| Prescription checking
Nomenclature
Training
Decision support
Dispensing errors
NHS branding
The Charter
Retention fee
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fee
Paying last year's balance
From Mrs A. Morant, MRPharmS
As a self-employed locum, it is impossible to have foreknowledge of
the total amount of work that will be obtained during the forthcoming
year. It is therefore helpful to be able to pay a part-time retention
fee at the beginning of the year and the balance later.
However, despite the fact that the notes accompanying the annual retention
fee form have the superscription “One payment, one form, one envelope” and
state: “If you previously paid a reduced fee
... contact the registration section of the Society”, the design
and layout of this new form makes no provision for retention fees to
be paid in two tranches.
Surely, it would have been a simple matter to add another category to
the form to relate to the balance of fees carried over from 2003? This
would have cut costs and sped fee collection.
Annette Morant
Edgware, Middlesex
Why was Freepost used?
From Dr R. J. Harman, MRPharmS
It never ceases to amaze me how profligate organisations are with other
people’s money. Alongside all the exhortations this year to pay
the retention fee by 1 January, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has
decided to be excessively generous by providing a Freepost facility to
return the payment. What a waste of money!
If 43,000 pharmacists were to make use of this facility, and the Freepost
charge from Royal Mail is for a second class stamp, it would cost £8,600
to fulfil this charge. That equates to more than 40 full membership retention
fees straight down the drain. Moreover, that estimated cost does not
take into account the extra mailing charges incurred for those payments
sent in from overseas.
What is the justification for this unwarranted largesse? And if my estimates
are incorrect, how much does it cost to have this Freepost facility for
fee payments?
Robin Harman
Farnham, Surrey
Raised hackles
From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS
No. I do not want to claim a
record because my retention fee notice only arrived on 8 January, but
the envelope did raise two concerns.
First, since the postmark and the return address are both a long way
from Lambeth, the distribution and collection processes seem to have
been contracted out. In view of the number
of complaints noted in The
Journal (3/10 January, pp17–18), can we assume that there is a
penalty clause which will be implemented?
My second point is even more serious since it concerns the implications
of the threat that failure to pay by 1 January “will be treated
less leniently”, which seems to imply that the Secretary and Registrar
has been failing to comply with Byelaw II:6, not something which I believe
to be the case. If it is the Council’s intention to change the
two-month notice in the Byelaws then the membership is capable of appreciating
any reasons put forward for doing so. Vague threats about undefined and
punitive changes can only serve to raise hackles, particularly when accompanied
by patently inefficient delivery of notices.
Ian Caldwell
Larkhall,
Lanarkshire
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
states:
Please see NatWest’s announcement below.
NatWest
'We're Sorry Members and Premises annual retention 2004
As yuo may be aware The Royal Pharmaceutical
Society has recently appointed its principal bankers, Nat West,
to undertake the annual retention exercise.
The transfer of work has been more complex than
anticipated, and this has caused a delay in forms being sent
to members, and consequently a short delay in the processing
and issuing of formal receipts.
NatWest apologises for the inconvenience that
these delays may be causing at this key time of Members' annual
retention and wishes to assure the Society and Members that the
situation is being rectified and all forms will be handled
within the agreed timescales.' |
The bank has
acknowledged its contractual responsibility to the Society and
has acted promptly to ensure that the Society does not suffer loss
from
the delays which have arisen.
The current Byelaw will be applied this year. Although the vast
majority of members pay their retention fees within a reasonably
short time,
a substantial minority, in excess of 5,600 last year, wait until
after they have received an erasure letter. In the past formal
erasure letters have been sent out when about 10 per cent of
retention fees
are outstanding and this has led to the retention cycle being
unduly extended. Starting the erasure process for so many members
is a
significant expense which ultimately must be paid for by the membership. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.