Retention fees

In 2005 the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council proposed to introduce a nominal fee for those members who had been on the Register for 50 or more years.

The Privy Council’s legal advisers rejected this proposal. In 2006 the Council stated “it remains committed to exploring the options available to it in respect of non-practising and retired members” (PJ, 15 April 2006, p459 (PDF 70K)).

Now that fees for individual registrants are determined under the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007 and do not have to approved by the Privy Council, why has the Council not honoured its pledge in respect of members of 50 years or more who are now retired?

The proposed fee of £96 for such members is outrageous. They form a small minority and the only benefit most of them receive from their membership is to receive The Pharmaceutical Journal, which enables them to keep in touch with the profession they have been part of for so many years.

Earlier this year, it was stated that “the PJ is entirely self-funding and in fact contributes to the funding of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society” (PJ, 3 February, p130). So there is now no reason why the Council should not introduce a nominal fee for such members.

Brian Edwards
Wirral, Merseyside

Government must be responsible for costs of demerger

From Mr R. Dickinson, FRPharmS

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Treasurer has reminded us (PJ, 11 August, p154) that the “demerger” of the Society into a regulation authority and a professional body was “instigated by the Government”. He says that the costs of the demerger is one reason for the proposed fee increase.

The discussions between the Society and Government have been shrouded in secrecy, at the latter’s insistence, but surely the bulk of those costs must lie with the instigator.

The Government has decided, unilaterally, to establish a General Pharmaceutical Council to undertake those activities that comprise the regulation of the profession. It follows that the Government must be responsible for all of the start up costs and, through registration and retention fees, all of the continuing costs of resourcing that new body, including its accommodation and staff.

It should also have responsibility for those members of the Society’s staff who are now undertaking activities that will, in future, be carried out by the GPhC, and for the continuing viability of the Society’s pension scheme.

The Society is the owner of 1 Lambeth High Street and, after the forthcoming consultation with the members, will hopefully evolve into a voluntary membership professional leadership body. This body will no doubt have a significantly reduced staff and accommodation requirement.

In addition to revenue from membership fees and its publication activities, it will have income from tenants occupying spare space at Lambeth or from the sale of those central London premises less the cost of a cheaper headquarters at a more cost-effective location.

No doubt there will also be a value to be negotiated for all of the records that the Society owns related to the regulatory activities that will henceforth be carried out by the new body.

It will be for the GPhC to decide if it wishes to seek to be a tenant of the owner of 1 Lambeth High Street at a realistic rent or to seek alternative accommodation. If the former, and if the Society continues to own that property, the regulatory and professional bodies would have the same address thereby clouding the perception of separation for those outside pharmacy. This, incidentally, would have been the situation if the Society’s regulatory machinery had been evolved into an autonomous entity within the Society.

In the future, the professional body will need to live within its means, developing additional income-generating activities. It should not in any way subsidise the Government’s decision to take over the profession’s regulation.

Raymond Dickinson
Farnham, Surrey

Choice of payment methods

From Mr P. R. Breame, MRPharmS

So, now we know exactly what the “substantial rise in retention fee”, originally announced by Hemant Patel at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s annual general meeting on 16 May, is to be.

I find the article in the PJ of 4 August (p129) somewhat intriguing. It is interesting that there can be, what appeared to be, an arbitrary imposition of rises in fees on the members but methods of payment have to go out to consultation.

We now find, in a subsequent issue (PJ, 11 August, p161) that the whole thing is going out to consultation. So, if that is the case and the fees can be put in place by January, why then cannot the alternative methods of payment be so as well?

Perhaps it is time that the Society moved from the 19th to the 21st century and offered members a simple choice of payment methods, irrespective of rises in fees. I would, respectfully, suggest this scheme to be implemented forthwith:

• Payment as before — cheque or single direct debit in January

• Monthly or quarterly direct debit payments

• Single credit card payment

Why do we need a “consultation” on payment methods anyway? We are told that a consultation might result in such a scheme of alternative payment methods not being available in time for the payment of the 2008 fee. Why? What excuses are there not to?

I also find that the President’s statement “the Council recognises that members will need to budget in order to pay the fees” condescending and insulting. What does he think we are? Children? Spendthrifts? How are we to budget between now and January, barely five months away?

Not everybody gets their fees paid for them by their organisation or can take it out of the till. He has, apparently, asked the Society’s staff to look into ways of “implementing a payment plan … as soon as possible”. Well, Mr Patel, that is a no-brainer and should have been seriously considered when original discussions were taking place on increasing fees.

Perhaps current Council members should remember who voted them in — the members. And, of course, who can vote them out at the next election, that is, if there is anyone left on the Register to vote.

Paul Breame
Clacton-on-Sea, Essex

Council should engage Society members

From Mr A. Matalia, MRPharmS

Why does the Royal Pharmaceutical Society try to compare pharmacists’ retention fees with those of dentists and doctors when a fairer comparison is opticians?

Optometrists pay £169 a year and there is no discounted membership for dispensing opticians (compare this with pharmacists and technicians). Of course the risk factors for optometrists are greater than for dispensing opticians, but all pay the same fee. New members also pay a pro-rata fee for the year.

It is interesting that the General Optical Council register is significantly smaller than the pharmaceutical Register, that the GOC can also strike off opticians and that members engage in continuing professional development. Its functions are similar to those of the Society.

If the GOC can do the entire task for £169, why cannot the Society? If you compare the above fee to the new proposed fees it is not difficult to understand the widespread anger.

Clearly, for many, the decision to join a new royal college-type body is going to be based upon cost. It is inconceivable that this has not been considered by the Council. Yet, the Council has not addressed this point and an estimate has not been put forward.

The Society should pose the following questions to its members:

• We anticipate the cost of compulsory registration with the GPhC will be £x per year, and voluntary membership of the new royal college-type body will be £y per year. Would you be willing to join a new royal college if fees were set at this level?

• What is the maximum fee you are willing to pay to join the new body akin to a royal college?

• Are you not interested in joining the new body akin to a royal college whatever the cost?

Based upon the responses, the Society could decide whether it is necessary to go ahead with a new royal college. If most pharmacists are not willing to join a new royal college (with its baggage, in terms of pension liabilities) then it makes little sense to form one.

As such, the £6m surplus should be used to eliminate all liabilities and close down the Society. Thus there would be no need for a fee increases; in fact fees could be nil until the Society is closed.

I call on the Council to engage Society members with straightforward questions and not ignore or mislead them. They must declare what the true current cost is of registration alone.

Why the Council expects members to pay for a shortfall in pensions is beyond my comprehension. Exactly what benefit is this to members? The Council should ask the Government to make up the shortfall or simply use its reserves.

A. Matalia
Coventry, West Midlands

Pharmacy workforce wil be deprived of cover

From Mr A. R. G. Calder, MRPharmS

In March of this year, I made the not too difficult decision to retire from community pharmacy having realised some time ago that there was more to life then just that.

Although I did not advertise the fact that I was retiring other than to colleagues in the company and friends locally, I have been amazed at the number of requests I have received since March to help other pharmacists out at short notice within a 10-mile or more radius of home.

It came, therefore, as a shock — one that I viewed with both anger and disgust — at the proposal by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to raise the annual retention fee by some 50 per cent to £425.

This will mean that the pharmacy workforce could be deprived of a valuable and reliable source of cover at short notice for emergencies, holidays and so on, since it will not take a genius to work out that after tax, travelling and the abolition of the reduced working hours retention fee, that such work is just not a viable proposition.

Many pharmacists in my position will probably opt to resign from the Register instead, although having one’s name erased for non-payment would seem a more macho approach and perhaps make the Society realise the error of its ways.

Of course, given the probable level of discontent soon to be voiced, that decision may be reversed. And pigs might fly!

The excuses for the proposed increase seem a bit feeble, especially deficits in the staff pension fund. (Unlike Society staff, many of us have had to fund our own retirement plan, the value of which has been badly affected by the actions of our former Chancellor, now Prime Minister.) It is clear from this that the membership of the Society exists to serve the Society and not the other way round.

Within both community and hospital pharmacy there currently exists a staffing crisis time bomb and the Society seems to be doing its best to both load and prime it with its crazy proposals.

Should there not be a drastic rethink on the question of members’ fees, then I am afraid that at midnight on 31 December 2007, the timer on that time bomb will start to tick away and the consequences in the future will be only too obvious to see for those without a blinkered outlook on the membership.

Andrew R. G. Calder
Leigh, Lancashire

Fragmentation of the profession will be speeded

From Mr S. Keeling, MRPharmS

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has made faulty strategic and illogical decisions. The large rises in retention fees will speed fragmentation of the profession. Individuals, unlike organisations, reduce their expenditure to match their income.

When representation becomes optional individuals will choose parochial representation by sector, eg, by the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists, the UK Clinical Pharmacy Association, the National Pharmacy Association, or the Pharmacists’ Defence Association, for instance, over the broad church of pharmacy. They will not choose to pay both fees. This will diminish pharmacy.

Also, the across-the-board 50 per cent rise in all administrative fees fails to meet with the consultation document principle that administrative costs be recovered. No mention is made of a built-in profit margin. Surely the pure administrative cost of preregistration and pharmacist prescribing status annotation on the Register have not increased by 50 per cent in one year.

The Society is behaving like the bank or building society that increases its administrative charges to a captive audience, well beyond their actual cost, to maximise profits. The media tell us how unpopular this has been. This is not a vote winning approach for an organisation that may soon have to woo its membership.

The more honest approach is to load the total increase on annual membership once administrative costs are covered for other functions. This will avoid these individuals paying twice into the Society’s proposed war chest.

Finally, I fear this increase will not be a one off event to cover exceptional circumstances, but a continuing demand.

Steve Keeling
Wrexham, Clwyd

Those who can afford the increase must not forget colleagues who are not so well placed

From Mr G. Brack, MRPharmS

I have signed the online petition. I recognise that in doing so I am prey to the argument that I spend more than £425 a year belonging to some societies that I choose to support. The figure is similar to that for a season ticket to watch a league football club, for example. However, those of us who can afford the increase must not forget colleagues who are not so well placed.

I calculate that a band 6 hospital pharmacist will have to work for about a week and a quarter just to pay his or her retention fee. I suggest that this is a disproportionate level of fee for a young pharmacist, even when working full-time. Therefore how much more of a burden must it be for those who cannot work all week?

I understand the attractiveness of raising the premises fee. More effort (and therefore cost) goes into inspecting premises than pharmacists and, therefore, it is reasonable that proprietor pharmacists like me should meet more of the costs.

But I note that these fees fall on community pharmacies and I wonder why an organisation such as the new General Pharmaceutical Council with a profession-wide remit should not recover some of those costs from other organisations providing pharmacy services.

I say nothing of my own standards, but it seems to me to be curious that large professional chains need watching by a professional body whereas hospital groups may not — and while granting that there are other organisations doing this, should they retain that role when the GPhC is operational?

I said that I spend more than the retention fee to belong to associations and clubs of various kinds, but if I judge that money not to be well spent I can stop paying. The problem here is that a single supplier can require us to pay for its service and we have no choice

I would accept the £425 fee if part-timers paid less and newly qualified colleagues had a fee capped at a fixed percentage of an entry-level salary and had no new registration fee.

Graham Brack
Truro, Cornwall

What have I got myself into?

From Miss J. Y. K. Li, MRPharmS

I am writing to express my dismay at the significant increase in Royal Pharmaceutical Society retention fees. To add insult to injury, you unrealistically state that “some pharmacists … will find the increase unsustainable and decide to stop practising” (PJ, 4 August, p116).

What do you think these people will then do for a living? Work on the checkouts at the local supermarket perhaps?

As far as I can see, the Society does little to support the needs of pharmacists or indeed promote the profession to the public as a whole. With the proposed fee increase, I still do not see this situation changing and I am disappointed the Society did not put up more of a fight with the Government with regards to funding.

Only one year after qualifying, I am wondering what I have got myself into.

Jessica Li
Nottingham

Older pharmacists get a raw deal

From Mr C. G. Lewis, MRPharmS

I was surprised to read of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s proposed new retention fee structure for 2008. I registered as a non-practising pharmacist this year after over 50 years on the practising register because I wished to maintain some contact with the profession after retirement.

However, although I sympathise with all members, many are still working and will not necessarily be inconvenienced by the increased fees. I will have to think hard to decide whether it will be worth my while to continue my membership.

It would be a real wrench to have to return my certificate and then retire into professionable oblivion and not be able to use any pharmaceutical title.

I think that older pharmacists have had, and continue to have, a raw deal from the Society.

C. G. Lewis
Elstree, Hertfordshire

Can members be assured of greater transparency?

From Mrs M. M. Keyworth, FRPharmS

I share the concerns of recent correspondents to the PJ and I have read, with interest, the responses to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Treasurer (PJ, 18 August, pp190–1) where it is stated that the Society aims to raise £6m through the 50 per cent increase in fees.

I have not found any reference to the considerable capital sum that could be released if the Society chose to sell or lease the Lambeth headquarters. It has long been stressed that it is essential that the Society headquarters should be close to Parliament and other “seats of power” but I remain to be convinced that this has in fact proved a decisive factor in the future direction of pharmacy.

Can it be demonstrated that it has proved, and will prove, cost-effective for the Society to continue to be based in London? Has the option of renting out part of the building or, more radically, selling up and using the considerable capital sum released to purchase or rent more modest premises, been considered? Would this be more suitable for a streamlined organisation and release the capital needed?

Could the considerable travel and hotel expenses that are needed for attendance at the Society’s Council meetings and other events in London be reduced with a more central location? It is interesting to note that major community pharmacy multiples are managed from the Midlands and do not appear to have been disadvantaged by their location.

In the same article the Treasurer also stated, when responding to a question on the consultation responses, that “the report will be for the Council in the first instance, but could be made public”.

However, the announcement to branch and regional secretaries issued on 3 August and, referring to the same report, stated that “the Council will publish a report on the findings and any final decisions it takes about the fees, which will be made available on the Society’s website and in the PJ”.

Can we be assured that the findings of the report will be published in the PJ as well as the final decisions taken by the Council so that we, the membership, can be assured of the greater transparency we have been promised?

Madeleine M. Keyworth
Brigg, North Lincolnshire

Puzzled

From Mrs G. M. Farrow, MRPharmS

Could someone please clarify why the general membership has to pay more partly to plug the deficit in the pension fund?

I am a non-practising pharmacist and my husband works in community pharmacy and, therefore, I cannot quite grasp why we or anyone else not directly employed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should have to top up the pension fund.

I am sure that no one would top up my state pension fund or a private company’s fund if not a member. I am puzzled.

Gillian Farrow
Thetford, Norfolk

Worth the hassle?

From Mr B. R. Hammond, MRPharmS

May I add my name to the ever-growing list of part-time locum pharmacists who feel strongly about the unprecedented increase in our retention fee?

I have been on the Register for over 50 years and like many ex-proprietors and retired managers, cover Saturday mornings and the odd short-notice emergency, perhaps only working one day a week on average.

Remuneration is not in most cases the prime reason for working. We still wish to be of service to the community and, at the same time, able to oblige our fellow pharmacists by providing cover when other pharmacists cannot or will not.

However, in view of the massive increase in retention fee, insurance and continuing professional development I wonder if it is really worth the hassle, but who would fill the unsocial sessions and short notice emergencies if we were to leave the Register?

Bruce R. Hammond
Leeds, West Yorkshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (The Society)
Next Topic (Venous thromboembolism)