| • WCPPE (3)
• Retention fees (2)
• The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fees
What is the other £325 being used for?
From Mr D. A. Ellerby, MRPharmS
I write, after having read the response from Hemant
Patel, President
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, to the letter from Paul
Breame (PJ,
17 November 2007, p562) in which Mr Patel repeats the mantra of “the
costs of registration and maintaining membership …”.
Now I am prepared to accept that there is a cost element in ensuring
that a person with considerable administrative and IT abilities is entrusted
to record the fact that an individual has run the gauntlet of examinations,
experiences and interviews, and been found worthy and competent, and
thereby allowed to become a practising member of the Society.
Allowing
for this being done by a pharmacist, diligently, we could safely assume
that cost to be around £35, allowing for National Insurance and
a pension contribution. To be really niggardly we might throw in another £10
costs for heat, light and wear and tear on the fabric of the Society.
So, that comes to £45 for registering.
I would assume that due diligence in registration would ensure an efficient
search process through the Register (paper or electronic) and so would
confidently assume that only 30 minutes would be needed for the registration
and maintenance pharmacist to check and see if I were still there, with
no changes warranting further fee requirements such as enhanced skills,
distinguished service, retirement or death. Again, being generous in
nature, let us round this up to a full £25 instead of half of the
registration costs.
To me that makes about £70 worth of costs per member assuming that
we all pay for both every year. This begs a few questions: •What is the other £325 being used for?
•Can this work be done by someone equally diligent and reputable in
an ethically sound and professional manner?
•Could the Society subcontract or outsource the work to other countries
specialising in such services?
•What exactly is involved in the current practice of registering and
maintaining that requires such funding?
David Ellerby
Elgin, Moray
| |
ANDREW GUSH, Treasurer of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, responds:
The money raised through membership fees covers
a range
of the Society’s functions, for instance, education and improving
practice and quality of pharmacy, which are all part of the Society’s
obligations as given by its Charter. I appreciate that members
need to clearly understand where their fees are spent — these
fees are not used exclusively for the registration of members and
the maintenance of those Registers.
In response to requests from members we are being as transparent
as possible in communicating our budgets and investments for 2008.
We have recently provided
a full breakdown of where we are spending the money provided through membership
fees.
The document, “Your RPSGB fees and what we do with them”, is available
on the Society’s website (PDF 1.2MB),
and gives details of proportionate expenditure across the organisation, as well
as specific details
concerning key
areas of investment such as Education, Pharmacy Practice and Communications.
We are satisfied that staff at the Society work in a highly professional and
ethical manner and there are no plans to outsource core functions to an overseas
body.
In terms of the effectiveness of the infrastructure of the Society, we do review
this on an ongoing basis, and are satisfied that the present arrangement is both
cost-effective and productive. |
Retention fee refunds in the case of ill health
From Anonymous
The Treasurer and the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
have made it clear that the costs of maintaining membership records for
part-time and full-time pharmacists are identical and, as a result, the
membership fees for both are the same. That to me sounds logical on the
condition that the whole of the fee paid relates to the costs of solely
maintaining the membership record. If that is not so then the action
by the Society in not providing a reduced fee for part-time pharmacists
is unfair and unreasonable and should be reviewed before 1 January 2008.
In my own case, in recent years, I have had to deal with the removal
of a tumour and, separately, a heart attack. Both of these have caused
me to be away from work for a long time. In all the years involved I
have not sought a refund of part of the full membership fee that I had
paid to the Society. A refund was, however, readily available from the
providers of my professional indemnity insurance.
The time has now arrived for me to consider a return to part-time work
as a locum. There is no doubt in my mind that I am mentally up to the
task, without any risk to patient safety. However, I recognise that in
the first instance I will attempt to work one day per week and see what
happens. Later in the year I hope to offer two separate days provided
locum work is available.
There is no problem with restarting my professional indemnity insurance.
The immediate problem will be funding the new membership fee and the
second will be obtaining an appropriate locum opportunity. What concerns
me is that if I decide that I cannot offer a standard of work that is
satisfactory to me will the Society refund any unexpired term of the
annual fee were I to be faced with enforced total retirement on health
grounds?
My own circumstance may be particular to me but I do wonder whether those
circumstances demonstrate a justifiable case for the Society to ensure
that there exists a reduced rate of membership fee for part-time pharmacists.
Name and address withheld
298/5
| |
ANDREW GARDNER, head of registration at the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, responds:
One of the principles applied by the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s Council in setting the fee structure has been that all
those registered as practising receive the benefits of a high standard
of professional regulation — that they and the profession as a
whole command the confidence of the public and, as a result, are respected
by government.
In delivering high quality regulation the profession is of course
accountable to Parliament and the public — this is the basis of the recent changes
to the legislation relating to registration and regulation (Pharmacists and Pharmacy
Technicians Order 2007). It is the Council’s current view that all pharmacists
should, therefore, contribute towards maintenance of that benefit equally, hence
the single registration and retention fee policy.
Although there is an argument to be made around affordability for those who
work part-time or only for a proportion of the fee year, issues, particularly
of conduct
and health that affect fitness to practise, do not relate only to the time
working or practising. Issues or conduct occurring outside working hours are
as relevant
to determinations of fitness to practise as those occurring during working
hours, for example.
Belonging to a regulated profession is different from being covered by a policy
of indemnity, which covers the pharmacist for errors in practice, not conduct
and health issues that might occur outside practice contexts.
The Society’s income and expenditure are detailed in the financial statements
and the principles applied in setting fees were detailed in the Fees Consultation
document. In addition a new document “Your RPSGB fees and what we do
with them” has recently been published.
All three documents are available
online |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal