Pets 'could save NHS £2.45b a year'
"Vets are well aware how important companion animals are to their owners."
NHS costs could be reduced by nearly £2.5 billion a year, according to a new report that, for the first time in 40 years, has documented the economic impact of UK pets.
International animal welfare and business experts drew on multiple sources to explore the direct and indirect benefits and costs of companion animals to society - including their influence on human physical and mental health, illness prevention and well-being.
Their report, Companion Animal Economics, has been published by the not-for-profit CABI. It estimates that pet ownership may reduce the use of UK health services by £2.45 billion every year - a conclusion drawn by examining healthcare savings through reduced numbers of doctor visits.
Little has been published on this topic since the 1988 report, Companion Animals in Society, by the Council for Science and Society. Over the past four decades, trends in pet ownership and associated industries have changed greatly.
The authors of the new report aimed to capture this modern context, encompassing issues such as pet tourism, pet obesity and expanding veterinary services. Positive and negative impacts were considered, including the cost of NHS treatment for dog bites and strikes.
University of Lincoln professor, Daniel Mills, who developed the report, said: "Vets are well aware how important companion animals are to their owners, but it is important that they appreciate the impact that they can have on the physical, mental and social health of both individuals and society more widely.
"This book should help raise awareness of this and their economic importance in times of economic uncertainty."
The report concludes that further research is needed on companion animals and their economic impact on society, which should be supported by the government.
The Greyhound Board of Great Britain has published new vaccination guidance, with all greyhounds registered from 1 January, 2027 required to have the L4 leptospirosis vaccination, rather than L2.
