Why the Society’s fee structure has to change
The President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
Nicholas Wood, addresses concerns about the Society’s
proposed new fee structure
The President: not appropriate to rely on fluctuating income from
publishing |
The consultation period on the proposed new
personal retention fee structure
and fee level for 2005 has now drawn to a close. Members have had the
opportunity to have their say and some have, indeed, taken that opportunity.
The 28 responses we have received, along with the 42 letters on the subject
that have appeared in The Pharmaceutical Journal, have been sent to the
Privy Council to help inform its decision.
Although the number of responses submitted was low, those members who
took the trouble to respond raised concerns that I think it only fair
to address. It is important that members are aware that the changes are
based on a decision to adopt a strategic approach to future financial
planning as well as to rationalise the structure of the register to make
it fit for the future.
Over recent years, the scope of the Society’s activity has increased
enormously. Of course, there has been much work to bring our regulatory
framework up to date to ensure that the public continues to hold pharmacists
in high regard. But there has also been a huge increase in the professional
development and leadership work that the Society undertakes to make the
most of the many and unprecedented opportunities that are open to the
profession. Influencing national policy that affects pharmacists, contributing
to the roll-out of new developments in pharmacy and supporting new professional
roles — these are key areas where the Society needs to play a major
part.
All of this activity requires resources. We have two principal income
streams: fee income and the surplus we derive from our highly successful
publishing business. Over the years, we have not raised our fees in proportion
to the growth in activity. This means that, however rigorously we budget — and
our budget setting and expenditure levels are closely scrutinised and
controlled at every level — our costs have overtaken the income
derived from fees.
So how have we managed to balance the books while accommodating all the
new work? The answer lies with the success of our publishing operation,
which produces high quality books and journals that are sold the world
over. Over the years, we have become reliant on the contribution from
publishing, which has come to subsidise a significant proportion of the
Society’s activities both in professional leadership and development
and in regulation. But publishing is a high-risk business and operates
in a volatile market. The Council has concluded that we would be failing
in our duty to continue to base the future of the Society — and
of the profession — on a fluctuating source of income. Having given
a commitment to taking forward the Society as a professional organisation
as well as a regulatory body, the Council believes that it is our duty
to ensure a planned financial base for the future.
Over five years, we plan to place the organisation on a much firmer financial
footing, with our core roles supported by a secure income stream from
fees and an adequate level of cash reserves in the bank. To do this,
we need to achieve a position where the contribution from publications
can be used to maintain the Society’s reserves, thereby safeguarding
the Society’s long-term financial future.
Of course, I fully appreciate that no-one wants to have to pay more to
be on
the Society’s register, even though our retention fees will continue to
be among the lowest in health care. But I believe that, by introducing this planned
approach to the Society’s financial future, we are keeping faith with generations
of pharmacists whose careful management of the Society’s finances has helped
support our profession for over 160 years.
At the same time as strengthening our financial base, we are seeking to rationalise
our fee structure. There are several reasons for this.
First, in the health professions a single fee rate is not unusual; certainly
no other profession has such a multiplicity of rates (seven, if you include the
upgrade rates) as the Society has had until now. The two-tier approach brings
all practising pharmacists into one category, regardless of how many hours they
work or where they practise.
Continuing professional development is expected to become mandatory for practising
pharmacists during 2005. The creation of a register that distinguishes between
practising and non-practising pharmacists will both provide a modern, accountable
framework for the working profession and meet the needs of pharmacists who wish
to maintain their membership when they are no longer working. Our CPD consultation
showed that the profession endorsed the need for a practising and a non-practising
register. It is time for our register to reflect modern practice so that pharmacists
can continue to enjoy the high level of confidence and trust that the public
places in them.
I have, of course, heard the concerns raised by some members who currently pay
a retention fee of £22 about the increase in their fee level. In coming
to our decision, we were mindful of the likely concerns of this section of the
membership and that is why we have decided to phase in the new fee level for
these categories over a three-year period. The new level of fee will reflect
more closely the costs associated with membership, including provision of The
Pharmaceutical Journal. Many pharmacists maintain their links with the Society
long after they have retired from their chosen pharmacy career and I very much
hope that these members will want to retain their association with, and an active
interest in, the profession they have served for many years through their continued
membership as non-practising pharmacists. For those in hardship for whom the
fee presents difficulty, the Benevolent Fund may be able to provide a source
of support.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal