PJ Online | PJ Letters | Overseas pharmacists

This is the first time I have written to The Pharmaceutical Journal. I wish to enter the fray, and express my dismay at the revised system of retention fees. I live in South Africa, but have always regarded being a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain an honour and a privilege. More important is the weekly journal I receive, which I read from cover to cover.

I was aghast to see the minimum retention fee is now £46. I am now a retiree and a pensioner. I cannot, in good conscience, say I do not work at all; I do the occasional locum for the hospital where I worked for 32 years. A fee of £256, my only alternative, translates to almost R3,000 which is just short of a sick joke.

It is thus my reluctant, sad and regrettable decision, to write to the Registrar and retire from the Register.

What thinking produced this irrational scale of payments? Was any consideration given to pensioners who reside overseas, faced with huge exchange rates? I shall sorely miss my weekly journal.

I shall also sorely miss being a member of this august Society.

Lawrence Creighton
Green Point, South Africa

Indefensible fee structure

From Dr S. Young

I am sure I am not alone in making the sad decision to accept the “offer” of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to withdraw voluntarily from the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists for purely financial reasons; I am simply unable to afford a fee which is both non-tax deductible and is the equivalent of a week’s income. I question the wisdom of the Society in introducing a membership fee structure which alienates overseas pharmacists who have contributed significantly to the profession both in the UK and further afield.

From a purely practical perspective, I believe the adopted simplified fee structure to be indefensible; those of us practising outside the UK do not represent any significant administrative burden (either in terms of advocacy or regulation) on the Society and our status could alternatively and fairly be defined as “non-practising”. Moreover, in introducing the simplified fee structure the Society has failed to represent the interests of all the membership, a duty with which it is charged and, as I recall, for which we have paid. It is also my belief that the Society’s definition of “practising” falls outside its Royal Charter. Specifically, the Society is concerned only with the practice of pharmacy within the UK; including those of us practising outside the UK within the definition of “practising” is therefore both fundamentally unfair and of dubious legality.

I should like to advance a compromise which I believe to be both sensible and appropriate. In my view, members practising outside the UK should be defined as non-practising; however, to return to practising status should not be merely a matter of paying the appropriate fee but should also involve a mandatory, successfully completed period of working under supervision. Not only would this be to the advantage of those practising outside the UK who, like myself, are proud to be members of the Society but it would also protect the profession against those returning to practice within the UK without up-to-date experience of the practice of pharmacy within the UK.

Should common sense prevail, and either a reduced retention fee be offered again or the definition of practising/non-practising be amended to “within the UK” then I would like to rejoin the Society.

Simon Young
Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy
James Cook University,
Queensland, Australia

A planned purge of 18 per cent of the Register?

From Dr C. M. Minchom, MRPharmS

Like Trevor Jones (PJ,18/25 December 2004, p882) I am placed in an impossible situation. I am not required to and see insufficient benefit in paying the practising fee, cannot sign the non-practising declaration due to the statement “will not work in or give advice in relation to the science of medicines”, and do not “wish to retire from the register” as suggested on the 2005 annual retention fee form.

The benefits that membership of the Society provides me are the PJ and other mailings that keep me in touch with the evolution of the science and practice of industrial pharmacy. Also membership provides the ability to network with fellow industrial pharmacists. This was rendered more difficult after the demise of The Industrial Pharmacist magazine in 2001 subsequent to withdrawal of funding by The Society. These benefits are not worth £256.

According to the 2003 Pharmacy Workforce Census Report,¹ 6 per cent of the Register comprises industrial and academic pharmacists. The majority of these members are unlikely to be required to be practising. Assuming three-quarters are forced to leave then the Society loses around £100,000. Add to this the registered 13 per cent non-working pharmacists (of whom 76 per cent are retired), 12 per cent of working pharmacists over the state pension age (likely to be working part time), 11 per cent overseas pharmacists, 3 per cent working outside pharmacy and 2 per cent in other sectors, and then discount the total additions to one-third for double counting (eg, I am an industrial pharmacist and working overseas) and that not all will leave the Register, the Society still stands to lose over 8,200 members and some £380,000.

In the modelling of the likely income from the changes in the retention fee structure only an incompetent finance department would fail to make allowance for such losses and report them to the leadership for consideration. Unless this were the case then the leadership of the Society has taken the callous planned decision to purge the Register of unwanted pharmacists — 18 per cent of the total membership. The remaining wanted pharmacists will have to fund this shortfall while we industrialists and academics can legally continue to “work in or give advice in relation to the science of medicines”, each saving £46.

If members wish to influence the above situation then I would encourage them to write direct to our leadership voicing their concern.

I am a scientist and industrial pharmacist, proud to be a member of the Society and do not “choose to retire from the register”. I will leave it to our leadership to determine whether I can remain a member. I have returned my retention fee form to the Secretary and Registrar along with a cheque for £46, struck out that portion of the “non-practising” statement that I cannot sign and await my fate.

Colin M. Minchom
Toronto, Canada

Reference

1. Hassell K. Pharmacy workforce census 2003: Main findings. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society; 2004.

Exorbitant retention fee

From Mr T. Manly-Rollings

I write not only for myself, but on behalf of all pharmacists in the developing countries who over the years have retained their membership and close links with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, despite the difficulties they encounter in remitting their scarce foreign exchange to the UK.

Because of this rather exorbitant retention fee, I have decided not to retain my membership of the Society.

When I returned home over 20 years ago, the exchange rate of the UK pound to the local currency (dalasi) was D4 to £1. In 1985, the rate was D6.50 to £1. Today, it is D55.50 to £1. For me to remit £256 will cost D14,421.12.

I cannot see anyone returning their certificates because these legitimise their practice in the countries where they live and work in spite of their registration with their local societies.

This action is a deterrent for young pharmacists returning to their home countries because they may have to work at much lower salary scales.

T. Manly-Rollings
Banjul, Gambia

A shot in the foot

From Mr R. P. Ball

It is with some regret that I have tendered my resignation as a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, having been on the register since 1969.

The increase in overseas membership fees is my primary motive for this decision because we get no other benefit from membership except for receiving the PJ. The definition of “practising” should not include those pharmacists working outside Britain.

The requirement for continuing professional development is logical and since I am an Ontario-licensed practising pharmacist, I already maintain and submit my CPD records to the appropriate authority in Canada, which I would presume to be a acceptable to the Society.

I will continue to read the PJ, but now only online, and will be expecting to see a net reduction in Society income, proving that this hurried fee increase will only be a shot in the foot.

Roger P. Ball
Ontario, Canada

Action not thought through

From Ms K. Patterson

I never thought I would say it but at the age of 28 I am retiring. Would some say that this was a sign of success? I moved to Australia three years ago and I now call Australia home. However, I would have liked to have been able to return to the UK on a working holiday.

I cannot justify the paying out of such extravagant fees for some extra letters after my name. I strongly believe the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has not thought this action through and may suffer the consequences in years to come.

Kylla Patterson
Mount Barker, South Australia

Please review fee for overseas members

From Mr M. K. Felstead, MRPharmS

I was wondering if the Royal Pharmaceutical Society would review its decision to remove the special overseas rate for membership of the Society?

I am an Australian pharmacist working in the UK and I have noticed e-mails on an Australian pharmacist e-mail list (Auspharmlist) expressing shock that Australian pharmacists now no longer have an overseas rate but are required to pay the full amount. I presume the idea of the non-practising rate was for retired pharmacists to retain the title “pharmacist”; however, I can see upcoming problems because I think you will find many overseas pharmacists, who could still provide a contribution to the UK pharmacy scene, will instead no longer retain membership. This will further reduce the number of pharmacists available to fill posts in the UK.

Would not an overseas rate (say about half the full rate) be a wise decision to reinstate?

Murray Felstead
London

An effective way of protesting

From Mr M. D. Grimer, MRPharmS

As an overseas practising pharmacist, I am in a dilemma about what to put on my retention form this year. It seems we have one of three choices:

(a) “practising”, requiring an extortionate fee one would have to be mad to pay, in addition to our local overseas registrations;

(b) “non-practising”, requiring a false declaration;

(c) “I wish to retire from the register”, which is also a false declaration because I have no such wish.

Perhaps I will cross out (c) and write “I wish to remain registered overseas for a reasonable fee” and tick the box. The Society can do with this form what it wishes, but at least my conscience will be clear. This would also be the most effective way of showing a protest, since Lambeth clearly does not read The Journal with the plethora of letters on this issue.

Marc Grimer
New South Wales, Australia

Equal treatment for all members, please

From Mr D. Gwillim, MRPharmS

On the retention fee form, I am supposed to sign that I will keep the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s rules and ethics. How can I when I do not know what they currently are? Working abroad as I do, I am not privileged to receive the “Medicines, ethics and practice” guide.

If I am going to pay the new retention fee then perhaps the Society will ensure equality to all its members. I would like to see the PJ air-mailed automatically (not at an additional cost, as at present) and the MEP (or shortened version, without the schedule of drug classifications) sent twice a year. Also, as a hospital pharmacist, I would like to receive Hospital Pharmacist free of charge.

David Gwillim
Queensland, Australia

I no longer feel I can justify the expense

From Mr A. Crowhurst

It is with great regret that I must resign my membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. I have been proud to be a member since 1990, continuing my membership while working in Australia. However, with the huge increase in the overseas membership fee, I no longer feel that I can justify the expense of paying an overseas body, 12,000 miles away, which has taken it upon itself radically to inflate the overseas rate without offering any explanation or giving any consideration to the implications that it may have.

Currently I am registered with and pay fees to the Pharmacy Boards of New South Wales and the Northern Territory as well as the Australian Association of Consultant Pharmacists. I also carry my own personal indemnity insurance. The take home salary after tax out here for a hospital pharmacist is quite a bit less than the equivalent in the UK, although the quality of life does more than make up for it. In addition, we are only on one income and have a young family as well as all the usual expenses a family has to bear, such as mortgages, land tax, etc.

Although I greatly enjoy reading The Pharmaceutical Journal, which has kept me up to date with developments in the UK, I do not regard receipt of this as sufficient reason to renew my membership while living abroad. If, in the unlikely event, I should look to returning to the UK sometime in the future to live and work, then I will look forward to renewing my membership and association with the Society.

In previous correspondence with the Society, I was told that should I renew my membership, then I will not be required to undertake another preregistration period or sit an examination but may be required to pay a restoration fee, the cost of which has not yet been disclosed. Should the Society at some stage review the current system and reintroduce overseas membership I would once again consider enrolling if charged a more realistic figure considering Australia’s remote location and exchange rate.

Andrew Crowhurst
Australia

ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, states:

The rationale for the changes in the Society’s fee structure was discussed in depth in an article by the President last October (PJ, 23 October 2004, p624).

In summary, the Council decided that the Society has to ensure a planned financial base for the future and that can only be reliably achieved if the fee income matches the costs of running the Society. The scale of the increase reflects the fact that membership fees have not increased in line with the growth of activity in the Society over the past few years.

In practice, the costs of membership are similar for all pharmacists, whether home or overseas, and this is the reason why the cost of membership for overseas pharmacists is now the same as for UK registered members, whether they are practising or non-practising.

Although the membership fee has had to increase, members resident overseas will now receive The Pharmaceutical Journal by air mail automatically without having to pay a surcharge.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Fellowship of the Society)
Next Topic (The Society)