The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) this week (May 16) revealed plans to raise its fees by 7.5% across the board from April 2024, subject to consultation.

According to the regulator's proposals, pharmacist registration fees would rise to £276 from £257, pharmacy technician renewal fees would rise to £130 from £121 and pharmacy premises renewal fees would rise to £392 from £365.

It claimed that its “proposed fees would still be among the lowest of similar regulators”.

Read more: GPhC claims fee plans 'still among the lowest' despite 7.5% hike

But a straw poll conducted on LinkedIn by C+D following the announcement, which garnered more than 500 votes, revealed that nine in ten respondents do not think that the regulator’s proposal “is justified”.

Of the 566 respondents, 92% said that the GPhC’s fee increase was not justified.

Just 4% believed that the rise was justified, with the same number saying that they “don’t know”.

In response, the GPhC referred to a statement released alongside a consultation document on the plans, which pointed at inflation and rising operational costs as reasons to look at upping the fees.

 

"Out of touch"

 

Community pharmacist manager Lee Broadbent said that the fee increase is “absolutely not” justified.

Responding to the poll, he pointed out that neither salaries nor pharmacy funding have seen a similar 7.5% rise.

The regulator is “out of touch when salaries have remained stagnant for the majority of the workforce in a cost-of-living crisis”, he said.

Read more: GPhC council members voted to give themselves 20% pay rise in May meeting

Another respondent said that the proposed fee hike is “just pure greed”, questioning how the increase will “benefit members”.

“We hope that you are taking notice of the sentiment”, chair of Dudley LPC Mohammed Kolia urged the regulator.

 

"Not equitable"

 

The sector also took to Twitter to voice displeasure with the fees hike proposal and raised concerns that engaging with the consultation process would be in vain.

Siddiqur Rahman, a GP pharmacist and Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) representative, urged his colleagues to engage with the consultation “in high numbers to have any chance of dismissing this proposed high fees increase”.

But he added that he feared “the increase will remain regardless of the outcome of the consultation”.

Read more: DH rubberstamps plans giving GPhC power to set own practices

Mohammed Hussain, a fellow at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS), said that the GPhC’s flat rate for all was “not equitable” and that part-time workers, those on sick leave or maternity leave should qualify for discounted fees.

“Other regulators have differential rates. This is the big change I would like to see,” he added.

And others responded by interrogating the GPhC’s latest annual report.

Read more: GPhC approves multi-year, flat rate pharmacist and pharmacy technician fees

Pharmacist Abhishek Katiyar pointed out that the regulator had invested £15 million in “surplus cash” in the 2020/2021 year, according to the report.

“Surely some of that could be used [to] manage the rising costs of the GPhC,” he said.

“This is the time to show your support to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians and trainees, not hit us where it hurts the most”, he urged the regulator.

The annual report, published in August, said that “during 2020/21, surplus cash totalling £15m was invested with Goldman Sachs in an investment portfolio following a formal tender process”. 

 

Driven by inflation and “operational costs”

 

Announcing the proposals earlier this week, the regulator said that the proposed increase "has mainly been caused by a significant rise in the rate of inflation, which is around 10% a year at the moment”.

“We would be forced to cut back on our regulatory work” without a rise in fees, it said.

According to the document, the suggested rise in fees is also a consequence of rising operational costs including utility bills, supplier costs and “cost-of-living pressures for the staff we employ”.

It comes after GPhC council members voted to give themselves 20% pay rise in May last year.

The regulator introduced a multi-year fees cycle after its September 2021 meeting, replacing the annual adjustments and meaning that fees were frozen for the last two years.

But it claimed that “now is not the right time” for the multi-year approach, as it would not be “a proportionate way” to set fees.