| · Public liability insurance
· Community pharmacy
· New contract
· Council election
· Prescription charges
· Repeat dispensing
· ETP
· Complementary medicine
· The Society (4)
· The Journal (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
A professional association
From Mr D. I. Simpson, FRPharmS
I worked for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society for 34 years up to 2000
and never once in that time heard it referred to as a “Royal College”.
I never thought I was working for a royal college, either. So I do not
attach much credibility to the Secretary and Registrar’s claims
that the Society’s “professional work” is analogous
to that of such an institution (PJ, March 12, p300).
(For “professional work”, also read “representational work” since
the Secretary and Registrar uses the second term as an equivalent earlier in
her letter.)
Royal colleges concern themselves with the postgraduate qualifications of medical
specialists. They each only cover part of the medical profession. They are
likely to be registered as charities, which limits their political activity.
Not much of an analogy there!
So far as representation is concerned, I see the British Medical Association
as the body in medicine equivalent to the Society. It covers the whole of the
medical profession (all doctors can join) and its core function — “to
promote the medical and allied sciences and to maintain the honour and the
interest of the medical profession” — is almost the same as that
of a key chartered object of the Society, namely, “to safeguard, maintain
the honour and promote the interests of pharmacists in their exercise of the
profession of pharmacy”.
The Society’s professional association role has played second fiddle
while the regulatory issues are being sorted out. The balance needs to be redressed.
A bit of BMA-type vigour would not come amiss.
One further point: Miss Lewis says that the Society’s representational
work is not separate from its regulatory role. With Dame Janet Smith questioning,
in her fifth report on the Shipman Inquiry, whether even a 100 per cent regulatory
body like the General Medical Council should have a representative function,
I wonder whether Miss Lewis’s opinion will remain tenable for much longer.
In my view, the Society, a unique and so far successful dual function body,
will have to find a means of separating its functions in order to have a future
as a regulatory body and a professional representative organisation.
Douglas Simpson
Council election candidate
Beckenham,
Kent
What is in a statutory demand?
From Mr C. W. Beech, MRPharmS
For a number of reasons, including, it must be admitted, protest at
the extortionate increase in the retention fee, I did not pay up by the
January deadline. I therefore awaited with trepidation the arrival by
registered post of my statutory demand. Would this be the pharmaceutical
equivalent of “sending the boys round”? Unsurprisingly, I
need not have worried, it was more a “slap round the face with
a wet lettuce”. The letter stated I must pay up by the end of March
or risk removal from the Register.
Can the Royal Pharmaceutical Society inform me how many of these demands
were sent and at what cost? Surely this money could be better invested
in introducing a monthly or quarterly direct debit payment system, which
most other professional bodies use? Otherwise, more pharmacists will
be tempted to ignore the first demand.
Clive Beech
Sidcup, Kent
| |
PHILIP GREEN, deputy secretary and registrar, replies:
Eighty-four
per cent of pharmacists paid by the end of January. Statutory demands
were issued to 16 per cent of those registered in 2004 costing
in excess of £10,000, a cost borne by all members. Every
pharmacist who does not pay his or her fee on time adds significantly
to the
cost of collection of annual retention fees. Pharmacists who are
keen to minimise increases in fees would be well advised to ensure
they pay fees on time. In 2005, the Society has collected fees
more quickly than ever before. The statutory notice period is prescribed
in the Pharmacy Act 1954 and the Council is due to instruct the
Registrar
to remove those pharmacists who have still not paid from the Register
at its next meeting. At the time of writing, 4 per cent of members
have not paid. As has been explained previously direct debit payments
of the type described are not permitted under the legislation. |
Time to reign in expenses
From Dr R. C. Moreton, MRPharmS
The existing Council of The Royal Pharmaceutical Society must step down
and we must elect a new Council according to the new Charter. I would
like to propose that, in the spirit of the fresh start inspired by the
new Charter, all the positions in the Society’s permanent staff
at director level and above should be reassessed and, if deemed necessary,
readvertised by the new Council. The present incumbents would be free
to reapply.
Why do I want them reassessed? The Society cannot continue to expand
the permanent staff at the rate it has done over the past few years and
remain solvent, unless we, the members, are prepared to have our retention
fees increase at 20 per cent above inflation for several years to come,
especially when the Society can expect a reduction in overall membership
over the next two to three years. Colin
Minchom recently put the loss
in revenue at £380,000 from resigning members (PJ, 22 January,
p85). I think that is conservative; I would put the loss at a much higher
figure.
Why should the positions be readvertised? The new Council may have different
needs from the current Council. I want the Society to get value for money
from its senior staff, and to make sure that their performance is what
is and will be required. There is precedent from the public sector and
industry for this. It is often the case after major changes in an organisation
that staff are asked to reapply for their jobs.
The Society cannot rely on the profits from the Pharmaceutical Press
bailing it out indefinitely. And I do not think the Society can assume
the membership fees from registered technicians will resolve its finances
either. I would therefore like to see a complete reassessment and overhaul
of the Society’s organisation and a reduction in the number of
staff to assure its financial future. If the Society has to consolidate
some duties within a modified organisational structure, so be it, but
it cannot continue to stagger from financial crisis to financial crisis.
I shall vote in this year’s election, and I am going to vote for
anyone who states in their manifesto that they will seek to reign in
the Society’s expenses, and review the organisation and complement
of the Society’s staff.
Chris Moreton
Waltham,
Massachusetts
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
Directors of the Society hold employment status with the
Society. That employment relationship, which is of course different
from that of an elected member of the Council, is governed by a
contract of employment and by UK employment law.
The Council sets the Society’s budget and determines the
strategic direction of the work staff undertake. In the absence
of knowing what strategy or structure
a new Council may wish to pursue, it is premature and inappropriate to speculate
on how any alterations to individual roles might be accommodated. |
Why is the CPD helpdesk not manned at weekends?
From Mr A. K. Sharma, MRPharmS
One Saturday, I had problems when trying to make entries to my CPD record
on the CPD website. I telephoned the technical helpdesk and discovered
that it is only manned between 9.30am and 4.30pm, Monday to Friday (excluding
bank holidays). The Royal Pharmaceutical Society must be aware that most
people will make their CPD entries in the evenings and at weekends, so
why is the helpdesk only manned during these times? It makes absolutely
no sense.
With the extortionate rise in our retention fees and the onerous tasks
now pushed on to all pharmacists, surely we should have a help desk that
more accurately mirrors the times that pharmacists are likely to be using
the site.
Arun Sharma
Southampton
| |
FRED AYLING, CPD officer, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:
We
are keen to provide any technical support that we can to users of
CPD Online or CPD Desktop. To this end we have investigated the possibility
of providing support during the evenings and at weekends. The costs
are
high.
If, for example, the help line were available for three hours in the
evening and 10 hours on Saturday and Sunday, an IT professional would
have to be employed
on a full-time basis to work unsociable hours. Given the high costs that
this would involve, we had to consider the anticipated demand for
this service, however
desirable it is to provide it. Based on call volume and usage during the
weekday daytime, we forecast the level of demand at evenings and weekends,
and our judgement
at that time was that the cost could not be justified.
With the introduction of obligatory CPD this year, use of the website has
increased. For this reason, we are looking again at the feasibility of introducing
this
service.
If it is possible to provide some assistance during the evening and at weekends,
it is likely that it would have to be restricted to fewer hours than described
above. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal