Lawsuits against veterinary fees? VDTH: Lawyers say GOT is unconstitutional

The evaluation of the scale of fees for veterinarians (GOT) is part of the normal procedure provided for by law. This involves looking at veterinary costs. The version that has been in force since November 2022 has caused a lot of unrest due to exploding expenses. The VDTH is particularly upset about this: In their opinion, the evaluation is not about improving the interests of animals, but about filling the wallets of big players in veterinary medicine. Chains are buying up more and more practices and clinics. Critical voices say that profit maximization comes before animal welfare. The Mars Group, for example, has now bought up 3,000 veterinary facilities worldwide. Almost 500 of these are in Europe, 78 in Germany. Presumably not to boost sales of chocolate bars.

What the VDTH accuses the ministry of: The evaluation is not aimed at clarifying the actual fee development and its causes and effects as a basis for corrections. “Instead, only the list of services and the simple fee rates are being revised, obviously with the aim of once again compensating veterinarians for inflation – at the expense of animal owners,” writes the association.

If you judge your own work …

It is interesting to look at the players. What the FN had already indicated in its statement (see below), the VDTH makes clearer in its statement: there is a “clear conflict of interest” within the ministry. The reason: “The consulting firm AFC, which had developed the controversial new calculation of the fee rates for the GOT 2022, has now been commissioned to evaluate its own study. The veterinarian Prof. Dr. Haunhorst, who was involved in the study as a subcontractor of AFC at the time, is now the responsible head of department at the BMLEH. And his predecessor Prof. Dr. Dr. Schick, also a veterinarian (and at the time the quasi client of the study), was promoted to State Secretary with the last change of government and is now head of the ministry.

Veterinary lobby takes precedence over concern for animals

A neutral assessment, i.e. evaluation, could not take place in this way. The VDTH’s conclusion: the way the evaluation is currently set up is “obviously intended to prevent a critical examination of their work (that of the two professors working in the ministry) and to meet the demands of the veterinary lobby”.

Taking legal action against vet bills?

“Huge scope for discretion and interpretation” of the GOT allowed for invoicing that was at the expense of the animal owners and insurance companies, and ultimately – due to the higher costs that not every animal owner can afford – also at the expense of the animals. The practice of “insurance-optimized billing” is GOT-compliant. This is nothing more than the fact that the bills for animals with insurance cover are higher than animal owners without insurance have to pay for comparable services. Even if even the President of the German Veterinary Association finds this reprehensible in terms of professional ethics, writes the VDTH.

A long road

The association concludes that lawyers should now be involved in the discussion about the GOT. Decisions based on precedents could possibly speed up the slow process. What you need to know: With the evaluation, changes (in whatever direction) will not happen soon. There will presumably be a directive procedure, drafts that will first have to be debated in the cabinet and then in the Bundesrat, possibly supplemented by expert hearings – so nothing will change in terms of veterinary costs at Germany’s pace.

What would a possible lawsuit look like?

When pet owners receive a bill, they usually pay it without protest, in the good faith that everything is in order. Pet ownership is always strongly associated with emotions. The horror of the cost is overshadowed by the joy that the four-legged friend is feeling better again. However, it is worth taking a closer look at the factor with which individual services are billed. Sabine Reimers-Mortensen, first chairwoman of the VDTH, gives an example: “For example, if a vet waives the home visit fee for a home visit, but then always charges at least twice the rate for each service. Or if the items “general examination” and “consultation” are billed separately instead of combined, as is standard, and the bill is therefore significantly more expensive. There are clinics where even the box is not charged at a single rate, but always at double the rate (58 euros/day). If a court were to rule in favor of the plaintiff in cases of obvious billing errors, then the vet would have to “refund” any overpayments. This is because, as not everyone knows, even the payment of an invoice made in good faith can be reversed within the limitation period.

Abolish GOT

In a letter dated April 10, 2026, the VDTH asked the BMLEH to explain whether and when the fundamental problems of the GOT, which have been known for several years, are to be solved. “If it is not possible to find a fair balance of interests between veterinarians and animal owners by re-regulating the GOT, the GOT will lose its raison d’être and must consequently be abolished.”

FN also mobilizes against GOT

Yesterday, the German Equestrian Federation (FN), together with the breeding associations for trotters and gallopers, wrote a press release to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture about the GOT. They had called for the evaluation mandate to be extended. One suggestion from the three associations was that the GOT should provide an “indicative but not binding framework”. FN President Martin Richenhagen had already suggested this in the podcast ERZÄHL MIR WAS VOM VFERD. “We are calling for the immediate abolition of the binding nature of the scale of fees in order to achieve immediate relief for consumers. In our opinion, the remuneration of veterinary services should be a matter for agreement between horse owners and veterinarians,” the three chairmen of the associations are quoted as saying.