As Today’s Veterinary Business covered, a new report from AAHA and Pawlicy Advisor puts hard numbers on something we all feel in the exam room. Eighty six percent of veterinarians say they adjust a recommended treatment plan at least once a week because of a client's budget, and the average vet professional now has 4.4 difficult financial conversations weekly, up from four last year. Perhaps the starkest number in the report: respondents estimated that 13 percent of euthanasias performed in their practices were driven by an owner's inability to pay for treatment, not the pet's prognosis.

But the report also points to a curious gap. Most veterinary teams (87 percent) believe pet insurance helps clients say yes to recommended care, yet only 39 percent regularly bring it up, largely over concerns about liability and time. The recommendations lean into fixing that: build a script, loop in front desk staff, and point clients toward an independent, licensed marketplace rather than naming a provider yourself.

The topic has drawn additional coverage and opinions this month as well, including this piece on client friendly cost conversations and this take on what's driving the affordability crunch.

The U.S. Department of Education has proposed a sweeping overhaul of how higher education accreditation works, and veterinary medicine is squarely in the crosshairs. Under the new framework, trade associations like the AVMA would be barred from any role in funding, staffing, oversight, or policymaking for the accreditors they're tied to, which would functionally remove the AVMA Council on Education (COE) from its own accrediting body. The proposal would also let multiple accreditors compete in the same field and ease rules around distance education. Public comment closes September 21, with implementation expected to phase in through July 2027. For now, the COE remains in place and nothing changes for currently accredited schools.

If this sounds familiar, it's because the DOE's proposal explicitly references antitrust concerns tied to the AVMA and Lincoln Memorial University. That dispute has been playing out in court and this week a federal judge dismissed LMU's antitrust lawsuit against the AVMA, ruling the university hadn't yet been harmed by the COE's decisions. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning LMU can refile, so this is very likely not the last word.

One thing worth clarifying for anyone fielding client or staff questions: this overhaul targets institutional accreditation, meaning the bodies that accredit veterinary schools themselves. It has no bearing on AAHA hospital accreditation, which is a separate, voluntary, third party system with no ties to federal financial aid or the Department of Education.

Where this leaves veterinary education is genuinely unresolved. If the AVMA loses its formal role, does a new accreditor emerge, does the COE restructure to comply, or does something else fill the gap entirely? Nobody has a confident answer yet, and that uncertainty is worth watching over the next year.

September is Suicide Prevention Month, and it’s important we take a moment to recognize the unique pressure and emotional challenges that many of us feel. Remember - prioritizing your own well being is the most important thing you can do for yourself, your family, and your team.

If you or someone on your team could use support, or you just want to know what's available, Not One More Vet has the resources you need.

Here’s what else:

Avid readers will know we're generally pro-AI around here. It has real value for a lot of professions, ours included, whether that's creating efficiencies or better health outcomes for patients. It's not perfect, and it never will be, but it's not all bad either.

It is, however, the source of some well earned hatred. Especially when AI replaces human creativity, the results are usually pretty terrible. And the hatred looks a little more justified when you consider that the people building the top AI models recently put the odds of AI destroying humanity within a decade at around 10 percent. Ten percent is... a lot. That's not a number to wave off.

All of that is creating something interesting. The backlash toward AI, especially in creative fields, has pushed brands to lean hard into anti-AI advertising, proudly showcasing human made content as a selling point. It's not without irony. We'd bet good money that most of these companies are still using AI somewhere behind the scenes, just maybe not in the ad itself.

A few we've noticed lately:

Polaroid put up a billboard on Coney Island this summer reading "go jump in some water before the data centers drink it all up."

Apple's new intro animation went out of its way to make clear it was filmed for real, no CGI, no AI involved.

The Economist launched ads aimed at what they're calling "cognitive surrender," the growing tendency to accept AI generated answers without applying any critical thinking of your own.

And Garage Beer and Liquid Death teamed up on a 90 second musical asking people to mail in their pee to help cool AI data centers. Yes, really.

At face value, this swing back toward human made creativity is a nice thing to see. The cynic in us knows these companies are also capitalizing on anti-AI sentiment to sell more product, all while quietly running AI somewhere in their own operations. But if the end result is humans getting paid to make genuinely funny, weird, and memorable things, we'll take it. For now, that's a good thing.