Home > PJ (current issue) > News / News Centre | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7317 p370
18 September 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader


News summary

Related websites
NHS Pensions Agency (www.nhspa.gov.uk)


Hospital pharmacists urged to keep an eye on pensions

Pension changes could leave hospital pharmacists worse off

Pension changes could leave hospital pharmacists worse off

Hospital pharmacists are being urged to keep track of the Government review of NHS pensions and report back any changes that they fear may leave them worse off.

The advice comes from the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists after reports that the Government is considering increasing the age at which people can first draw on their pension from 60 to 65. The change would apply to people joining the scheme from 2006.

The advice follows a survey of 5,000 doctors by the British Medical Association which revealed that 51 per cent of them were worried that medical recruitment would suffer if the change went ahead.

President of the guild, Tony West, said the current NHS pension was a good deal for pharmacists, especially as it offered a final salary payment. He said: “I am concerned about the review on the basis that people don’t understand their pension anyway because it isn’t something they look at when they are young.”

Mr West believed that “most people” would agree with the findings of the BMA survey and feel they would be worse off if they are not entitled to draw their NHS pension, without financial penalty, from the age of 60. “But I think you have to balance that against that the rights that people have now to continue working to whatever age they want. I think the review is overdue and I think it has to take into account what is happening in the rest of the pension industry,” he said.

His advice to hospital pharmacists was to keep an eye on the review, which is being carried out on behalf of the government by the NHS Confederation. He added: “They should let the guild know if they have any concerns about whether they will suffer and we will feed it back into the review.”

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal