| · Emergency supplies
· Education
· New contract
· Agenda for change
· CPD
· Retention fees
· Boots the Chemists
· The industry
· Aqueous cream
· Overseas members
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fees
A club I do not think I want to join
From Mr W. B. Rhodes, FRPharmS
It was a brave attempt by the President (PJ, 23 October, p624) to try
to explain why the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s retention fees
are set to increase by such a large amount. Although one could debate
the entire subject this would be unproductive since the consultation
period has now passed. However, his final sentence relating to non-practising
members cannot pass unchallenged and I quote: “For those in hardship
for whom the fees present difficulty the Benevolent Fund may be able
to provide a source of support.” That, with respect, is nonsense.
There are thousands on the Register who could afford the increase but
who cannot justify it and a large number who cannot afford the cost but
who would not go through the hoop of applying to the Benevolent Fund.
In the report of the August Council meeting we were advised that practising
members can expect further significant increases over the next five years
from the current proposed £256 (I hope that all members have appreciated
this) and the non-practising fee will then be over £100. I have
spoken to a variety of retired members including retired members of Council
and a blind member who cannot even read The Journal and I have read all
the members’ letters in The Journal, a good number of whom want
to retain membership for sentimental reasons only but are on the point
of withdrawal.
If it is the view of the Council that they want rather callously to get
rid of those who have served the profession and the public all of their
working lives in academia, community, hospital, industry, publishing
and research, let alone any one-time administrators, and who because
of their experience still have a contribution to make then rather like
one of the Marx brothers this is a club that I do not think I want to
join.
With great sadness ...
Bruce Rhodes
One-time Assistant Secretary of the Society,
Cheltenham,
Gloucestershire
Considering my position
From Mr M. E. Q. James, FRPharmS
I am one of those retired members working less than 10 hours per week
(the approximate equivalent of one week per month) and, as your editorial (PJ, 23 October, p588) suggested I would, I am considering my position.
In my considerations I have to take account of several issues.
First, I want to maintain some contact with my profession. I have been
a pharmacist for over 40 years and a fellow for almost 16. I have many
friends in pharmacy.
Secondly, I like what I do, (medication review, either for individuals
or for practices) but have no desire to do “conventional” locums.
In any event I am not sure that I am competent to do so because it is
over 10 years since I worked in a community pharmacy. However, the funding
for such activities seems to be exhausted locally and in spite of the
optimism expressed by various pharmaceutical bodies it does not seem
as though the pot of gold is likely to be refreshed. I have a nasty suspicion
that it is at the end of the rainbow!
Thirdly, I am informed (although both the President’s contribution
[PJ, 23 October, p624] and the PJ generally have kept rather quiet about
it) that it is intended that the non-practising fee will increase from
the present reasonably modest £46 to the equivalent of 33 per cent
of the full fee over a three-year period (PJ, 14 August, p233).
So, unless I can find another organisation that can use my pharmaceutical
talents, what am I to do? I have no problem with doing continuing education
or maintaining a continuing professional development file; indeed I am
presently part of a project to review the education needs of primary
care pharmacists, am booked to attend two relevant CPPE courses and am
a branch secretary. My membership fee for the current year was £116.
It looks to me at the moment as though I shall become non-practising
next year and probably leave the register a year or so later when the
non-practising fees rise to the sort of amount I am paying at the moment.
Incidentally, my ex-teacher wife still gets her equivalent of the PJ for a nominal amount.
Miall E. James
Colchester
The Council must revisit retention fees urgently
From Mr M. R. Hickey, MRPharmS
I was one of the members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Council who voted against the proposed increases in the retention fees
and, in common with the other members, have received considerable correspondence
on the subject. When the decision was taken I was deeply unhappy about
the scale of the increases and although I accepted the financial logic
I thought it would be wrong to inflict such an increase, certainly not
without first going out to the membership as a whole and explaining the
rationale underpinning the process.
However, what left me most unhappy was the fact that the changes to the
structure of the retention fee, in particular the increases to be applied
to part-time and overseas pharmacists, were passed without any real debate.
In fact the proposal to make these changes was only presented to the
full Council a couple of hours before the decision was made. I thought
that proper consideration and debate were impossible. In fact these changes
passed, as I recall without a vote, after the 25 per cent increase had
been debated, and it was debated heatedly.
It was put to the Council that the changes to the Register, to the categories
of practising and non-practising, were necessary because it cost the
same to regulate all pharmacists who practised, regardless of how many
days, weeks or months they worked. If this were the case then surely
it would cost the same to regulate a pharmacist as a technician, which
is less than £100; if this is the case then the difference in fees
must be made up by a payment required to fund membership services: technicians
being regulants, pharmacists being regulants and members.
I realise that this is simplistic. However, I think there is a case for
retaining certain categories of membership, in particular the part-time
category. If I am away from my pharmacy then I expect my locums to be
up to a minimum standard; all of them are much better than that, of course.
I do not expect every locum to be able to fulfil every extended service
that I provide, not everyone has the same training or relevant experience.
A prescribing pharmacist may have to fulfil higher standards of CPD and
revalidation than one who does not prescribe, but the latter does have
to be able to fulfil the core functions of the job and that may require
a more basic standard of CPD. Many of the part-time pharmacists I employ
from time to time for holiday or sick cover fall into this latter category.
If these pharmacists are to leave the register then I fear there will
be a serious manpower shortage, and the novel and advanced services we
would like to provide will prove to be mirages as we wilt under the pressure
of overwork. It is bad enough finding locums at the moment without large
numbers of pharmacists, most of whom work in community pharmacy, fleeing
from the register.
It is easy to say “charge the employer extra” or “it
is only equivalent to two days’ locum”, but a principle is
at stake. The letters pages of the PJ have been full of commentary from
august and venerated pharmacists saying they will leave the Register.
It is no wonder because they must feel like they have been kicked in
the teeth by the Council. We lose these members at our peril. It is not
necessarily about the amount of money involved; it is simply about a
sense of fairplay.
The other category of membership badly affected by the change made is
that of overseas pharmacist. One member wrote to me thus: “It seems
to me that we should give exceptional support to those members of our
profession who have deliberately chosen to work towards the good health
of citizens of developing countries and forgone the higher salaries available
in the developed world.” I could not put it more succinctly. A
sense of fair play would suggest that these pharmacists should not suffer
an undue financial penalty.
The proposed change has gone to Privy Council to be ratified, but I would
suggest that it would be to the credit of this Council if it were to
draw back from the brink. The Council cannot inflict larger fees on the
members than are contained in the Byelaws but it can, if it so decides,
inflict less.
I know from discussions with other members of Council that several of
those who voted for the changes are unhappy. They are unhappy on the
grounds that there was insufficient debate before the decision was made;
they are particularly unhappy in light of Karen
Hassell’s research (PJ, 23 October, p625), which suggests to me that the number of part-time,
industrial and overseas pharmacists leaving the register will be so significant
that this year’s financial crisis will seem like the warming of
air and mild breeze that precedes the storm. A proper debate at the time
the decision was made might have teased these issues out.
I suggest that Council should revisit this issue urgently, and that it
should seek to retain the status of part-time and overseas pharmacists
within the practising register.
Maurice Hickey
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal