| · Retention fee
· Shipman inquiry
· Politicians
· Simvastatin
· EHC
· Careers in pharmacy
· Packaging
· Wildlife
· The Charter
· Council elections
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fee
Shhh ... don’t tell anyone
From Dr R. J. Harman, MRPharmS
Does the Royal Pharmaceutical Society think that members are stupid?
Did it think that noone would notice that the creation of just two categories
of membership (practising and non-practising) would, by default, abolish
the part-time category? And that, as a result, those currently registered
as part-time, paying a retention fee of £116 in 2004, would face
a whacking 220 per cent increase to £256 in 2005?
How many of the approximately 5,000 currently part-time registered pharmacists
(PJ, 10 July, p71 PDF(40K)), who by definition work less than 10 hours per week,
are likely to feel that their income justifies the fee?
Unlike a high proportion of full-time employees, many of those working
part time do not get their retention fees reimbursed by their employer — or
if they do, it is only a proportion equivalent to the number of hours
per full-time week that they work.
If the Society believes that such massive increases in retention fees
are warranted, it should at least have the courage to come out and say
so openly and honestly.
Robin J. Harman
Farnham, Surrey
Need to keep a balance
From Mr A. D. Allen, FRPharmS
It was interesting to read (PJ, 14 August, p233) of the Council’s
decision to implement part of a five-year plan to improve the Society’s
financial security. That part involves increasing the membership fees
by 25 per cent for the year 2005.
If the Society’s stability is to be continued, the percentage of
income derived from membership and premises fees will have to increase
over and above inflation for a number of years to achieve the end result.
This is nothing new as previous treasurers, including myself, have done
exactly the same thing only to find that in subsequent years the Council
has not had the desire to continue this trend because of political pressures
from within and without Lambeth. Has this Council the desire? Only time
will tell but I can only hope that it does, otherwise financial stability
will not be achieved. The other factor that concerns me is that whenever
there is an increase in fees, there seems to be a desire to increase
spending in the following years, which seems to defeat the whole purpose
of topping up reserves. I would hope that, since I left Council, internal
budgeting and financial controls have been improved and strengthened
although I have seen little sign of this as an outsider. In the past
couple of years a number of senior appointments have been advertised
at substantial salaries bolstering a management structure which would
seem to me to have only one purpose — that is to create departments
over and above that which is necessary and to spend money that the Society
can ill afford.
The other issue raised is that of using the contribution of the successful
publications business to boost the Society’s reserves. The question
I would ask is why? Of course, any membership organisation needs to have
sufficient reserves to enable it to survive financially but, equally,
does not need to have reserves over and above that which is financially
necessary for that “rainy day”. The issue is how large the
reserves needed by our body are, and what proportion of the publication’s
net profits are used for membership and regulatory activity and what
proportion for reserves.
I totally support the idea of having fees that are sustainable for the
organisation, this is long overdue, but we need to keep a balance between
this and having a rather wealthy and profligate organisation.
A. D. Allen
Chigwell, Essex
How will fees affect register?
From Ms A. Farrelly, MRPharmS
Since I am registered at present as a part-time pharmacist, if I am
to continue to provide cover for a proprietor running clinics, my registration
fee will rise from £116 to £256: a considerable rise. Together
with the boring bureaucracy of recording continuing professional development,
I wonder if I will be alone in considering, not the insulting and expensive
non-practising register, but leaving the profession altogether.
I wonder if the Council has undertaken any estimates of the probable
effect of this move. How many pharmacists are likely to go on the non-practising
register? How many part-time locums might resign? How many pharmacists
will be unable to undertake new services due to lack of locum cover?
Ann Farrelly
Wallington, Surrey
Farewell pharmacy, I shall miss you!
From Mr J. A. Lane, MRPharmS
Here I was, at age 68, winding down to full retirement by a gradual
reduction in locum hours. This year I qualified for the first time for
a reduced registration fee. Now that the part-time reduced fee has been
abolished, a full (increased) fee will be required from me. This, for
working a regular Saturday morning, and an odd day here and there to
help friends in an emergency. It is additional to a requirement for a
fully written up quota of continuing professional development, which
may or may not be successfully assessed. I accept that CPD is essential,
but it should be undertaken in paid time, away from the pharmacy, at
a specialist centre.
I registered at the age of 21 and wondered if I might achieve the quiet
satisfaction of having practised pharmacy for 50 years, in 2007. Now
retirement beckons and I cannot but feel that I have received two hefty
kicks from the Council to help me through the door.
Jim Lane
Stourbridge, West Midlands
Time for Plumb to retrain as a plumber
From Mr D. S. Plumb, FRPharmS
It is many years since I have felt compelled to write to The Journal,
but the scale and structure of the new fees warrant, I believe, strong
objections.
You say in your editorial (PJ, 14 August, p208) that The
Journal is bracing
itself for an onslaught of correspondence — I am sure this will
be an understatement. The comparisons that you make with other professionals
are both misleading and insulting. Although the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society strives to enhance the professional status of pharmacists, little
progress has been made in enhancing the financial status of pharmacists,
many of whom are now having to work in prescription factories, spend
many hours on continuing professional development and work even harder
in providing new and extended roles.
Consequently, to compare our fees with those paid by doctors and dentists,
who now earn vastly more than the average pharmacist, is both naive and
insulting. Many GPs in my area are now enjoying the luxury of a Monday
to Friday, 35-hour week. Dental hygienists now earn much more than pharmacists,
and the case of plumbers, etc, has been well documented.
An increase of 25 per cent is simply not justified. To abolish the part-time
fee and over 60 fee is insulting to those who have given much to the
profession.
There are many semi-retired pharmacists propping-up the creaking service
provided by many community pharmacies (particularly multiples). The costs
and time involved in undertaking CPD plus the costs of indemnity insurance
have already caused many semi-retired pharmacists to re-evaluate their
position. The new fee structure could surely cause many of them to retire
from the register completely. The consequences for community pharmacy
could be very damaging.
This is certainly the time for Plumb to consider retraining in plumbing.
David S. Plumb
Lower Upham, Hampshire
Society will do well when members do
From Mr C. O. Agomo, MRPharmS
The comparative analysis made (PJ, 14 August, p209) to justify
the increase in the membership fees is not a bad one, but let us not forgot that all
the professional bodies mentioned do have something in common, which
is the existence of separate regulatory bodies and professional bodies.
Members of these professions are willing to pay more, realising that
in times of trouble, including negotiating for better pay and status,
they are going to receive unbiased support.
I doubt if pharmacists will be happy to give more money to the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society, particularly at a time when their earnings are
dwindling rather than increasing, as experienced in these other professions.
It is funny that when it comes to membership fees, we remember doctors,
nurses and dentists but refuse to emulate them in the way they regulate
and represent their members. The Society will do well financially when
their members are doing well, but will struggle when they are struggling.
The editor of the PJ (14 August, p208) should also note that it is not
every pharmacist that is engaged in locum work, for which some employers
have refused to pay beyond £17 per hour — similar to what
some pharmacy technicians are earning in hospitals.
Chijioke O. Agomo
London N7
Wages will not increase by 25 per cent
From Mr I. M. Grace, MRPharmS
How delightful to find out I will be obliged to pay an extra 25 per
cent for the privilege of being a pharmacist. If only I were likely to
get a 25 per cent increase in wages as a hospital pharmacist — we
do not all work as locums you know.
Unless I am dreaming, doctors and dentists get paid far more than we
do as pharmacists so it is hardly surprising that their subscription
fees will be higher.
I. Grace
Dewsbury, West Yorkshire
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal