The benefits of implementing a pet insurance program for clinic staff
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In general economic terms, veterinary income is well down on the salary scale for professionals. As a direct consequence, salaries for nonveterinary employees have been described as “appallingly low,” after results from both the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association and the Nova Scotia Veterinary Medical Association nonveterinarian wage reports were published (1). Further, it has been documented that for a typical client, the ceiling for a veterinary bill when euthanasia becomes a viable option is in the $550 to $600 range, and that the ceiling would rise to $2000 with pet insurance (2). The need for “third party” payment of fees is obvious. Currently, veterinary practitioners are only just beginning to realize the benefits that well-designed pet insurance policies can provide — not only to their clients and patients, but also to themselves. The percentage of pet owners in North America who have pet insurance is very low — less than 1% of pets are insured, while in the United Kingdom and Europe close to 20% are insured (1). This opportunity for growth provides an effective method of assisting the profession out of the financial doldrums. Most veterinary practices provide medical and surgical care for employees' pets as an “in-house” benefit, by significantly discounting the services. Even with the discount, clinic staff members are often placed under a difficult financial burden, while at the same time the practice is financially short-changed. It is probably fair to say that, under these circumstances, the care that could be provided for an employee's pet is often compromised. With pet insurance, the need for care for the employee's pet at emergency or specialty facilities will become a viable option for the employee, and the practice will receive full payment for services rendered. Veterinary technicians, assistants, and receptionists are among the most pet-oriented people, for whom the human/animal bond is very strong. The benefits of them having pet insurance as a staff benefit can only enhance the hospital working relationship. There are significant economic and marketing benefits for practices that participate in an employee pet insurance program. By receiving the “full value” of pet insurance, the employee and the whole health care team will become familiar with the range of services offered and will also become aware of the “intrinsic value” of knowing that their pets will be well cared for. Staff familiarity with the insurer's policies will provide more positive messaging to clients. This should result in reduced confusion about the pet insurance industry, as it currently exists, and an increased number of insured clients' pets in the practice. Practice income will be increased for 2 reasons: less discounting of services and more procedures done for both employees and regular clients. Further, as with any business, certain sound business principles apply to veterinary practices. One of these is to fix costs, wherever possible. As a staff benefit, an employee pet insurance program addresses this perfectly. There is a huge economic opportunity for all veterinary practice owners, not only to embrace the pet insurance concept, but also to enhance that transition through an employee pet insurance program as a staff benefit. George Guernsey
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,028 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».