Retention fee
Will overseas members remain on the Register?
From Mr A. Pothecary, MRPharmS
Once again the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s retention fee has
gone up by significantly more than the rate of inflation. Of more concern
is the change to the fee structure.
According to the results of the 2002 workforce census (PJ, 9 August 2003,
p183), 10.8 per cent of the pharmacists on the register live overseas
and would, more than likely, be paying the overseas retention fee, perhaps
in addition to a retention fee to the registering authority in whichever
country they reside. The same census showed that 73 per cent of overseas
pharmacists are employed within pharmacy and, under the new arrangements,
will now have to pay the full, “practising” fee rather than
the overseas fee they have previously been charged. For these pharmacists
the retention fee will be increased by 156 per cent, not the 25 per cent
quoted in The Journal.
I am sure that most of these members will leave the register rather than
pay over double the rate they paid this year for no increase in the quality
of service they receive. Not all will be able to do so, of course; for
example, Jersey is classed as “overseas” and although pharmacists
here have to register with the Royal Court on the island before they can
practise, this registration is subject to continued registration with
the Society (albeit as an overseas member currently paying the overseas
fee). However, the census referred to previously states that 9 per cent
of the overseas members are in the British Isles but not Britain (ie,
Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Northern Ireland).
In a worst-case scenario, 90 per cent of overseas pharmacists could leave
the register (about 4,200) costing the Society around £420,000 in
lost retention fees (at 2004 rates) with the predictable consequence being
another substantial increase in next year’s retention fee.
It is also conceivable that a similar situation might occur with those
pharmacists currently registered as part-time, again leading to a loss
of retention fees.
Finally, although £256 might only be two days’ locum fees (before
tax and other deductions), it is still a large sum of money to find in
one lump sum, especially just after Christmas. It is already possible
for pharmacists to pay their fees as a single direct debit payment, so
why not let us pay over the course of the year by direct debit? This would
ensure a steady stream of income over the year for the Society from the
membership. Perhaps the Society could offer a discount for payment of
the fees in full at the start of the year. I am sure this would ease the
burden for many pharmacists, particularly those now likely to struggle
because of a huge increase in their retention fee.
Andrew Pothecary
Jersey,
Channel Islands
Why treat members with contempt?
From Mr M. A. Bowe, MRPharmS
Why does the Royal Pharmaceutical Society continue to treat its members
with contempt? The massive increase in fees cannot be justified. To say
that this huge rise provides “remarkable value for money” and
“is cheap at the price” (PJ, 14 August, p208) could not be further
from the truth. What do the majority of members really get for the privilege
of paying £256? To paraphrase Edwin Starr: “The Society. Pah!
What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!”
Michael Bowe
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
We should all resign from the Register
From Mrs D. Drury, MRPharmS
Regarding retention fees, I suggest we all resign from the Register.
That will mean promoting “pharmacist-free” dispensaries as they
advertise in hospital. We could then increase checking technicians in
community pharmacies and relax supervision.
That way we can do without pharmacists altogether and none of us need
ever worry about fees again. Great,
D. Drury
Bridlington,
North Humberside
A churlish decision by the Council
From Mr B. R. Edwards, MRPharmS
Next year I will have been on the Register for 50 years. I am now retired
and enjoy keeping in touch with the profession through The Pharmaceutical
Journal and wish to retain my membership of the Society. I am dismayed
to learn that the reduced rate for retired pharmacists is to be abolished,
the justification being that this fee does not cover the cost of collecting
the fee, maintaining the Register and the cost of providing The Journal.
It seems to be a churlish decision of the Council to take away the privilege
of the reduced rate from pharmacists who have paid the normal retention
fees throughout their careers. Perhaps the intention is to discourage
retired pharmacists from remaining members by increasing the fee to £46
next year (an increase of 109 per cent) and eventually to one-third of
the practising fee?
Brian R. Edwards
Wirral,
Merseyside
Increase premises fee, not personal fee
From Mr P. A. Baker, MRPharmS
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is asking members for a 25 per cent
increase in their retention fees to cover its increased spending. It lists
as its main extra expenditure the setting up of the dispensary technicians’
training scheme. This is surely mainly of benefit to proprietors of pharmacies
rather than individual members, and should therefore be paid for by an
increase in the premises retention fee rather than in members’ fees.
Peter Baker
Herne Bay,
Kent
Leaving the Register after 50 years
From Ms B. M. Rainbow, MRPharmS
I have been privileged to continue working at my local hospital for eight
hours a week until the age of 76 years. December 2004 will see me retiring.
The fee of £256, continuing professional development and the job
itself changing lead me to think “no thanks”.
I progressed from technician in 1946 to pharmacist in 1955 and, yes,
it has been a good career.
Brenda Rainbow
Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Staffordshire
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal