Spread the burden of costs
In the week that sees the first independent prescriber gain her qualification, once again The
Journal is putting pharmacist
prescribing under the spotlight (p37). It cannot be over-emphasised that this is a stride forward for the profession. Supplementary pharmacist prescribing was a small step in comparison and many practitioners who are working in that capacity find the need to work to clinical management plans bureaucratic and restrictive. Independent prescribing should be much more liberating
and this week’s News feature introduces readers to four pharmacists
who we will follow throughout the year as they train,
qualify and start working as independent prescribers (p43).
Whether the professional satisfaction expected to be achieved through
independent prescribing will encourage more pharmacists to take the plunge
remains to be seen. Currently, there are just over 1,100 supplementary
prescribers on the Society’s Register —
a far lower number than originally envisaged by the Government when it
gave the go-ahead in November 2002 to widen prescribing rights to non-medical
health professionals. It was hoped there would be that number of supplementary
pharmacist prescribers in practice by the end of 2004.
One niggle that is raised in the Letters pages this week (pp49–50)
is the fact that the Council of the Society initially proposed that there
would be a one-off
payment for prescribing pharmacists to be designated
SP on the Register. However, an Official
Notice — published in
The Journal last summer (29 July 2006, p144) — revealed that in
addition to the initial payment of £35 for SP and IP designation,
prescribers would have to pay £35 each year thereafter to retain
their status.
These are ground-breaking practitioners, yet they have to pay more than
12 per cent extra on top of the practising retention fee of £283.
Although The Journal does not believe that this will deter pharmacists
from pursuing their clinical goals — and, arguably, pharmacists
with these qualifications will be able to command higher pay than the
rank and file — it does not seem equitable.
According to a correspondent, the Society has argued that the additional
fee is designed to cover the cost of a number of activities associated
with prescribing (p50). However, the fee income from this source for
2007 is unlikely to make much impact on those costs, so surely it would
be fairer if the whole profession supported the activities of these leading-edge
practitioners who are likely to do much to raise the profile of pharmacy?
We hope that the Council will revisit this decision and, say, return
to the idea of the one-off payment and spread the burden of the costs
for accrediting courses and preparing governance materials, etc, across
the whole membership. For example, an additional £2 on top of the
practising retention fee would raise more, less painfully.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal