Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Fee Increase 2007

In July 2007, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) announced a 50% increase in the retention fee for pharmacists, the required payment to practice pharmacy in Great Britain. This announcement has led to widespread condemnation from pharmacists in the United Kingdom.

Additional recommended knowledge

What is the Correct Way to Check Repeatability in Balances?

Daily Visual Balance Check

Essential Laboratory Skills Guide

Announcement

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) announced in a press release ^[1] on 27 July 2007 that the annual fee for pharmacists to be retained on the RPSGB register would rise in 2008 from £283 to £425. Pharmacy technicians would see a similar 50% increase in their retention fee. It is a legal requirement for all pharmacists in Great Britain to appear in this register.

The press release details that the RPSGB Council, its governing body, had agreed the new retention fees on the advice of the Society’s Resource Management Committee in order to ensure the long-term financial viability of the Society and to meet external factors which include:

• The increased costs of regulating pharmacists and pharmacy technicians
• The deficit in the Society’s pension scheme
• The costs of the proposed de-merger of RPSGB into two separate organisations—a professional body and a regulatory body for pharmacists.

The press release states that the council sees no option other than to pass these costs on to the membership.

Online petition

An online petition was set up by the pharmacist Mark Cheeseman, using the website Go-Petition on 31 July 2007. The petition read: "I demand that the RPSGB reconsiders the increase in retention fees". This petition ended on 14 August 2007 having accumulated 10,092 electronic signatures. Some of these signatures were from pharmacy technicians, who also register with RPSGB.

Although initially dismissing the petition^[2], the RPSGB later agreed to analyse the online petition as part of the consultation process, providing it is submitted by 3 October 2007.^[3].

Consultation

RPSGB announced a consultation regarding these fees on 2 August 2007^[4].

However this consultation has been termed "incomplete", "a grandiose exercise in self-justification", "patronising" and "fails on all counts" by Sandra Gidley, MP - the only pharmacist in the House of Commons^[5].

Response from other pharmacy organisations

The Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists published a press release on 14 August stating that they were "appalled by the proposed 50% increase in fees" ^[6].

The Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) released a press release on 24 August declaring that "The Society will ignore the membership views on registration fees at its peril". The PDA is concerned that an onerous and unnecessary regulatory burden has led to an unacceptable rise in retention fee, that will "only damage further the relationship between the membership and its professional body which has been ravaged of late as a consequence of its infatuation with the regulatory agenda."^[7]

The Company Chemists' Association (CCA) has declared that they "see no justification for an increase of this magnitude". The CCA also agree with the RPSGB that the cost of de-merging the society into two bodies should not be passed on to the membership, but be funded by the Government. ^[8]

Outcome

On November 6 2007 the RPSGB sent an email to all its members announcing the new fees, and posted the outcome of the consultation on its website.^[9] In the end, the fee for practicing pharmacists was increased to £395, almost the 50% that had been predicted.

References

1. ^ RPSGB (27 July 2007), , . Retrieved on 14 August 2007
2. ^ http://www.dotpharmacy.com/news/news1.html Online fee protest by 8,600 falls on deaf ears
3. ^ http://http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/20070818/news/p169protestonline.html
4. ^ RPSGB (2 August 2007), , . Retrieved on 14 August 2007
5. ^ p16 Chemist and Druggist 11 August 2007
6. ^ GHP (14 August 2007), , . Retrieved on 14 August 2007
7. ^ PDA (24 August 2007), , . Retrieved on 25 August 2007
8. ^ Pharmaceutical Journal (15 September 2007), , . Retrieved on 18 September 2007
9. ^ RPSGB (6 November 2007), , . Retrieved on 7 November 2007