The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7316 p348
11 September 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

· Personal control
· Shipman
· Animal testing
· Charter
· Statins
· Cholesterol testing
· Media scrutiny
· Retention fee
· Enhanced services

Letters to the Editor

Retention fee

Overseas pharmacists priced out of the market

From Mr D. Lau, MRPharmS

The abolition of the overseas member fee will result in a 156 per cent price increase for practising pharmacists overseas. Because we use far fewer Society services, this hardly seems reasonable or fair. For our money, we get The Pharmaceutical Journal routed by economy surface mail via Stockholm (only three months late if we are lucky), our name on a certificate and precious little else. Many of us maintain our registration out of nostalgia for times past, or perhaps for the half-formed thought of returning to the UK one day. Incomes in most other countries are considerably lower than in the UK and the financial burden for many will be significant. Using even a relatively affluent society like Australia as an example, the average pharmacist will have to work 40 per cent longer than his UK colleague to pay his membership dues, in addition to his local registration fees.

The Society seems hell-bent on becoming just another pharmacy board, losing the international respect it once had. If you want us to leave, why not just ask us to, rather than pricing us out of the market?

David Lau
Melbourne, Australia

Navel gazing?

From Mr S. Dajani, MRPharmS

The Journal’s editorial was buoyant about the registration fee hike but it must be understood that other annual subscriptions are also paid to the National Pharmaceutical Association, local pharmaceutical committees or the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists, among others. Also our fees are unfavourable in comparison with GPs and dentists when you consider their salaries are greater and who receive payments for continuing professional development.

More part-time and semi-retired locums, who fulfil a great interstitial role, will be encouraged to retire and this will further burden the current workforce shortage. Despite protestations from myself and the treasurer of the Society a third tier of fees was unsupported because the majority of Council members believed bureaucratically it would be harder to implement and the final policy would reflect CPD costs more accurately.

The membership registration fee has become the vanguard of salvation every time the establishment finds itself in yet another financial predicament, in part through lack of government negotiation. I hope The Journal appreciates that Lambeth must also show the same strict level of commitment to the finances as the membership. I hope, therefore, it will support an extensive review of costs, directorships, corporate governance and procedures within the building (which will include the Banks report) and that resources are fairly distributed between regulatory and membership roles. Some will criticise this approach as parochial navel gazing but responsible members would like to see the best accountability for good housekeeping as part of a responsible audit. This will decisively prepare the profession for the new charter and for radical health care environments to enhance further professional development.

This should help reduce further spiralling costs, develop a more progressive and ambitious professional practice leadership programme, contribute to better horizon planning and should help The Journal and pro-hike supporters to remain optimistic about the future.

More importantly, the Society needs to prove that an increase in registration fees correlates favourably with both membership activity and regulatory achievement if the members are to feel this increase is justifiable. Time will tell.

S. Dajani
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Serious error in career choice

From Mr G. M. Teal, MRPharmS

I have been listing the charges made to me by various craftsmen who I have had to engage during the past year. They make interesting reading:

Decorator £26 per hour
Motor mechanic £35 per hour
Plumber £40 per hour
Locksmith £60 per hour

All of these pursue their chosen career without the imposition of punitive retention fees or compulsory continuing professional development!

As a 67-year old ex-proprietor pharmacist now performing the occasional locum for considerably less, I am beginning to wonder if I made a serious error in career choice all those years ago.

Graham M. Teal
Ecton, Northampton

Save costs by choosing PJ Online?

From Mr S. Krykant, MRPharmS

I feel that I must protest against the outrageous hike in the retention fee. It covers more and more activities that many pharmacists do not take part in or have interest in. Would I be eligible for a discount in my fee if I chose not to have the PJ delivered each week, probably at great expense, and read it online instead? Surely there is no reason why I cannot have this option.

Stefan Krykant
Reading

Publish employment figures

From Mr J.H. Verrall, MRPharmS

T. J. Benson identifies the reason for the increased fee as being “a means of funding the overmanned Lambeth management” (PJ, 28 August, p286). As another who is contemplating not paying the increased fee I ask that you publish the number of personnel employed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the total salary bill for 1998, 2000, 2002 and that projected for 2004.

John H. Verrall
Battle, East Sussex

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Media scrutiny)
Next Topic (Enhanced services)