Ministers may decide Society must separate its functions
Ministers are considering whether to allow the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to continue to have both professional and regulatory roles or to require the Society to come into line with the majority of other health professional regulators.
They have received NHS workforce director Andrew Foster’s advice
on the future regulation of non-medical health professionals, but are
waiting to see Sir Liam Donaldson’s review of the General Medical
Council before making any announcements.
A Department of Health spokeswoman said: “We will be wanting to
make sure that the reviews are not making recommendations that are at
odds with each other.”
Julie Stone, deputy director of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory
Excellence, said: “It would be wholly inappropriate to make any
speculation as to the possible future of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
The primary purpose of regulation is public protection. Having dual roles,
as a number of regulatory bodies do, does not alter this position. The
Society appears to manage its dual roles in a way that is compatible
with public protection. Nonetheless, thought is currently being given
to whether these roles should be separated and the Foster recommendations
are likely to address this issue.”
Professor Stone’s comments were made in the context of a recent
article by her in Consumer Policy Review (2005;15:216). The article expressed
concern at a lack of co-ordination in the reforms being made to regulatory
bodies through Section 60 Orders, with individual regulators being left
to decide what they wanted. Professor Stone also discussed whether some
of the regulators’ functions should be merged and whether there
should be a single external adjudicating body for all professional complaints.
The Society declined to comment.
Leading article, p94 |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader