Council may amend policy on “non-practising” retention fees
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is considering amending its policy on the retention fee for non-practising members in the light of concerns expressed by members. In particular, it will give consideration to rescinding its decision that the “non-practising” retention fee should undergo phased increases to reach one-third of the practising fee. Instead, it may peg the fee at a lower rate. No decision will
be made until the Resource Management Committee has examined the resource
implications of a policy change.
At the December
Council meeting, the Council was asked to address a number
of concerns expressed by members about issues relating to the introduction
of continuing professional development, the future structure of the register,
the retention fee for 2005 and the impact that these matter will have
on the number of pharmacists who will register in 2005.
Introducing a paper on the members’ concerns and how they might
be addressed, the President reminded the Council that mandatory CPD was
a government requirement and that a survey had shown a large proportion
of members in favour of having practising and non-practising registers.
Having just two categories of fee was more consistent with other health
professions. It would streamline the way the Society operated and be
less open to error and abuse but would still allow non-practising pharmacists
to remain registered.
The purpose of revisiting the matter was to reassure members that their
concerns were being considered. But the Council was, of course, limited
in its options by external constraints.
The President said that the paper offered three options concerning fees
for those who were not practising. One was to peg the non-practising
fee at £46 for the time being. Another was to increase it only
to £60, which would cover the cost of providing The Journal and
processing members’ details. In addition, there was a proposed
option of offering a low-cost or free subscription to The Journal to
members who choose to leave the Register and who are aged 80 or more.
These small suggestions might alleviate some of the concerns.
The President added that the officers had thought that the Society could
live with pegging the non-practising fee at £46.
Linda Stone pointed out that the resource implications would have to
be considered by the Resource Management Committee before the Council
could make any decision. The options might not be realistic and the Council
needed to know the cost implications before debating the matter. There
was no need to discuss the matter yet because no decision could be effective
before 2006.
Patricia Hoare said that Mrs Stone was right in that the size of the
future fee was a matter for the RMC to consider, and the level of fee
for 2005 had been discussed and decided. But the Council could reconsider
its policy that the non-practising fee should increase to a fixed percentage
of the practising fee. It could decide on a new long-term strategy.
Mrs Stone said that Mrs Hoare was correct in that the Council discusses
policy, but when an issue of policy has a resource implication, the Council
has over the years chosen not to discuss it without knowing what the
resource implication is. She moved that the matter be referred to the
Resource Management Committee to look at the resource implications.
The President said that he was happy to do that but would still like
the Council to be able to offer some reassurance to members. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal