| • Veterinary pharmacy
• Antibiotic resistance
• Community pharmacy
• Opiate addiction
• Clinical trials
• Retention fees (3)
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fees
Decision will be made in long-term interests of the profession
From Mr A. C. Gush, MRPharmS
Paul Breame (PJ,
16 June, p716) raised his concerns about the “substantial
increase in retention fee” for 2008 as announced
by the President during the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
annual general meeting in May (PJ, 26 May, p624).
Although a final decision has yet to be made in respect of the 2008 fee
increase I thought, as the Society’s new Treasurer, that it would
be useful for me to outline some of background that is at the core of
the Council’s ongoing discussions on this understandably emotive
issue.
In 2004 the Council adopted a financial strategy with the aim of achieving
long-term financial sustainability for the Society. There were three
main planks to this strategy:
(i) to reduce reliance on the financial
contribution from RPS Publishing
(ii) to fund regulatory and professional
activity from premises fees and retention fees
(iii) to build the
Society’s reserves from the publishing contribution.
Although movement has been made towards these objectives, progress has
been slower than expected. There are a number of reasons for this, including
a decrease in the revenue from publications, the escalating cost of regulation,
the costs relating to continuing professional development and the large
deficit in the Society’s pension fund.
Another key factor relates
to the Council’s reluctance over the past two years to raise significantly
retention fee levels in an effort to restrict the financial burden on
the membership. However we are now in a position where, in the absence
of any new funding, our reliance on traditional sources of income will
need to increase substantially.
I am aware that the timing of fee payments is far from ideal and members
will be glad to learn that I am investigating ways of introducing staged
payments. However I cannot make any promises that this will be introduced
in time for January 2008 as regulations will need to change to allow
this to happen, but if it can be done it will be done.
There is probably no aspect of the Society’s work that is more
likely to attract criticism from members than the retention fee issue.
But I give you my assurance that the final decision taken by the Council
regarding fees will not be made lightly but will be made in the long-term
interests of the pharmacy profession and the Society, with the well-being
of members being a primary concern. Andrew Gush
Treasurer
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Technicians' fee does not reflect income
From Mrs S. J. Lowdon, RegPharmTech
Further to the letter from Paul
Breame (PJ, 16 June, p706) I would like
to add my concerns as a pharmacy technician about the “substantial” rise
in retention fees, as yet unannounced.
I have no doubt that when the retention fee for pharmacists goes up so
will the retention fee for technicians. Mr Breame rightly states that
this rise is not always reflected in the wages that we earn each month,
particularly the wages of those who work part time. I agree with him.
Why can we not pay our fees monthly or quarterly by direct debit or,
if not, why does the fee have to be paid around the Christmas period?
Why not at the end of the financial year? I would also like to add that
previously, my employer, Boots the Chemists, paid my fee. However, I
now work for the NHS and it does not pay my fee. I am assuming that this
is the same for pharmacists. How can this be just?
Surely if it is necessary to be on a Register, employers should either
pay the fee or it should be reflected in our wages?
Sarah Lowdon
Yateley,
Hampshire
What are our fees for?
From Mr A. Matalia, MRPharmS
Membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has never been based upon
salary. Pharmacists who earn £35,000 pay the same as those earning £100,000.
Therefore, in my view, technician registrants should pay exactly the same
sum as pharmacists, whatever their salary.
On the subject of fees, I find it unacceptable that Hemant Patel believes “substantial
increases in the retention fee are inevitable” (PJ, 26 May, p624).
Pharmacists should protest against this unacceptable “conscription” fee.
Fee increases should require the approval of members and not just the Privy
Council. Let us have a breakdown of what fees are for, just as we have
a breakdown in our council tax bills. Let us decide which parts we wish
to pay for.
A. Matalia
Coventry |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal