A client relayed a story to me on how they had to take their four
year old ninety pound hunting dog to an emergency clinic because
she had been bitten by a copperhead. The bill ended up being just
under $2000, with the fee for the antivenin comprising nearly half
of that amount. No doubt the antivenin helped speed the recovery
process in this particular case, but the dog would have probably
done just fine without it. And at $300 to $500 a vial, with
multiple vials sometimes needed, it can add up fast.

I have to say that in over twenty years of veterinary practice
(with over ten years as an emergency clinician), I've treated
multiple cases of snakebite (mostly copperheads and water
moccasins) and never used antivenin. I never lost a patient either.
Does this mean it's never needed? "Never" is a strong word. Here
are a few scenerios where antivenin might come in handy:

1. Cats, puppies and adult dogs that weigh less than 20 lbs and are
bitten by a rattlesnake or a cottonmouth.

2. All dogs and cats that are bitten by exceptionally large snakes,
especially large rattlesnakes.

3. All dogs and cats that are bitten on the tongue or on the torso,
regardless of the type of snake involved.

4. All dogs and cats that receive multiple bite wounds, regardless
of the type of snake involved.

5. All dogs and cats that are bitten by a dying snake, regardless
of the type of snake involved. In case you didn't know, the
attitude of the snake at the time of the bite can determine the
severity of intoxication. For example, snakes that bite defensively
will deliver less venom than those aggressive ones that take the
offensive. In some instances, defensive bites may not deliver any
venom whatsoever. The worst type of envenomation will come from a
snake that is agonal, or in its death throes. In nearly all of
these cases, the snake will inject its full complement of venom
into its victim.

6. All dogs and cats bitten by a coral snake. Antivenin is a MUST
in these cases. Unfortunately, supplies of coral snake antivenin
are extremely limited and may not be available in the near future.

Those cases of mine I told you about earlier? None of them fell
into the above categories. Most snake bites veterinarians see occur
in medium to large size dogs (especially hunting dogs) that get
bitten on the face. And these dogs usually do just fine on a
standard course of intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and pain
medication. Sometimes the bites occurred on the legs and digits.
These "digit" bites seemed to always take a long time to heal and
timely antivenin therapy would probably help shorten this recovery
period.
 
If you can afford it, then by all means have your veterinarian
administer antivenin in the event of a snakebite. But if you can't
afford, chances are your pet will do fine without it with standard
supportive care. Let your veterinarian know about your cost
concerns. He/she will be able to advise you on the best course of
action based on your pet's own unique circumstance.

In case you haven't heard, Representative Thaddeus McCotter, a Republican Congressman from Michigan, has sponsored a bill that would allow pet owners to deduct up to $3500 from their taxes to help pay for "qualified pet care expenses" for their pets. This would amount to a savings of anywhere from $350 to $1000 per household, depending upon tax bracket.

Better known as the HAPPY (Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years) Act, the proposed bill has a legion of proponents who hail it as wonderful gesture that acknowledges  the importance of the human-companion animal bond in our society. While it is indeed a notable gesture, I can't help but have a few reservations about it.

First of all, who stands to benefit the most from the HAPPY Act? You guessed it. Veterinarians. In fact, I worry that government subsidized veterinary care would only serve to drive up fees and costs for procedures, with veterinarians knowing that pet owners can now afford higher priced services. 

Secondly, tax payers who do not itemize would not be able to take advantage of the tax break. Unfortunately, many middle to lower income households fall into this category and they are the ones that need this help the most. Even for those who do itemize, the savings realized would be significantly less than their higher income peers due to a lower tax bracket.

Finally, with the federal deficit the way it is, more federal tax expenditures like this don't make sense to me. But that's just my opinion. Regardless of whether or not you think the proposed bill is a good idea or a bad idea, let your own voice be heard. Contact your Congressional Representative this holiday season and let him/her know what you think about the HAPPY Act.

Your opinion matters.