PJ Online | PJ Letters | Retention fee

I have been following the rather one-sided correspondence regarding the increase in retention fees with sorrow more than anger. The letter from Perry Melnick (PJ, September 25, p420) highlights why I should feel this way.

Although I have kept on the register, it has been increasingly difficult for me to justify why I do this to many of my academic colleagues who have pharmacy degrees but have decided not to continue as members of the profession. I fear that even more pharmaceutical scientists will decide that the money earned for 30 or more hours’ examining of two PhD theses (the equivalent of the new retention fee) is better used elsewhere. Where then will the Royal Pharmaceutical Society get its speakers to present its face at major scientific meetings?

I feel particularly sad at the fact that there must be many pharmacists who have contributed much to the profession over the years who now feel that it is not worthwhile financially to pay the fee and will quietly (or hopefully perhaps, not so quietly) slip away into oblivion, all their hard work through the years, at best apparently, unnoticed and, at worst, despised by the current leaders of the profession.

The viewing of older people as irrelevant and only “problems” is one of the nastier aspects of our age and it is sad to see that it is making inroads into our profession.

I hope some candidates to champion their cause will stand with specifically this as a one-issue ticket at the next Council election. Those most recently elected to the present Council can hardly complain if that happens.

Peter Houghton
Professor in Pharmacognosy
King’s College London

Perhaps it is time for a regulation-only fee

From Mr A. L. West, MRPharmS

At the meeting of the council of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists (GHP) on 23 September the 25 per cent increase in retention fee was discussed. The council members present agreed that we should write to express our concerns, especially given other correspondence from members in the letters pages of the PJ. Although we may understand some of the reasoning behind the increase there are several questions that now arise and require consideration.

· The lack of any response from the Society to legitimate concerns raised by members who work restricted hours. It is the view of the GHP council that we can ill afford the resignation of such members from the profession at a time when we are aware of our workforce problems. Additionally we would question whether the new fee structure could be seen as discriminatory, especially against senior members.

· The lack of any debate on potential options to reduce Society expenditure.

· The monopoly position of the Society as the regulator being used to bolster the “representation” role.

n With a plethora of pharmacy organisations, in all sectors of practice, offering “representation” roles is it time to review this component of Society activity?

It is, perhaps, within the last of these points that the most fundamental question is hidden . . . why are there so many pharmacy organisations? The most obvious answer is that pharmacists become members of these organisations out of free choice, based on their perception that the Society is not actually representing their interests. They part with their money on the basis of getting a “voice” they believe in or to work with colleagues in similar areas of practice.

Given that a precedent has been set with a “regulation only” retention fee for pharmacy technicians, perhaps the same offer should be made available to those pharmacists who do not believe that the Society represents their sphere of practice? This question is of critical importance. If there is a shared belief within the profession that a significant proportion of members would opt for “regulation only” we, collectively as the profession, have a problem that needs to be addressed urgently and this simply cannot be done by the Society working in isolation.

Tony West
President
Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists

How will Birdsgrove House donations be affected?

From Mrs J. A. Jenkins, MRPharmS

You have already published a number of letters expressing the concern that some older members have with regard to their future ability and willingness to pay even a reduced membership fee. Loss of membership would mean that they would no longer receive The Journal and consequently would lose touch with pharmacy. As a retired locum, I continue to pay the reduced fee so that I can still read The Journal, not only for articles of professional interest but also to have news of friends and colleagues, and to be entitled to attend branch meetings.

Another relevant consequence would be that older members who relinquish membership would no longer be able to take advantage of a stay at Birdsgrove House when unwell or convalescing, at a time of life when they are most likely to be in need of such help. These members are those who have paid their fees for a professional lifetime and most probably have contributed generously over the years to Birdsgrove House and to other Society charities.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of donations for these charities derives from older members and how such an anticipated reduction would affect the funding and well-being of Birdsgrove House.

I have to say that the expression “thrown on the scrapheap” springs to mind.

June Jenkins
Barry, Vale of Glamorgan

Plenty of enthusiasm but little spare money

From Mrs B. P. Bennett, MRPharmS

Your editorial “Practising in the modern era” (PJ, 25 September, p406) appears to equate the present dissatisfaction of part-time pharmacists with the compulsory need to practise continuing professional development currently being introduced by the Society. This need not be the case.

I have undertaken continuing education, and now CPD, for the best part of my 34 registered years, and wholeheartedly agree with its necessity to enable any pharmacist to continue to practise in the profession. The point that many of we part-timers are making is that the proposed expense of annual registration will be prohibitive compared with a pharmaceutical income of “two or three days a month”. When coupled with a presumably increased professional indemnity insurance, so essential in this day and age for the pharmacist working occasionally in locum tenens, I estimate needing over two months’ work (not guaranteed) just to cover my expenses. I am sure I am not alone.

Older members of the Society may well have plenty of time, and even enthusiasm, to spend on CPD; sadly, some of us have little money to spare, and consider a 220 per cent increase in fees untenable.

Barbara P. Bennett
Banbury, Oxfordshire

New Charter needs a “grandfather” clause

From Mr D. K. Rayner, MRPharmS

Further to the abolition of the part-time retention fee, I should like tp say that some of us have been on the register for many years (almost 48 in my case). It is not continuing professional development that is the main barrier, but the economics of remaining in membership.

A member receiving a state pension and, say, two annuities, may feel able to hold off inflation. Two or three days’ locum work per month might generate an extra £6,000 per year but, jointly with other income, that would still be taxable at least at the standard rate. The proposed grossly inflated fee is, of course, tax-deductible, but the proportion this bears to the net (pharmacy) income is, on my calculation, about 5.5 per cent.

I consider that to pay the Royal Pharmaceutical Society such an amount among my other increasing overheads is unreasonable and that is why so many, including myself, feel it will no longer be worthwhile to stay on the register come January.

In my opinion we are the most over-regulated body in existence with a host of high-salaried directors, the huge overheads of a large London head office and with some of the most over-zealous inspectors one might imagine (in my experience not always endowed with a leaven of natural justice). Is it any wonder that when the chips are down we see the new Charter as one unlikely to decrease significantly our burdens of cost, regulation and clerical toil.

It seems to me that what we need is a “grandfather” Charter whereby those of us with a lifetime of service would be granted reduced fees for a few years and, simply in regard to that long service, the grant of free fellowship designation for those, say, with 45 years or more on the register. In other walks of life a lifetime’s service might generate a knighthood and I note that other bodies duly elevate their elder members. In that way some of us might reach our 50th anniversary of registration.

David Rayner
Bradford

What about us?

From Mr S. Spiero, MRPharmS

In reading your leading article (PJ, 25 September, p406) I thought I should remind you that not only pharmacists who work part time are revolting against the increased fees. What about men like myself who have been on the Register for well over 50 years, who are not capable of any part-time work and just enjoy their weekly Journal to hear all the news of the changing face of pharmacy? I have been retired for many years and would loathe to have to give up my status for financial reasons. Surely we are a category in ourselves?

Simon Spiero
Manchester

Disappointed at decision

From Mrs A. Farrelly, MRPharmS

Having voted in the recent Council Election for the Save Our Society members in the mistaken belief that they were concerned with the members’ welfare, I am disappointed to discover that power has gone to their heads and, with the rest of the Council, they propose to decimate the ranks of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society by the swingeing increase and unfair removal of concessions.

Consider the loss not just of part-time and overseas members but others such as Antony Marshall (PJ, 18 September, p383). Will the remaining members be prepared to have yet another swingeing increase to cover the loss of these fees?

Anne Farrelly
Wallington, Surrey

Write directly to the Secretary and Registrar

From Mr D. R. Thomas, MRPharmS

Further to my letter (PJ, 25 September, p418) I write to request that those pharmacists whose correspondence has been published with regard to the new Byelaws on retention fees and the removal of the part-time category should, without delay, send their observations and views directly to the Secretary and Registrar.

I was reminded of this on reading the excellent letter by Calum Polwart (PJ, 25 September, p419) when he referred to the 60-day consultation period on changes to the Byelaws and the necessity to conform to the protocol of direct submissions. My personal assumption is that the 60-day period ends on 14 October.

David R. Thomas
Feltham, Middlesex

When forwarding comments made during consultation periods to the Privy Council, the Secretary and Registrar includes copies of relevant letters published in The Journal.
— EDITOR

Extend direct debit facilities

From Ms C. N. Brenton, MRPharmS

Like many of your correspondents I share their outrage at the 25 per cent increase in the membership fee for 2005. However one small thing that could be done to ease the burden — arguably more of an issue for part-time pharmacists (and not just those working only 13 weeks per year) is to extend the direct debit facilities and make the fee payable in monthly instalments. The expected popularity of this would greatly reduce the administrative burden of chasing non-payers in March and, who knows, may even help with Lambeth’s cash flow.

Caroline Brenton
Winchester, Hampshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (The register)
Next Topic (The Society)