| • Pseudoephedrine (3)
• Dispensing
• Remote supervision
• White Paper (3)
• Product promotion
• Children's medicines
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
A proven professional body?
From Mr G. Hall, MRPharmS
So the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is a well established, proven professional
and regulatory body with a strong track record of protecting the public
and supporting and leading pharmacists. This was the bold claim the Society
made at the Government’s announcement that the roles of the Society
were to be split (PJ, 24 February, p207). However, I would think that
the vast majority of pharmacists working in both in primary and secondary
care are delighted by the Government’s announcement of a royal
college type body to act as a professional and clinical leader.
Why would this be seen as such good news? In my view, the answer lies
in the lack of evidence to back up the Society’s claim of leadership
and professional representation, especially of those working in the managed
sector. I know many pharmacists who think that during their time on the
Register they have paid exorbitant fees to be regulated and nothing else.
The Society has confirmed that it believes it is in a good position to
evolve into
a body akin to a royal college (PJ, 3 March, p241). I wonder
if the membership will get the chance to put their view. I suspect not.
I do not think the Society has any idea of the resentment built up over
the years by the inaction and lost opportunities. The lack of interest
in the Society’s Council elections gives a clue. Many pharmacists
do not see that the Society is doing anything for them — so why
bother voting?
There is a high level of anxiety that the Society will metamorphose into
a royal college. The idea of making membership compulsory to guarantee “sustainability” is
ridiculous. The royal college(s) will be sustainable when there is an
appreciation by the membership that they are fully engaged with their
membership and promoting innovation, developing practice, and promoting
the value of the membership to both the Government and public.
There are 188 different pharmacy organisations. I think these organisations
working together, developing the excellent work they have achieved, but
in a more concerted manner and with a unified voice, offers a better
way forward. Where is the evidence for the Society’s claims?
Graeme Hall
Leicester
| |
DAVID PRUCE, director of practice and quality improvement at
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
In this post-Shipman
era
all health care professionals are facing change of some kind under
the Government’s White Paper proposals. The Society’s
dual regulatory and professional leadership roles will be separated
as a result. The Society has a strong track record in regulating
and representing the profession and pharmacy is not being singled
out for any special treatment. These changes come at a time when
the safe and effective prescribing and dispensing of medicines
is becoming more complex and pharmacy is taking on greater clinical
responsibilities.
Faced with such historic change, it will be important for the Society
to take on board the views of its members. Work has already started
to engage with the
profession and to build understanding about what the Government’s proposals
might mean for the future of pharmacy. A meeting held at the Society’s
London offices on 9 March was attended by nearly 70 representatives of the Society’s
branches and the main pharmacy organisations. The views expressed at this meeting
have been widely reported in the pharmacy press and represent the starting
point of what is expected to be a wide-ranging consultation. |
No need for the Society to surrender our assets
From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS
Mark Walker’s letter (PJ, 3 March, p246) proves that at least
someone has thought through the practicalities of the Government’s
rupturing of our Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Unfortunately he did not
go far enough.
Clare Bellingham’s review of the transfer
of regulatory function of the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand (PJ, 16 October 2004, p555)
to a quasi-governmental body indicated that the PSNZ was required to
finance the change over and the establishment of the new regulatory body
from its own funds.
Now that it seems inevitable that the British Society will be split I
would hope that our Council has had the wit to ensure that no other body,
particularly any body set up by this Government, has any claim on the
funds and assets which pharmacists, and only pharmacists, have accumulated
over the years.
The book values of our assets are presented annually, The Society bought
the freehold of the site at 1 Lambeth High Street over 30 years ago and
commissioned the design, construction, furnishing and equipping of the
building, all for some £6m. The current book value is, I am told, £2.8m — an
admirable exercise in depreciation. We also own half of the freehold
of Bell House and the leasehold of a flat for the use of the President.
In the real world of property in London it is difficult to price our
holdings but they are possibly worth around £40–50m. In addition,
we hold reserves of about £10m plus other assets and the goodwill
of our publications and the PJ. In the event of a split it is obvious
that we would no longer have the need for much of the accommodation at
Lambeth. We should capitalise on our assets by selling the properties
and relocating elsewhere, not necessarily in central London. Our new
Charter, in line with those which preceded it, has provision for the
disbursement of the Society’s assets in the event that it is “wound
up”. Being forced to surrender some of its long-established functions
by this Government is clearly not the same as the Society closing for
business and being wound up, hence there is no reason to surrender any
of our assets to any other body.
The Council and managers also have a duty to minimise our liabilities.
Society membership will be much reduced and, with it, fee income. Registration
will vanish along with almost all of the educational requirements. I
would expect that there will be few redundancies, with most staff in
those areas being absorbed by the new employer. If there are redundancy
costs surely they must fall on the organisation which causes the problem,
not on us. Similarly with our current pension provision: these are reasonable
but not completely funded and should be transferable to a new employer
or perhaps be frozen at the time of schism. Any topping up required should
be minimal but it must be no more than our contribution level, not that
of an open-ended, unfunded Civil Service structure.
The Council, Officers and managers have recently been spending serious
monies on refurbishment of our headquarters. Given that no two property
owners have identical views on internal furnishings, I would strongly
suggest that no further expenditure on the building be undertaken, even
to the extent of incurring some contractual penalties. We will continue
to need accommodation and expertise for our administration, library,
museum and publications and we might even aspire to having a chief scientist’s
department again, but not at SE1 7JN.
Mr Walker also touched on the appointment of the new Secretary. I would
suggest we have no option but to appoint a Secretary and Registrar with
a strong personality who is totally committed to the interests of pharmacists
and who will be given a highly remunerated, targeted and short-term contract
of around three years. Any future chief executive officer must not expect
a similar salary for managing a much smaller and less complex professional
body.
Are there existing organisational models that can guide our future structure?
As well as the existing royal colleges there are other non-statutory,
voluntary professional bodies, incorporated under royal charter, such
as the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Royal Society and the British
Psychological Society. The sooner we review their function, structures
and organisation the better fitted we will be for our changing professional
and representative role.
Ian Caldwell
Former President and Honorary Auditor
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
| |
BERNARD KELLY, director of finance and resources at the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
I am pleased to see that Ian
Caldwell has lost
nothing of his ability to focus in on major organisational and
financial issues which he demonstrated so well as an honorary auditor.
I would
like to take the opportunity to reassure Mr Caldwell that the senior
staff at the Society and the Society’s Council are focused
on addressing all the issues he has raised plus many others which
may have an impact on the Society and the profession’s future.
However, it would be premature to respond in detail at this stage
to the points raised. Particularly since at the moment there are
no firm proposals on which the members could be consulted.
For the sake of accuracy I would like to point out that the Society
owns the whole of the freehold of Bell House, although there are
two flats there let on
long-term leases. The most recent valuation of the Society’s properties
gave a market value of £11m and our reserves at the end of 2005 had fallen
to a little over £5m as a result of the inclusion of the Pension Fund
deficit. |
Technicians are likely to be regulated by a GPC
From Mr A. R. Cox, MRPharmS
It is unlikely, as Steve
Maddern suggests (PJ, 24 March, p342), that technicians
will be excluded or forgotten in the event of the split of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society. Technicians were taken on as registrants of the Society with government
support; it is, therefore, highly likely that this regulatory activity
will be carried over to a General Pharmaceutical Council, rather than remaining
with the Society. The membership body remaining will, as a royal college,
continue, hopefully, to provide the professional representation role for
pharmacists it has maintained for 160 years.
Obtaining a process of mandatory registration and regulation for pharmacy
technicians was a great victory and key objective for the Association
of Pharmacy Technicians UK (APTUK). However, its principles, set out on its
website, make it clear that regulation via the Society was the aim, not
membership. It states on its website: “The Association remains an
independent organisation and has no interest, financial or otherwise, with
any other pharmacy or pharmacy employer organisation. The Association remains
true to one of its founding principles, ‘run by pharmacy technicians,
for pharmacy technicians’.”
There is no doubt that the Society will enjoy a fruitful working relationship
with APTUK, just as it does with the professional bodies of other health
professionals. Arguably, a royal college of pharmacists, divested of the
conflict of interest of regulating technicians, is in a much better position
to engage constructively with APTUK on the many professional matters of
interest to both groups.
Anthony Cox
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal