following a period of near-zero rates and rapid acquisition, private equity–owned veterinary practices could face serious financial strain. Many of these acquisitions were financed with cheap, variable-rate debt under the assumption that borrowing costs would stay low. As interest payments rise, the cost of servicing that debt increases significantly, squeezing margins and putting pressure on the parent firms to extract even more revenue from the clinics—often through price hikes, staffing cuts, and aggressive upselling. This can degrade the quality of care and increase burnout among veterinary professionals. If profit targets can’t be met, some firms may be forced to sell off clinics at a loss, restructure, or even shutter underperforming locations. The entire business model, which relies on flipping assets for profit, becomes much riskier when capital is expensive and exit opportunities dry up. In the worst case, pet owners and veterinary staff could be left to deal with the instability caused by distressed or collapsing ownership structures.

Don’t regulatory protections exist for animals and their owners?

In the United States, animals and their owners have relatively weak regulatory and legal protections when it comes to veterinary care. Unlike human medicine, veterinary services are not subject to the same rigorous oversight, and malpractice laws are limited in scope. Animals are legally considered property in most jurisdictions, which means that if something goes wrong—such as misdiagnosis, negligence, or even death—the financial liability is often limited to the “market value” of the pet, rather than the emotional or familial role they play. State veterinary boards are often underfunded and slow to respond to complaints, and there’s little transparency or recourse for owners seeking accountability. This lack of strong regulation and meaningful consequences creates an environment where corporate-owned practices can prioritize profit with minimal fear of legal or professional repercussions, leaving pet owners and their animals vulnerable.

What has the FTC had to say about growing consolidation?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has raised concerns about the growing consolidation of veterinary practices by private equity firms, particularly highlighting how it can reduce competition and harm consumers through higher prices and lower quality of care. In 2022, the FTC intervened in multiple deals involving JAB Consumer Partners, a major investor in veterinary services, requiring divestitures of clinics in several markets and imposing strict conditions on future acquisitions. The Commission noted that unchecked roll-ups could significantly diminish local competition in emergency and specialty veterinary care. FTC Chair Lina Khan has also warned about the broader effects of consolidation, financialization, and non-compete agreements in the industry, suggesting they could undermine the ability of veterinarians to provide quality service and operate independently. The agency is especially concerned with “serial acquisitions”—multiple smaller deals that collectively lead to dominant market control without triggering standard antitrust review thresholds.

What about Mars?

Mars, Incorporated isn’t a private equity firm, but it’s one of the largest corporate owners of veterinary practices in the world. Best known for its candy and pet food brands, Mars has built a massive presence in veterinary care through its pet care division, owning major chains like Banfield, VCA, BluePearl, and AniCura. While Mars positions itself as a long-term operator rather than a short-term investor, many of the same concerns raised about private equity apply here too.

Because of its size and reach, Mars has enormous influence over the veterinary landscape, from pricing and protocols to purchasing and staffing. This level of consolidation can limit competition, drive up prices, and standardize care in ways that may prioritize efficiency and profit over individualized treatment. Veterinarians working in Mars-owned clinics often report reduced autonomy and pressure to meet corporate performance metrics. And while Mars invests heavily in branding, research, and infrastructure, its dominance raises questions about whether pet owners truly have choice—or whether the veterinary care they receive is shaped more by corporate strategy than clinical judgment.