The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7471 p341
29 September 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

Related websites
Retention fees 2008 Society's consultation

Pharmacy law group: conserve part-time workforce

Pharmacists’ fees need to be structured in a way that is more responsive to the needs of the workforce and a breakdown of costs is needed to justify increases, the Pharmacy Law and Ethics Association believes. Justification is also needed for increases in premises fees, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee says.

Responding to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s consultation on its proposed 50 per cent increase in retention fees, the association has argued that the contribution of part-time pharmacists, and specialist and senior pharmacists, needs to be conserved. It is inequitable for part-time and semi-retired pharmacists to pay the same fees as full-time workers, it says, and it is also counter-productive. “Many have already left the active ranks of the profession and more are likely to,” it says.

In addition, the association says that the concept of what constitutes “practice” in the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007 is too wide and has led many working outside the orthodox health care environment to leave the profession. It suggests that a better definition could refer to professionals having “a direct impact on patients lives, their health and well-being and on the delivery of care”.

The association also calls for the Society to publish a breakdown of the costs of regulation and to identify baseline expenditure and new costs resulting from Government-driven changes in regulation, which should therefore be funded, at least in part, by the Government. Pending a clear breakdown of costs to justify the increases, the Society’s retention fees should increase in line with inflation, the association says.

The Society has also failed to justify its proposed increase to premises fees, the PSNC argues. Sue Sharpe, chief executive of the PSNC, said that the Society needs to be realistic about which of its activities should be funded through the premises retention fee. She said the Society had not done enough to identify savings that could be made, explain why the increases are necessary, or determine whether the activities to be funded through the premises fees are appropriate.

The Society’s fees consultation ends next week (3 October 2007).