| · Preregistration (2)
· Registration
· Adverse drug reactions
· Birdsgrove House
Letters to the Editor
|
Registration
Society fees require a rethink
From Professor H. McNulty, FRPharmS
I read Zoe Gross’s article (PJ, 23 July, p109) with interest but
noted that she only compared Royal Pharmaceutical Society fees with those
of regulatory bodies, when we also need comparisons with other professional
organisations’ fees.
There are relatively few other bodies that look after professional and
regulatory services. The General Chiropractic Council charges a £1,000
per year retention fee and £100 for those taking a break from practice.
The General Osteopathic Council charges £750 a year (with a buildup
for newcomers of £375 for the first year and £500 for the second).
These are two combined bodies listed in the annual report of the Council
for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence.
For other professions, membership of various professional bodies is possible,
on top of the fees quoted by Ms Gross. The Royal College of General Practitioners
has a full subscription rate of £375 for those earning over £32,000.
Reductions are available in a variety of different circumstances; for those
who are permanently residing overseas (£158), in final retirement,
temporarily retired (both £80) or undergoing vocational training.
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow charges £320
for fellows, £160 for members and £80 for affiliates and the
retired, although retirees who get limited communication get free membership.
Life membership is available for retirees for £800.
The Royal College of Nursing, which is also a trade union, charges £166
for full members, but only £10 for students, while free life membership
is given to those with over 50 years on the register.
The British Small Animal Veterinary Association charges £150 for full
members and associates and has reduced rates of £100 for postgraduate
students, and £50 for the over 60s. Undergraduates are granted free membership.
It is clear from the above that our current fees for combined regulation and
professional activity are significantly less than many other professions have
to pay. I am not advocating an increase, but an increase would be justified
on comparative terms to improve professional services.
While regulatory fees for practising members must be the same, it is with professional
fees that other professions allow for differences we do not. With national
boards looking after professional interests there will need to be clearer demarcation
and funding of these two separate roles and for the boards.
It will be important to develop separate professional and regulatory budget
elements to ensure both are able to break even. Publications should be used
to subsidise professional elements and not regulatory ones.
Other professional bodies are better at looking after students and former members.
I hope the Society will better engage students, consider reduced professional
fees for those not practising here and free membership for those over 50 years.
Finally no other professional
or regulatory body regulates business premises. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Council must weigh up the legal benefits that registered pharmacy premises
possess against £137 fees currently charged for annual retention. Registered
pharmacies under section 10 exemptions avoid paying for Medicines Act manufacture
licences (at least £200), inspection fees (at least £952), wholesale
dealing licences (at least £200) and inspection fees (at least £499).
Registered pharmacies also do not require licences for Controlled Drugs, potentially
avoiding an annual administrative fee per drug licensed of £31 per drug
per year for a possession licence, £62 for a supply licence, £124
for a produce preparations licence and £186 for a manufacture licence.
Society premises registration fees are a bargain in comparison with the alternatives.
If a more realistic charge or a separate inspection charge was applied then
members’ regulation costs could be reduced allowing for greater investment
in professional functions.
The NHS is demanding higher standards with regard to premises and this is an
area the profession has been weak in talking about in the past. The NHS will
take this over if we are not careful. Future demands from Shipman must have
a major impact on practice and premises and associated regulatory costs. Standards
for our inspections for premises should be moving towards those expected by
the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. These costs should
not be borne or subsidised by members.
Howard McNulty
Visiting Professor
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal