Retention fees
My budgetary threshold has been reached
From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS
Despite the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society Treasurer’s rhetoric
and fine words (PJ, 11 August, p154) there can be no justification for
the proposed swingeing increases in members’ retention fees. To
the many
comments and questions in the letters pages of the 11 August
issue of The Journal there has been no adequate response.
The Treasurer states that “the decision on fees agreed by the Society’s
Council … is designed to ensure the long-term financial viability
of the Society and the two successor bodies that will be crucial for
the profession in the future” and that “other external factors,
including the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Act 2007 (Section
60 Order) and the costs of demerging from one integrated body (the Society)
into two (the General Pharmaceutical Council and a new professional body
akin to a royal college) also need to be managed”.
I fail to see why the current Society membership has to foot such costs,
particularly those of the GPharmC, when they are the result of Government
decisions. The Government should do more than “make a substantial
financial contribution towards the costs of a demerger”: it should
cover the total costs. Emily
Wighton’s letter (ibid, p154) makes
these points admirably and I hope the Council will respond to the questions
posed in her last paragraph.
Much is made of the consultation process on the proposed fees. I would
make two comments. First, the nine principles quoted are all finance
based with no membership considerations. How about adding, for example, “fair
play for all”, “value for money” and “membership
benefits”?
Secondly, the consultation exercise will only bring
greater accountability to the fee-setting process if it is seen to
influence the outcome. Unless it does I fear it will only be a fig leaf
hiding
what should be transparent. We shall see.
Unlike for Andrew
Bond (ibid, p153), this ridiculous increase in retention
fees has reached my budgetary threshold for continuing my membership.
I had hoped to remain on the Register until I was visited by the grim
reaper. This will now only be possible if he comes before 1 January
2008 as I will not be renewing my membership.
And I am sure I will
not be
alone. This, alas, is a luxury my practising colleagues do not have
and it bodes ill for the membership of a body akin to a royal college.
I shall miss the letters pages and the obituary columns of the PJ but
what else do retired members get for their money? Regretfully, I
say goodbye. Bill Brookes
Stoke-on-Trent,
Staffordshire
Heavy on rhetoric, light on detail
From Dr M. D. Jones, MRPharmS
Emily Wighton made a reasonable request when she asked for a detailed
breakdown of the new costs which the proposed 50 per cent retention fee
increase is supposed to cover (PJ, 11 August, p154). Despite this, the
response of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Treasurer, Andrew
Gush, was heavy on rhetoric, but light on detail.
I, therefore, renew Miss Wighton’s call for a detailed breakdown
of how the extra money raised by the proposed fee increase will be spent.
Indeed, without such information to hand, it is not possible to provide
an informed answer to question 10 of the Society’s consultation
on the issue.
Perhaps the quickest and easiest solution would be to publish the review
by the Resource Management Committee on which the Council based its decision.
Matthew Jones
London
Fee rise may cause serious hardship in some cases
From Mr W. J. Ambler, MRPharmS
The proposed rise in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s retention
fees is alarming and will cause serious hardship in some cases. But the
thing that worries me is that we seem to have no choice in the matter.
We have to pay if we want to continue working and that is that.
Is there no way the grass roots membership can challenge Council decisions
with immediate effect?
W. J. Ambler
Leicester
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
From Mr M. Stein, MRPharmS
Well at last — a clear
concise reason as to why fees are being hiked: “… in future more emphasis will be placed on activity
that supports and promotes the work of pharmacists” (PJ, 11 August,
p155). Is that not supposed to be what the Society has been doing since
its inception?
I recall a similar situation, when I owned a pharmacy, with a member
of staff who wanted an increase saying that when she received it she
would carry out all the duties (which she should have been doing anyway)
that she felt unable to do before. I leave you to surmise what happened.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Malcolm Stein
Hatfield, Hertfordshire
These are problems of the Society's own making
From Mr G. Newton, MRPharmS
All members must be realistic and expect an increase in their 2008 fees
and, although some may be surprised at the scale
of this increase (PJ,
4 August, p129), the real question we must be asking the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s Council is both how it has reached this conclusion and
why it has taken so long to reach this conclusion, necessitating such
a burdensome increase.
From reading the consultation document, it appears the over-riding thrust
of the Society’s argument is that “we’ve been caught
with our trousers down and we need you (the membership) to dig us out
of the hole”. Although I accept that the pensions issue is one
that is troubling many organisations beyond the boundaries of the Society,
nearly all other aspects of this financial deficit arise from what appears
to be poor planning; they appear to be of the Society’s own making.
The Society is quick to remind us of the advantages of membership — and
how few tangible advantages there are other than our ability to practise.
Assuming that these advantages continue, then there should be little
need for an uplift in fees beyond inflation (accepting the pension difficulties
already mentioned — but clearly this does not justify a 50 per
cent uplift).
One might assume, therefore, that new developments and plans within the
Society necessitate this increase. In a document of 21 pages relatively
little of the consultation paper is spent on this issue — a mere
three paragraphs.
The Council has known about most of these “new” pressures
and political developments for some time. The regional boards have been
some time in coming. The Council needs to either tell us why it needs
even further resourcing or whether it was incompetent in establishing,
constituting and funding them (presumably by under-budgeting).
The other main issues cited are “Trust, assurance and safety — the
regulation of health professionals in the 21st century”, and the
work completed by the Carter Working Party and the Pharmacy 2020 project.
Of the former two, the Council should be strenuously discussing funding
options with the Government as the Society and its membership are broadly
satisfied with the current arrangements.
Simply put, if the Government
wants change then it should fund it. We need to know whether there
are any precedents where a profession has had to fund enforced change
internally.
The consultation claims to provide transparency in the process for
setting fees. All I see is mist and obfuscation: lots of words and
little content
and substance. At the least there should be a clear breakdown of how
the fee increase is justified and how it will be spent so the members
can give an informed response.
One positive thing from the consultation is the proposed principle
of sharing the costs of some specialised aspects of registration (principle
4: professional innovators), for example the development of the register
annotation for non-medical prescribing pharmacists. In the spirit of
transparency an explanation of why these innovators are requiring further
funding would be interesting.
In conclusion, I am left with the feeling that the Council has already
made its decision about 2008 fees. I fear that the consultation is
a simple smokescreen, preventing transparency, and that our feedback
will
be all but ignored by the Council.
I also fear that the Council must
have poorly planned its budget over the past few years to be requiring
such a dramatic fees increase, despite the hefty increases in recent
years; and I fear the Council has not been forceful enough with the
Government to understand how required changes will be managed (and funded).
I fear
that I feel more disenfranchised than ever.
Finally, I worry that the The Journal is not being impartial
in its discussion of the subject: members have not been informed of
a petition against
the proposed increase. Graham Newton
Northwich,
Cheshire
| |
We did inform members of the existence
of a petition (PJ, 4
August, p117). However, as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
official journal, we chose not to publish the online petition address
because we hoped to encourage members to respond to the Society’s
consultation (PJ, 11 August, p161) rather than to an unofficial
petition.
— EDITOR
|
The Society is arrogant and treating members with contempt
From Mr M. H. K. Kiang, MRPharmS
I cannot accept the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s justification
for increasing retention fees. The letter released by the President on
2 August makes the assumption that the Society will continue as it is — to
serve its members. Has it not been made clear by Lord Hunt that the Society
cannot exist as it is?
If the Society is intent on serving its members,
does it think its actions now would command the membership that it will
desperately need in order to survive? I think not.
What the Society is
doing is tantamount to daylight robbery, asking so to pay for the new
regulatory body and a body akin to a royal college, neither of
which has set out its stall as to what format and membership they will
take.
Even if they did, how would they benefit pharmacists if no one decides
to join. I suppose they can make membership compulsory, perhaps to pay
for future pension deficits. Does this sound familiar, because we are
back to square one?
The bottom line is this. Setting aside the pensions shortfall and the
Government’s insistence on the separation of representative and
regulatory functions, the Society cannot ask for money to pay for these
two bodies when no one knows what shape they will take.
The Society is being arrogant and treating its members with contempt.
Given the chance, I do not think many of us would pay to be member of
the Society, but I will definitely pay for my weekly PJ. Kevin Kiang
Nottingham
This increase is unjustifiable
From Mrs C. E. Dewes, MRPharmS
The proposed retention fee increase is unjustifiable. Why should I,
as a part-time locum pharmacist, pay the same as a full-time pharmacist
earning at least double what I do? This is unfair.
Whatever fee is finally decided, we should be able to pay by monthly
direct debit.
Catherine Dewes
Birmingham
Consultation fails to address members' needs
From Dr A. S. Yates, MRPharmS
I write to express my extreme disappointment with the way in which the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society is attempting
to hike up the fees by 50 per cent (PJ, 4 August, p129). I am lucky enough to have my fees paid
for by my employer and, therefore, do not suffer the hardship these increases
will impose. However, I still
believe the Society should reconsider.
What organisation “agrees” and “adopts” an increased
fee structure1 then decides to consult on the “proposed” fees2 only a few days later? Maybe a society that is in freefall, which does
not have a business plan or a strategy and which is so far removed from
its membership as to be contemptuous.
Upon reading the consultation document I was further disappointed that
again the Society fails to address its members’ needs. The document
addresses ethereal points about the need to build up reserves, to have
contingency money available, etc, but nowhere are there any hard financial
figures to justify the increase proposed or indications of how the Society
will measure any form of incremental success as a result of the extra
funding. A good start would be a 50 per cent increase in performance
indicators.
William Bulger once wrote: “There is never a better measure of
what a person is than what he does when he is absolutely free to choose.”
At its July meeting the Council members were “absolutely free to
choose”. I know what my measure is of them and I encourage other
members to make their views known.
Andrew Yates
Manchester
References
1. Royal Pharmaceutical Society news release. Future planning and external
pressures lead to fee change. 27 July 2007 (PDF 70K)
2. Royal Pharmaceutical Society news release. Fee consultation seeks
members’ views. 3 August 2007 (PDF 80K)
A rise too much for overseas members
From Mr J. Redshaw, MRPharmS
As a pharmacist who has moved overseas and who still enjoys keeping
in touch with developments in the UK, I felt compelled to write with
regards the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s proposed increase in
the overseas retention fee.
Although the current fee is fairly high,
I paid it because it was important to maintain my GB registration even
while I am in New Zealand, so that if I ever return to the UK it would
be easier for me to resume work as a pharmacist.
The proposed fee increase means that I am seriously considering retiring
from the British Register. We are paid less in New Zealand, so the
new fee would mean almost NZ$500 for what, in reality, is just The
Journal every week.
I cannot justify this, and I think many
other overseas pharmacists will be in a similar position, particularly
as the reasons
for the fee
increase will not have any impact on us overseas members at all. Jon Redshaw
Paraparaumu, New Zealand
Fee should be split
From Mr M. J. MacDonald, MRPharmS
I refer to the current controversy regarding the proposed increase
in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s retention membership fees.
I note that the current subscription for The Pharmaceutical Journal is £210 per annum for non-members.
May I suggest that when the
retention fee becomes payable for 2008 that it be split, ie, £215
membership plus £210 for the PJ, the latter being optional.
I see no reason for receiving a paper copy of The Journal each
week when it is available electronically.
The electronic service should
be made
subscription only but available to members. I believe that this proposal
should be particularly welcome by our “green” members. Mike MacDonald
Council By-election Candidate,
Cardiff
| |
No part of a pharmacist’s registration fee forms a subscription
to The Journal, which is self-funding and distributed free of
charge as a service to members.
— EDITOR
|
Locum shortage will become more acute
From Mrs S. P. Insole, MRPharmS
As a semi-retired pharmacist I am getting to the time of year when
I shall decide whether or not to renew my membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society. The massive hike in fee may make me decide that enough is enough
and I really will retire now. I am sure there are many other pharmacists
in the same position.
For the past few weeks my mobile telephone has not stopped receiving
urgent messages begging me to do this or that locum. Should other pharmacists
like me decide to retire the current shortage of locums prepared to
work in the summer holidays will become even more acute.
If, for what ever reasons, the Society needs considerably more money
over the next few years then surely the increase in fees could be staggered.
I cannot see companies or independent proprietors being prepared to
increase the fees they pay locums by more than a tiny percentage.
Furthermore
I think you will find that of all the professions the hourly rate
we can command is still one of the lowest.
Sarah Insole
Bristol
Is there value for money beyond statutory registration?
From Mr R. S. Boorman, MRPharmS
I work as a part-time locum pharmacist. I have always tried to ensure
as part of the service I provide that patients and employers get value
for money and do not part with wealth they do not need to spend. In return
I expect value for money from others.
So I ask, do we have any confidence that Government interference in the matters
of the pharmacy profession will work and why should we pay for something of
no proven or likely benefit?
Does the Royal Pharmaceutical Society provide
value for money beyond the need for statutory registration? If not, then
I do not agree with the retention fee increases.
Robert S. Boorman
Abingdon,
Oxfordshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal