Who Are the 'Lost Pet Owners'? A Quarter of Households, Quantified

The bottom quartile of dog-owning households spends $88 or less per year on veterinary care, and a meaningful share of cat-owning households reports close to zero veterinary spending, according to analysis of the American Pet Products Association's 2025 National Pet Owner Survey. James W. Lloyd, DVM, Ph.D., CEO and senior consultant for Animal Health Economics and former dean of the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine, calls this population the "lost pet owners" — roughly a quarter of all dog- and cat-owning households, most of whom already sit inside practice databases, identifiable by a pattern of minimal engagement over time.

The label is not a judgment, Lloyd writes. These owners are not careless or indifferent about their animals' welfare. They are a sizable, identifiable population whose relationship to veterinary care is mostly quiet — and whose needs the profession has generally ignored.

What does the spending data show?

The analysis separates total pet-related spending from veterinary spending, broken out by species.

For dogs:

• Total annual pet expenses: median $1,045, mean $1,557 per dog
• Bottom quartile: $560 or less per year overall
• Veterinary spending: median $201, mean $483 per dog
• Bottom quartile on veterinary care: $88 or less annually

For cats, the gap widens:

• Total annual expenses: median $575, mean $929 per cat
• Bottom quartile: $298 or below
• Veterinary spending: median $100, mean $225
• Bottom quartile: virtually nothing

For practitioners who have long suspected feline patients are underrepresented relative to feline ownership rates, Lloyd writes, these data offer a quantifiable explanation.

How did premiumization create this gap?

U.S. Census Bureau data from 2013 to 2023 show every income quintile gained ground in percentage terms, but the dollar gains diverged sharply. The lowest fifth of households gained about $2,890 over the decade, while the top 5% gained more than $100,000 in 2023 dollars. Households in the top 10% gained more wealth in the past five years than the bottom 90% combined.

The pet industry — veterinary medicine included — responded largely through premiumization: higher-end diets, advanced diagnostics, specialty referral care, and boutique retail. The term originated in the alcohol, coffee, and airline industries, where companies drove growth by convincing existing customers to trade up rather than by selling more units.

The strategy worked. Industry-wide figures for 2025 show $158 billion in consumer expenditures and a $437 billion total contribution to the U.S. economy. But a strategy aimed at the top of the income distribution leaves a large population behind.

What predicts being a 'lost' pet owner?

Multiple logistic regression analyses, run separately for total pet spending and veterinary spending, and separately for dogs and cats, identified the strongest demographic predictors.

For dog owners on total spending:

• Owning more dogs (mean 1.60 dogs among "lost" owners versus 1.26 among others)
• Male gender
• Non-white race
• Lower household income, with risk rising progressively up to about $75,000
• Lower educational attainment — high school carried the highest risk, a bachelor's degree or higher the lowest

On veterinary spending specifically, the factors shifted to owning more pets, non-white race, generation (Gen Z and millennial owners at highest risk), income (highest risk below $45,000, lowest above $75,000), and education.

For cat owners on total spending: owning more cats (mean 2.20 among "lost" owners versus 1.50), male gender, non-Hispanic/non-Latino ethnicity, and baby boomer or Gen X status. Income followed a more nuanced curve — risk declined up to $75,000, sat intermediate between $75,000 and $150,000, and was lowest above $150,000. When the analysis isolated veterinary spending for cats, the predictors simplified to income and education alone.

Why does income tell only part of the story?

Roughly three in ten lost dog owners — and a comparable share of lost cat owners — report household incomes above $75,000, some considerably higher. A similar share holds a bachelor's degree or better, and a smaller slice holds graduate or professional degrees.

Lloyd argues this nuance is the most actionable finding. Outreach built purely around price sensitivity — payment plans, discount wellness packages — will resonate with only part of the population. "A comfortably upper-income, college-educated client who isn't bringing the cat in isn't waiting for a lower price," he writes. "They're waiting for a compelling reason, a relationship, an open door, or simply a nudge."

The generational split reinforces the point. For dogs, lost veterinary status concentrates among younger owners, suggesting a habit-formation problem. For cats, generation drops out entirely as a predictor once veterinary spending is isolated — the barrier is socioeconomic and cuts across generations evenly. A single outreach message aimed at "younger" or "older" clients will land unevenly depending on species.

What changes at the front desk?

Lloyd translates the findings into three practice-level moves. First, use the regression profile to target reminder calls, wellness plan offers, and tiered-pricing conversations — a multi-pet, lower-income, high-school-educated household is statistically more likely to be deferring visits. Second, counter premiumization with flexible payment plans, tiered wellness packages, transparent pricing, and clear communication about preventive care's value. Third, drop the assumption that under-utilization equals inability to pay, and lead with relationship-based conversations for well-off clients who simply lack commitment to routine care.

Practices willing to meet this group on its own terms, Lloyd concludes, stand to gain both caseload growth and a genuine reduction in one of the more persistent barriers keeping pets from care.