Retention fees

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7432 p770
23/30 December 2006

This article
Reprint Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

· Pfizer products (2)
· Fitness to practise
· The profession
· Rural practise
· Retention fees (2)
· The Society (2)

Letters to the Editor

Retention fees

Supplementary prescriber fee (Mr R. Thompson)

One-off fee (Mrs K. A. Liddell)

Supplementary prescriber fee

From Mr R. Thompson, MRPharmS

I write to echo David Miller’s comments (PJ, 9 December, p690) about the £35 annual retention fee for supplementary prescribers being a “kick in the teeth for those who have endeavoured to take the profession forward by additional study and practice”.

Having qualified as a supplementary prescriber (SP) in September 2004, I gladly paid the £35 fee to have my entry on the Register annotated. I recall then that the fee was to be a one-off payment.

I have since practised as an SP for the past two years without being asked for an annual retention fee. That is until now. It seems that the Society has decided to move the goalposts without informing us beforehand, which seems a little underhand.

To my dismay, the letter asking for an SP retention fee blames things such as:

• Administration of the Register

• Preparation and updating of the curriculum for SP and independent prescribing

• Accreditation of university providers for SP and independent prescribing training for the costs

Is it not reasonable for these costs to be absorbed in my £283 annual pharmacist retention fee (a 6 per cent increase on last year’s £267 fee)? It seems that I am paying for independent prescribing before I have even decided whether or not to complete the qualification.

All this from a Society that was of no help when I inquired about suitable additional indemnity insurance to cover me while working as an SP, yet would be quick to report me to the Statutory Committee in the case of an error. Will the Society rethink its decision?

Richard Thompson
Chester-le-Street, County Durham

One-off fee

From Mrs K. A. Liddell, MRPharmS

I have just received a fee demand for £35 to retain the annotation “SP” after my name on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Register. I paid the fee when I qualified as a prescriber mid-way through this year, on the understanding that it would be a one-off payment. Less than six months later it appears I have to pay a further £35. As I am presently a non-practising SP I see no benefit in paying this fee at present.

The letter I received from the Society did not state what the potential consequences of non-payment would be. I certainly would not like to incur the type of financial repercussions imposed on those who fail to pay their registration fees on time.

Could someone please clarify the situation for me? Is there any incentive to pay now, or should I wait until I am going to use the qualification? Bearing in mind that I have to pay the fee myself, and that even when I am using the qualification, I will not be paid extra, my preference would be to keep my money until I have no choice but to pay.

Karen Liddell
Glasgow

PETER WILSON, head of the postregistration division at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:

The fee for annotation of the Register for a supplementary prescriber was originally set as a on-off payment of £35. At that time we realised that independent prescribing was likely to be introduced and the regulation of prescribing by pharmacists would be subject to development.

The Council considered the introduction of fees for independent prescribing earlier this year and decided to amend the fee for an annotation from a single to an annual payment. The first annual retention payment for prescribing annotations takes effect in the current retention fee round. It has always been the case that members who pay an annual registration fee in-year have to pay the full annual retention fee when this falls due at the end of the year.

We are currently working on new rules under the Section 60 Order to cover continuing professional development and annotations for advanced practice, including prescribing. These rules will include provision for non-payment of fees and also the requirements for return to practice (including prescribing practice) after a break in practice. Drafts of the rules will be made available for consultation before they are introduced.

While a policy on pharmacist prescribers who fail to pay the annual annotation fee has yet to be agreed, the preferred solution in this case is for the pharmacist to contact the registration division of the Society and ask for their annotation to be removed rather than allow their annotation to lapse.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Rural practice)
Next Topic (The Society)