The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7463 p125
4 August 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 40K, Acrobat Reader

• Retention fees
• White Paper (3)
• Athena
• The Journal

Letters to the Editor

Retention fees

Reasons for the lower technicians’ fee

From Mr A. C. Gush, MRPharmS

In response to B. S. James’s letter (PJ, 28 July, p100) concerning retention fees it should be noted that pharmacy technicians currently pay a lower registration fee than practising pharmacists as they do not benefit from the full range of services offered by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

These services include use of the Society’s library and the potential to receive support provided by the Society’s Benevolent Fund and Listening Friends scheme.

The cost of regulation is based on the risks involved. Pharmacists’ practice is inherently more risky than that of pharmacy technicians and is becoming more so with the growth of prescribing rights and increase in clinical services.

There might be an argument for equal fees for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians if we were receiving the same number of fitness-to-practise allegations for both groups and we were involved in accrediting courses, for example, for advance practice for pharmacy technicians, but we are a long way from this position at present.

Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are registered with the Society regardless of the number of hours they work — the standards they are expected to uphold operate seven days a week. There is provision for both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to register as non-practising in appropriate circumstances should they wish.

The Society has adopted a policy of ensuring all costs incurred in registering technicians, together with an appropriate allocation of overheads, are recovered from the fee charged. This allocation of costs includes a charge for supplying The Pharmaceutical Journal.

Andrew Gush
Treasurer
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (White Paper)