06 Aug 2010
The NPA has responded to the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) consultation on setting fees. The NPA believes that setting the fees needs to be an open and transparent process which ensures fees are fair to registrants and enable the GPhC to carry out its functions.
Margaret Peycke, NPA Policy Manager said: “We fully support the stated GPhC aim ‘that fees set should reflect the cost of regulation and that the fee structure is shared with pharmacy professionals’. We would like the GPhC to demonstrate, in more detail, how they reached the figure of 16.9million needed to cover expenditure and also the value of the reserve they are building and the period it will take to build the required reserve. We also trust that the value of the reserve will be monitored and reduced if it is found to be larger than needed.”
The NPA also challenges that the fee for pharmacy technicians should be less than that for a pharmacist based on the number of fitness to practice cases. If the reason for a lower fee for technicians has been considered appropriate is because the typical salary for them is far lower than that of a pharmacist then this should be stated. This would then raise an inconsistency as question 4 asks for agreement with the proposal not to set a reduced fee for those on low income.
Margaret Peycke added: “We acknowledge that new rolling register and removal of the period of grace are set in the Pharmacy Order and the GPhC has to abide by this legislation. However we firmly believe that these measures are not in the best interests of the profession either from employer or employee view point. The measures will cause administrative problems for all and are likely to lead to pharmacists inadvertently failing to pay their subscription in time; also employers will have to be constantly checking that all their staff are registered with GPhC. We therefore ask the GPhC to raise these points with the Government and press for a change in the legislation. The NPA will lobby hard for change and will support any GPhC endeavours in this matter.”
For a full copy of the consultation response click here.
