| • Statutory Committee
• EHC
• The profession
• WCPPE
• CPD
• Premises fee
• Retention fees (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fees
Cost of restoration to Register
From Mr U. A. Patel, MRPharmS
In his reply regarding retention fees (PJ, 15 December 2007, p680),
Jeremy Holmes, Chief Executive and Registrar of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, mentions a figure of £753 as the cost of restoration to
the Register of Pharmacists.
A pharmacist is paid about £23 per hour and if say another £23
is added to cover “head office costs”, ie, rent, rates, heating,
pension, etc, this comes to a total of £46 per hour. The cost of
restoration equates to 16 hours of work. Does the Society expect us to
believe that it takes that long to restore a name?
Can we please have a breakdown of what amounts to this figure? It is
not surprising that pharmacists are disillusioned by the finances of
the Society.
U. A. Patel
Northwood, Middlesex
| |
JEREMY HOLMES, Chief Executive and Registrar
at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
The £753 fee
for restoration to the Register of Pharmacists applies where an
individual who does not pay the relevant
retention fee as and when required is, as a result, removed from the
Register by the Society and subsequently wishes to restore his name to
the Register.
It takes account of the increased administration costs involved where
the Society has been obliged to pursue registrants who have failed to
make retention fee
payments, the costs in issuing a final demand for payment and the subsequent
Society process for removal from the Register.
In considering the proposition in this letter, readers may also wish to note
that pharmacists can voluntarily retire from the Register as part of the retention
fee exercise. If this option is exercised the cost of being restored to the Register
is £191. |
Initiatives to assist the lower paid
From Mr E. S. Maule, MRPharmS
I read with interest the news item regarding General
Medical Council’s
announcement that its retention fees will rise this year (PJ,
15 December 2007, p668).
Its fees have risen for the first time in six
years (in
contrast to the annual fee increases of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society)
and doctors on low incomes are entitled to a 50 per cent fee reduction.
I
wonder if Andrew Gush, the Society’s Treasurer, has considered
similar initiatives to aid the lower paid NHS and part-time pharmacists
to cope with this years fee increase? Ewan Maule
North Sheilds,
Tyne and Wear
| |
ANDREW GUSH, Treasurer of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, responds:
I welcome this letter because helping low income members
is a priority for me, but as Treasurer I must establish that the majority
of members
share my view before this help can be put in place.
The General Medical Council has just announced its intention to raise
its fees to £390. The fee was raised by £100 from the previous level of £290.
The Society’s 2008 fees increased by £108, from £287 to £395.
The GMC offers a 50 per cent discount on its annual fee for those whose incomes
in the relevant year would fall below £21,391.
As a result of the consultation on the proposed fees for 2008, it was clear
that a low-income fee was a concession that some members desired. The Society
will
therefore be consulting with members on such a concession during 2008 with
a view to its possible introduction in 2009.
It must, however, be borne in
mind
that any concession given to those on low income will imply a subsidy by
those paying the full fee. The acceptability of such a subsidy will,
of course, form
part of that consultation.
Members are invited to make their views known
by replying to this forthcoming consultation. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal