Sighs of relief all round
There should be a collective sigh of relief echoing around Britain this weekend: most Royal Pharmaceutical Society retention fees for 2006 are only modestly higher than they were for this year. The Council, when it met last week, made a number of concessions that should largely be welcomed. For full details of the 2006 fees see p199 and
the Official Notice on p212.
Will those groups who complained so vociferously this time last year
when the fee details for the new practising and non-practising Registers
were announced be happy? That remains to be seen. However, as far as
the headline news is concerned (p183), pharmacists who have been registered
continuously for 50 years, most overseas pharmacists and some who did
not believe they really belonged on the practising Register should be
particularly content.
Those pharmacists who have been on the Register for over 50 years or
more will no longer have to pay the full non-practising fee. For next
year they will have to pay just £20. This will give them full access
to all Society activities and The Journal (at less than half the cost
of producing and posting it).
Overseas pharmacists who have to register with an authority in the country
in which they practise will no longer have to pay the full British practising
retention fee. For pharmacists in this category the retention fee will
be £106 next year.
The definition of “practising pharmacist” has also been slightly
amended, which may mean a handful of pharmacists may be able to move
from the practising to the non-practising Register.
Most significantly, the Council has recommended that those disaffected
pharmacists who left the Register in 2005 — either because they
objected to the changes being instituted or claimed they could not afford
the fees — will not have to pay any restoration fee should they
wish to return to the Register.
Meanwhile, the question of a reduced fee level for part-time practising
pharmacists remains under discussion.
The Council — particularly since so many of the new lay members
will only have an inkling of how bitter the feelings were last year — should
be congratulated for
re-examining the fee structure, listening to members and responding appropriately.
Let us hope that this is no longer an issue that dominates the correspondence
columns in The Journal, in which case the Council can justifiably sigh
with relief, as well.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal