| · Patients' own drugs
· APPS
· CHRE
· Homoeopathy
· Retention fee
· The register
· The Society
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fee
Members should be provided with budgeted levels of expenditure
From Mr S. A. Wheatley, MRPharmS
I have followed the recent correspondence concerning the proposed increases
in the levels of retention fees with great interest. I find myself empathising
with those who have written in protest.
However, the fundamental issue has not been addressed. How is it intended
to spend the extra revenue? The members need to be provided with the
details of the budgeted levels of expenditure from which the proposed
fee increases are derived. Can we be assured that all possible concomitant
economies have been implemented? Only then will we be able to judge whether
or not these swingeing increases are justified.
Stan Wheatley
Blandford Forum, Dorset
Not too late to change its mind
From Mr D. R. Thomas, MRPharmS
The editorial in the PJ (14 August, p208) remarked that The
Journal was bracing itself for an onslaught of correspondence. Since that date
the PJ has been swamped with letters from members expressing their vociferous
dissent and dismay at the Council’s decision to remove the part-time
category within registration.
After 40 years on the Register I am aghast at this short-sighted decision.
It is totally detrimental to the workforce numbers which will be required
with the initiation of the new NHS contract and additional services to
be supplied. The independent pharmacy contractor requires the help and
assistance of part-time pharmacists to fill those odd days and holiday
time to recharge the batteries and alleviate stress.
I wish to refer those Council members who voted for the change in the
Byelaws to read and study the research work of Karen Hassell of Manchester
University. At a community pharmacy conference on 23 November 2003 at
which Dr Hassell presented her findings, one concern raised was how pharmacists
could take on extended roles in the future if there is a supply problem
in the workforce today (PJ, 29 November 2003, p731). Further evidence
of concern is concluded in the paper “The National Workforce Census:
(3) The part-time pharmacy workforce in Britain”, (PDF 75K) published
in the PJ (12 July 2003, p58).
I sincerely hope that a rethink on this catastrophic decision is not
too late and that Council members will revise their decision. When once
questioned, Winston Churchill said that there was nothing wrong in changing
your mind; that showed that you were still thinking.
David R. Thomas
Feltham,
Middlesex
Key points need to be addressed
From Mr C. Polwart, MRPharmS
I have read with interest the deluge of letters, which I am sure the
Council expected, following the announcement of a 25 per cent increase
in pharmacist retention fees (PJ, 14 August, p209). It strikes me that
a number of key points have, however, not yet been addressed:
· The Council has stated its reason for increasing the fee is that it
is “not prudent to depend to such a large extent on surplus income
from publishing activities, which operate in a risk market (PJ, 14 August,
p233). The Council needs to explain why it was previously acceptable
to rely on income from a risk market, and why this is no longer prudent
to do this, otherwise this sounds like financial white-wash.
· Why is the Society able to register technicians at an annual rate of £85
per annum (PJ, 4 September, p329), while it will cost the same organisation £256
per annum to register their colleagues? It is not unreasonable that registration
fees should be scaled to take account of income, however, if the increase
in pharmacist fees is to compensate for the additional costs of registering
technicians the Society needs to be open and honest about this.
· Many pharmacists in the community sector are able to claim their registration
fee back from their employer, while few in the managed sector are able
to do this. Has the hike in fees resulted from the reduction in pharmacists
from the managed sector on the Society’s Council?
· Many of the correspondents have been overseas pharmacists or retired
pharmacists who have stated their intent not to renew their registration
due to a combination of the rise in fees and the introduction of compulsory
continuing professional development. Is the rise in fees to compensate
for the expected drop in numbers of pharmacists resulting from the requirement
to participate in CPD?
· The Society’s Council is required to have a 60-day period of
consultation on changes to the Byelaws (which includes the retention
fee.) At the end of the consultation period the Secretary to the Council
is required to “report any observations received by him upon the
said proposal”. Are letters to The Pharmaceutical Journal reported
to the Council as observations, or should the correspondents be addressing
their communications to the Secretary of Council?
· According to the report of the Council meeting in The
Pharmaceutical Journal, the Council “decided that over the next five years the
retention fee will need to be increased” (PJ, 14 August, p233).
Should the Council not be setting out its plans for this increase over
the next five years? Perhaps a 25 per cent increase would be slightly
less of a bitter pill to swallow if the Council was reassuring the membership
that increases in the following four years would not exceed a certain
level. Or are we to see 25 per cent increases in the retention fee each
year for the next five years — which would see the retention fee
rise to over £600.
Calum Polwart
Durham
Take a long hard look at the administration
Miss A. D. Pritchard, MRPharmS
I am sure that I share the views of many older, retired pharmacists
who have found themselves in my position and who have been called on
to provide cover for emergency situations where a pharmacist is urgently
required. I am appalled at the changes which are to take place next year.
The discontinuation of the part-time fee will mean that many will either
opt for non-practising registration or will end their membership. This
will create an even greater problem than exists at present.
The statement that pharmacists registered as non-practising cannot give
advice I believe will be an even greater incentive for ceasing registration.
Having trained as a pharmacist, and worked for many years in various
capacities building a considerable background of knowledge and always
keeping abreast of developments, one cannot suddenly wipe the slate clean
and forget. I believe that the answer will be to cease registration and
I shall certainly be considering the position carefully.
I suggest that the Council also considers the implications. If more money
is required to run the Society perhaps a long hard look at the administration
should be taken. With so many new directors are we not emulating the
NHS where there are so many chiefs and not enough indians.
A.D Pritchard
Tarporley,
Cheshire
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal