Retention fees

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7481 p654
8 December 2007

This article
Reprint Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

• Controlled drugs
• Locum pharmacy
• Medicines distribution
• Retention fees (2)
• Premises fees
• Supervision
• The profession
• Postgraduate education

Letters to the Editor

Retention fees

Retention fees 2008

Staged payments (Mr P. R. Breame)

Reply from Andrew Gush, Treasurer of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Part-time comparisons (Mr C. W. Lewis)

Staged payments

From Mr P. R. Breame, MRPharmS

It appears that there is a will, after all, to introduce staged payments for the retention fee, albeit too late this year for the many “unfortunates” like myself who do not have the luxury of reimbursement of fees from their employer.

Perhaps I should, unreservedly, apologise for my previous criticisms over the belated (by many years) move towards this option?

But wait. Did I see a typographical error in the announcement? Maybe I was looking through a disbelieving haze, but did the announcement say that the first staged payment would be on 1 December 2008?

Surely, that should read 1 January 2009? That is when the fee is due. Or are we being conned yet again?

Paul Breame
Little Clacton, Essex

ANDREW GUSH, Treasurer of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:

The Society’s Council understands it has a clear mandate to introduce staged payments, while acknowledging that there is still some way to go before the Society can offer this service to members.

We are working to ensure that the Society is not the limiting factor in the introduction of staged payments.

The responses to the fees consultation made clear an element of disquiet with the current fee year being aligned to the calendar year, so we are considering a staged payment cycle, with payments falling due on or around 1 December, 1 March, 1 June and 1 September, and 1 January for lump sum payments.

The Society will consult with members and registrants before making the changes necessary to bring about staged payments and, while we are always open to comments, if there are concerns about the timing of the payments or perhaps some helpful suggestions, then these could be made as part of that consultation.

Part-time comparisons

From Mr C. W. Lewis, MRPharmS

In answer to the question of why there are no concessions for pharmacists who work part time, Andrew Gush, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Treasurer, says this is because the cost involved in registering members is the same regardless of the hours worked and a concessionary fee could only be achieved at the cost of those who perhaps had no choice but to work full time.

This does not account for those who have no choice but to work part time, nor does it explain how a part-time fee was accommodated without any apparent problem up until just a few years ago, nor does it accord with the general principle in the UK that tax and benefit levels are based on means.

In my fees consultation response I pointed out that the General Medical Council lists the 2008 annual retention fee for doctors at £290 and offers a 50 per cent lower-income discount to doctors who expect to earn less than £19,700 in 2008.

If income exceeds that amount the discount can be revoked and the balance of £145 paid at the end of the year.

Why can this principle not, albeit with perhaps different figures, be readopted for part-time pharmacists?

Chris Lewis
Bristol

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Medicines distribution)
Next Topic (Premises fees)