| · MDSs (4)
· Regulation
· Pharmacy practice (2)
· Hospital disinfection
· Controlled drugs
· Pharmacogenomics
· Registration examination (2)
· Retention fees (4)
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fees
Pharmacy is different from other health care professions
From Mr J. E. Blake, MRPharmS
I congratulate Howard
McNulty on his thorough research into the comparative
fees for other professional organisations (PJ, 6 August, p162). Certainly
his letter gives the impression that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
fees need to go up rather than down.
However, Professor McNulty overlooks one fundamental difference between the
other professions and pharmacy. Chiropractors, osteopaths and nurses to some
extent have a choice of where they can practise. If they wish they may practise
in the private sector. Here any increase in their own professional organisation’s
fees can be matched by a corresponding increase in the fees to their own patients.
Would that pharmacists were in that enviable position!
Unfortunately we are tied to the purse strings of the NHS and even in privately
owned pharmacies there would need to be an inordinate number of private prescriptions
to cover huge increases in professional fees.
John Blake
Caleta de Velez,
Malaga, Spain
A sensible step by the Society's Council
From Mr J. E. Balmford, FRPharmS
Further to my letter in The
Journal (4 December 2004, p816), I welcome
the report of the August
Council meeting (PJ, 13 August, p201). The new
Council has certainly listened to the views expressed by members at the
annual general meeting and branch representatives’ meeting and
in letters to The Journal.
I will not be resigning from the Register on 31 December 2005, but will continue
in membership until I join the heavenly register in the sky.
In spite of the views expressed by your editorial (PJ, 4 December, p802), when
you said “How any of these will actually convert their threats into reality
remains to be seen and an accurate figure will not be known for some months”,
we will not know how many members would have resigned had the Council not taken
this sensible step to keep so many non-practising septuagenarians on the Register.
I hope that, with the changes agreed, a large number of overseas members will
also feel able to remain registered in Britain.
John. E. Balmford
Past President
Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire
Non-practising members are being penalised
From Mr C. J. Palin, MRPharmS
“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?” (PJ, 13 August, p182).
Well, no. This member is not happy.
“Council agrees to introduce concessionary retention fees” (ibid,
p183). Some concession! The Council has decided to penalise further those non-practising
members with a swingeing 25 per cent increase in retention fees for 2006. This
is grossly inequitable. Many practising pharmacists are employees whose retention
fees are reimbursed by their employer and it is a poor accountant who cannot “lose” the
fees against tax for the self-employed.
Of the various groups mentioned, the retired, non-practising pharmacist with
less than 50 years on the Register will be hardest hit. Retired non-practising
pharmacists are likely to be living on a pension or other fixed income (and cannot
claim the fees against their tax coding since it no longer relates to their employment).
This, therefore, hits at those among the least able to afford it. After a lifetime
of working in pharmacy we are now to be hammered because we wish to stay in contact
with, and continue to obtain information about, our chosen profession.
I paid the (greatly increased for retired pharmacists) fees for 2005 in the hope
that the new Council would apply some justness to the fee structure. Sadly it
looks as if I was wrong and so, after 37 years, I shall be not renewing my membership.
Thanks a bunch, Council. “Sighs of relief all round” indeed!
Christopher Palin
Torquay,
Devon
Appropriate response by the Council
From Mr D. Canniford
I wish to congratulate the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council
for re-examining the retention fee structure, listening to members and
responding appropriately. I joined the Register over 56 years ago, regretfully
had to resign on 1 January 2005 but will be delighted to rejoin on 1 January
2006. I look forward to the procedure to accomplish this.
Dennis Canniford
County Carlow,
Ireland |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal