Variety of views on fees
Earlier this week the working group established by the Council in June (PJ, 18 June, p769) to review the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s fee structure met to discuss the options. The debate was partly informed by members of the Society who have written to The Journal putting forward suggestions, a selection of which we reproduce this week (p85).
Most correspondents argue, one way or another, that non-practising pharmacists,
those who work overseas and who have limited intentions of returning to Britain
to practise, and the truly retired should have their fees reduced. There is also
some support for those pharmacists who practise part-time to pay reduced fees
and undertake less continuing professional development. The Journal does not
necessarily accept that argument — the less frequently a pharmacist is
in active practice, the more the need to undertake CPD.
Interestingly, only one correspondent touched on the premises fee — currently
a flat rate of £137. The correspondent argued that the fee should rise
incrementally so that the greater the number of prescriptions dispensed the higher
the fee that should be paid for those premises. Businesses that handle many prescriptions
would easily be in a position to afford the increase. However, prescription volume
may not be the best indicator, but there probably could be an incremental scale
developed to reflect turnover and size of premises. The extra revenue generated
could be used to subsidise those groups of pharmacists who have a strong case
for paying a lower fee in order to remain on the Register and to continue to
call themselves pharmacists.
Back to Top
|
Scotland is leading the way again
Once again, community pharmacy in Scotland is leading the way. Supplementary prescribing pharmacists can apply for ring-fenced money in order to establish clinics — either at their own premises or at local GP surgeries — to contribute to the well-being of patients with long-term conditions (p73).
This initiative, which comes in advance of the establishment of the new
contract for community pharmacists in April 2006, gives pharmacists £500
to cover start-up costs and then an extra £150 per week to cover
the running of the clinic.
What is significant — and no doubt primary care organisations in
England and Wales would argue that pharmacists could set up similar clinics
for their patients — is that the funds are ring-fenced. Pharmacists
in Scotland do not need to go cap in hand desperately fighting with other
health care professionals (particularly GPs) to have their ideas supported.
Such recognition gives pharmacy in Scotland a confidence that the rest
of the profession can only envy.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal