| · Veterinary medicines
· Technicians
· Business skills
· GlaxoSmithKline (7)
· Statistics
· Generics
· The profession
· Medicines use review
· Patient packs
· Elections
· The Society (2)
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Registration fees should be reviewed
From Mr H. Patel, FRPharmS
Having read Linda
Stone’s letter (PJ, 2 April, p389) I am concerned
that the Officers of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (and myself in
particular) are being branded as unprofessional and without integrity.
This necessitates a response from me. The points I reluctantly wish to
make are:
· There is over-dependence on income from publications and failure in
some quarters to read the developing scenario which would undermine the
ability of the Society to perform its duties adequately and in a timely
way. All Council members need to accept some responsibility for that.
· Last summer I, supported by the Treasurer, asked the director of finance
for a five-year plan to be developed and this was accepted by the Society’s
Resource Management Committee.
· After a discussion, the RMC agreed to
recommend the fee increase of 25 per cent in total before the Council
meeting in August 2004 when the
decision to increase fees was made. This was high in my opinion and I
spoke to the President about my concerns. The reasons for such a hike
have been well publicised.
· In Council, the Treasurer raised an objection to such a high increase
but once again the Council was influenced by general concern about dereliction
of duty to protect the Society by not building up reserves in case there
was litigation due to recent changes in some aspects of self-regulation.
· The Council accepted the year-end forecast of income from publications
in the summer. As it happens, the year-end figure exceeded the forecast.
· Notwithstanding the need to build up the reserves, had the Council
known the year-end figure in August, the fee increase might not have
been so great.
· I took a personal decision to support a review of fees at the next
opportunity as the fee increase this year was already approved by the
Privy Council. The RMC agreed this and made a suitable recommendation,
which was accepted by the current Council. However, the decision is not
binding on the next Council.
Having now publicly explained the circumstances and my stance I confirm
my intention to support a review of fees — particularly for retired
and overseas membership categories — and I would do everything
possible to bring back all those pharmacists who have felt obliged to
leave the Register. Their protest has had an impact on me.
Mrs Stone speaks of integrity and professionalism. Leadership is more
than that: it is also about conscience, learning and values. Readers
of The Journal can judge for themselves what happened before the fees
were raised and afterwards.
To keep the fees as low as possible and to reduce over-dependence on
publications there is a need for new sources of revenue and the work
to find these sources has already begun.
Hemant Patel
Vice-President, Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Council Election Candidate
Brentwood, Essex
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
states:
The fees for 2005 were set in the context of developing
a financial strategy for the next five years which was to reduce
the
Society’s reliance on publications, developing a financial
reserves policy, and ensure the Society’s regulatory and
professional activities were funded by membership and premises
fees. As such the
fee strategy was not dependent on the financial outcome for any
one year in isolation. |
A “practising overseas” category is required
From Mr J. H. Atkinson, MRPharmS
I suggest that every Council election candidate who undertakes to regularise
our constitution by securing the addition of a further category “practising
overseas” will correct two great injustices, earn the votes of our
overseas members and, hopefully, reverse some resignations. We are in a
fix as we can neither afford the cost of declaring “practising” (UK-type)
nor truthfully declare we are “non-practising”.
On one hand, North American, Australian, New Zealand and South African
cities might have somewhat comparable practices (although net remuneration
is not so good in the cases of the latter) but what similarities of practice
and income are there in most of Africa, Asia, South America etc? Is it
appropriate that we pay a vastly higher “voluntary” fee to
London and pay a much lower statutory fee to the authority under which
we practise for relatively little reward?
On the other hand, British documents might be acceptable in some places,
but in the real world one is solely and strictly subject to overseas national
documentation, practices, registration, languages and forensic pharmacy.
Beyond facilitating initial credibility and, having satisfied whatever
local examinations and so obtaining the first issue of a licence to practise
in whatever country, unless one expects to return to practise in Britain
the sole purpose of remaining on the register of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society is a matter of maintaining valuable contacts, receiving the vital
Pharmaceutical Journal, knowing of and being able to order appropriate
publications and keeping an eye on what is new.
In all the many countries each having its own unique languages, faculty
of pharmacy, legislation, registration criteria and pharmaceutical society,
etc, it is an irrelevant impertinence for the Society to demand that its
members cannot continue practising so far distantly in every respect, without
also complying with UK continuing professional development (plus, of course,
national requirements). Only our national requirements prevail.
Harry Atkinson
Mombasa,
Kenya |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal