Retention fees

Finally the retention fees for 2008 have been agreed. Sadly, the opinions and views of the many part-time and semi-retired members have been disregarded.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society still seems oblivious to the impending staffing crisis that is highly likely to occur in 2008 as many part-time pharmacists decide not to renew their membership, a point I raised in an earlier letter to the PJ (25 August, p206).

I often wonder if the Society works in a similar way to the current Government under its present and its past leader, ie, pretend that a crisis will not occur then, when it happens, wonder why it has and then enter panic mode wondering how on earth it can be dealt with.

The Society should be demonstrating its commitment to reducing administrative costs. Yet this week’s PJ and the demand for 2008 retention fees each arrived by the same post this morning — hardly a way to prove money-saving measures are operating.

The retention fees demand has an air of financial blackmail about it this time: pay up by 19 December or if we have not got your money in our bank by 1 January 2008, we remove your name from the Register and we will charge you a hefty fee to restore it.

Again, little or no thought has gone into the timing of the demand. Many pharmacists, especially those just starting out on their careers, already find this time of year a particularly hard one financially, especially this year faced with increased mortgage repayments, young families to buy for plus the large rises in fuel costs associated with travelling to and from work, without having to meet the Society’s deadline as well.

Many employee pharmacists also have the prospect of having to wait for the December salary to be paid into the bank after Christmas.

I think, as retention forms start to arrive at the Society next month, the scale of resignations will come as a shock but as no surprise to many of the remaining practising members.

Andrew Calder
Leigh, Lancashire

Forgive me for seeing red but …

From Mr A. J. Jukes, MRPharmS

I received an electricity bill and tax demand recently. They were both in black type on a plain sheet of paper. If they were late they would be detailed on a red background indicating they were late.

The recent demand for my professional fees is on a red letter but they are not late. This only serves further to alienate people who are, in fact, professionals.

Andrew Jukes
Brighton

Is the penalty fee a form of extortion?

From Mr D. Lee, MRPharmS

I have just received my retention fee form and noticed on the front that a penalty fee of up to £1,235 is payable if you want to be restored to the Register after removal for non-payment of fees.

I find this an incredible statement and it makes me wonder whether this is reflective of the true cost or a punitive measure (ie, a threat of financial violence) to ensure pharmacists pay the extravagant increase in fees against their will.

According to WordNet (2006, Princeton University) extortion is (i) an exorbitant charge, (ii) unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority), eg, the extortion by dishonest officials of fees for performing their sworn duty, or (iii) the felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of violence). So is the penalty fee a form of extortion?

I struggle to comprehend that the increase in fees is for something that has not been clearly defined and that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is serving its own interest instead of the interests of its members.

Members have clearly indicated to the Society’s Council that this increase is unwarranted and premature. In this instance it is hospital pharmacists who will bear the brunt of this increase more heavily as the NHS does not pay or reimburse the retention fee[*].

I find it hard to believe that it costs as much as it does to maintain a Register when considering the maximum cost in New Zealand is $495 (approx £180), including the disciplinary procedures.

In 2001 the retention fee was £180, which begs the question, what additional services or representation has the Society provided since 2001?

Other questions that seem relevant is whether the fees will decrease in following years or stay at the same level and whether anyone would be foolish enough to join a Society that flagrantly overcharges for its services.

Given a choice, how many current members would stay with the Society as it is being currently run or switch to another organisation that could do the job members want?

Dan Lee
Whitehaven, Cumbria

*The Department of Health announced in August 2007 that it would contribute £38 towards the cost of pharmacists’ professional registration (PJ, 11 August 2007, p144).
— EDITOR

An appropriate image?

From Mr J. Andrews, MRPharmS

I am sure everyone affected has their own view on the disappointing fees announcement so I will not vent my own anger here, but I just cannot let go of the fact that the “Fee increase — Q&A” document, available on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s website, has on its front cover the Treasurer Andrew Gush looking as if he is about to burst into laughter.

Was that really an appropriate choice for the first image we see when looking for answers as to why members are now having to cover the cost of the Society’s situation.

James Andrews
Surrey Community Health Services

ANDREW GUSH, Treasurer, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:

Choosing a photograph can be a very personal choice. Be assured that from day one I have approached my role as Treasurer with a strong sense of duty and with professionalism — and continue to do so.

I acknowledge that the fee change has been an unpopular decision. Members were rightly dissatisfied with such a large and unexpected increase. If there had been alternative actions which offered a similarly sound financial platform to move forward with, they would have been recommended to Council.

We are working hard to introduce staged payments to make fee payment more manageable and have taken every care in lessening the impact on the more exposed membership groups. Extra financial help to part-timers, members with low incomes and retired pharmacists is also being investigated. Delivering financial stability, not financial shocks, must be the way forward.

The reality is, however, that the Society reached a stage where the financial deficit for previous years had to be covered. Even the £3m from the Government towards the transitional costs of setting up the General Pharmaceutical Council has not come direct to the Society: it is held by the body set up by the Department of Health to oversee the creation of the regulatory body.

Although I inherited the bulk of these financial challenges, I was not prepared to (or, in fact, in a position to) overlook them.

We have had to address difficult financial circumstances and make extremely uncomfortable decisions over the past few months, but we are not ignoring our responsibility towards the members.

We are determined that members will not shoulder the additional costs of the separation and I can wholeheartedly assure readers that we continue to lobby forcefully for full Government funding.

Clarification, please

From Mr R. N. Venkatesh, MRPharmS

In the PJ of 10 November 2007 (p542), it is stated: “The direct debit payment and declaration process has changed for 2008. All those making direct debit payments must make a declaration by 19 December 2007.

“Declarations can be made online via myRPSGB or by signing and returning the retention fee form. The Society says that failure to make a declaration by this time will result in the cancellation of a registrant’s direct debit and payment will, therefore, have to be made online or by cheque.”

However, the retention fee letter states: “In order to retain your name on the Register of Pharmacists, payment of a retention fee is now due. To ensure your payment and declaration is processed by the statutory deadline of 1 January 2008 please make your return by 19 December 2007.”

This suggests that if you pay by direct debit and you fail to make your declaration by 19 December there is no margin for you to pay online by the due date so you will probably to have to pay the restoration fee (penalty) plus your normal retention fee. Members might as well cancel their direct debits and just submit online.

Out of curiosity, why does it take 12 days to clear an online payment?

Roy Venkatesh
Basingstoke, Hampshire

ANDREW GARDNER, head of registration, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, states:

Payments and declarations are due by 1 January 2008 for pharmacists and by 31 December 2007 for pharmacy technicians.

Direct debit payments will be debited from accounts on the first working day of 2008. It takes a minimum of five working days to call for, receive and process direct debit payments and, as the Society requires a declaration with a payment, direct debit declarations need to be received by 19 December 2007.

Online payments and declarations reach the Society the day after they are made. The Society recommends all payments and declarations are made by 19 December 2007 to allow time for processing and to resolve any problems before the 1 January 2008 deadline.

Those who fail to make a payment and declaration by 1 January 2008 risk being removed from the Register.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (NPA PMI bid)
Next Topic (The Society)