Chemist + Druggist is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.


This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. Please do not redistribute without permission.

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

RPS: Healthcare regulation changes must not lead to increased registration fees

Practice Pharmacists’ registration fees must not be raised to pay for proposed changes to healthcare regulation, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has warned.

Pharmacists' registration fees must not be raised to pay for proposed changes to healthcare regulation, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) has warned.

The RPS made the comments in its response to a consultation by the Law Commission on plans to produce a single legal framework to cover the regulation of all health professionals in the UK.

The proposed changes include simplifying existing legislation and giving regulatory bodies consistent powers, but also giving them the flexibility to adapt to changes in healthcare.

The RPS is concerned the GPhC will struggle to make the cost efficiencies as the 18-month-old regulator is still "finding its feet"

More pharmacy practice stories

GPhC to slash fees

RPS membership fee income falls £600,000, C+D       estimates

Xrayser: Negotiators must stick up for the little guy

The RPS said it was "very concerned" that the "financial burden of change" could be shouldered by individual pharmacy registrants and it called for assurances from the government that pharmacists would not be "financially penalised" by having to pay for the reforms.

An impact assessment of the reforms produced by the Law Commission estimated that the changes could lead to ongoing cost efficiencies of up to £30 million. But it also said it would cost £5.4m to implement the plans, a sum that would be paid by regulators such as the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC).

RPS principal policy advisor Jocelyn Parkes said that, as the GPhC had only been in existence for 18 months, it was still "finding its feet" and might have difficulty making the necessary changes. "We are concerned [about whether] a new regulator can make all of these cost efficiencies," she said. "We have no idea what the impact will be."

The GPhC, which last week announced cuts to its renewal fees, said it would "argue against any significant further change which could cause confusion as well as disruption and increased costs", in its response to the Law Commission consulation.

The Law Commission closed its consultation on May 31 and is expected to submit its full report on the suggested reforms next year.


Is the cost of implementation worth the forecasted efficiency gains?

Comment below or email us at [email protected] You can also find C+D on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook

Topics

         
Pharmacist Manager
Barnsley
£30 per hour

Apply Now
Latest News & Analysis
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

CD015412

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Thank you for submitting your question. We will respond to you within 2 business days. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel