Feedback deadline was: February 15, 2020
Summary
At its December 2019 meeting, Council proposed amendments to the College’s By-Law No. 5 to enable changes to the governance structure of the College. Council has also proposed amendments that would put in place annual cost of living fee increases.
The College is posting these by-law changes for open consultation for a period of 60 days, after which Council will receive a report on the input received through the consultation for consideration at the next Council meeting in March. To ensure that we have a complete and accurate record of all feedback submitted to the College on this matter and that this is done in a transparent manner, please review the resources listed at the bottom of this page and submit your feedback through the form.
NEW: Read the Frequently Asked Questions to address some common questions and concerns related to the consultation.
Summary of Governance Changes
For more information about Governance Renewal and why Council has focused on implementing these changes, please visit the Governance Renewal Key Initiative Page or check out the Infographic – Governance Renewal.
1. Reduction in Council Size to allow for parity of public and professional members
- Total number of Council members will be reduced from 28 to 20 (the minimum required by the Pharmacy Act) with nine elected members (two as pharmacy technicians), nine public members (appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Ontario) and the two deans of the universities (University of Toronto and University of Waterloo).
2. Shift to a competency-based Council from a regionally-based one
- Council will shift from the current geographical districts for the election of Council members to having a Council that reflects various patient populations, such as acute, urban, rural, northern, and Indigenous. Candidates who wish to run for election will need to have demonstrated experience in serving the specified patient populations.
- Candidates seeking election will be required to list their skills, knowledge and experience against the desired competencies approved by Council.
- A more robust and transparent qualification process to run for election, including the screening of applications by an independent committee.
- Creation of a Screening Committee and a Governance Committee to replace the current Elections and Nominating Committees.
3. Separation of Council and statutory committees
- Elected council members will only be appointed to the Discipline Committee (as required in legislation) but no other statutory committees to maintain a separation between Council and committees and to reflect that these roles may require distinct competencies and skills.
- In addition to the current use of non-Council committee members (who are pharmacy professionals), the College will also recruit lay committee appointees (members of the public) as needed to ensure the public voice.
4. Other Changes
- Limiting the terms of office for elected Council members to a maximum of two consecutive three year terms.
- Changing the name of Council to be the Board of Directors; individual Council members will be called either Elected or Public Directors, the President will be known as Chair and the Vice President will be known as Vice Chair.
- Members will now be known as “Registrants”.
- Initiating a taxable honorarium for Council and committee members.
Cost of Living Fee Adjustments
For more information on fees, please see the fact sheet.
Council has proposed by-law amendments that would see the fees prescribed in Schedule D of the By-Law (for registrants, applicants and pharmacies) increased each year by the percentage increase, if any, in the consumer price index (CPI) for goods and services in Canada as published by Statistics Canada. For example, for the last five years, the annual percentage change of the CPI has ranged between 1.1% and 2.3%. This change would take effect for 2021 renewal fees.
Implementing a cost-of-living fee adjustment would help prevent the need for future large increases in fees over a single year. In 2018, College Council proposed a 25% increase in all fees; however, the required increase for registrant renewal fees would be phased in over two years (2019 annual renewal and 2020 annual renewal fees would each increase by 12.5%). Previous to this increase, registrant fees had not increased for nine years.
As discussed at the September 2019 Council meeting, the proposal to switch to an annual cost of living fee increase is a result of reflection on the feedback received from the consultation on the 2018 fee increases. Nearly half of health regulators in Ontario have already implemented by-laws to allow for annual increases tied to the CPI.
Decisions to raise fees are never taken lightly, but are guided by our obligations as a regulator to serve and protect the public. The College has and will continue to identify and act on efficiencies and new processes to streamline our work, such as the recent implementation of a discipline cost recovery model to increase the proportion of discipline costs that are recovered from subjects of disciplinary processes to decrease the financial burden on the rest of the profession.
Please note: As the College develops regulations, By-Laws, policies and programs, it is important that we hear feedback from registrants, stakeholders and the public through public consultation.
The College has recently changed its consultation template so that all feedback is posted as individual comments to enable more focused and productive feedback on the topic of the consultation and avoid comments that provide limited insight or commentary into the feedback (i.e. “I agree.”). When the College collates and analyzes the feedback received through a consultation to identify themes, it is also important that we are able to examine and categorize a comment individually, rather than its content being tied to a previous comment or conversation. That way we are able to consistently ensure that all comments received through the feedback and equally understood and considered.
As always, the College strongly encourages registrants and other stakeholders to provide their feedback through the consultation page. To ensure transparency and encourage open dialogue, the feedback received is posted in accordance with posting guidelines. All feedback is posted for the duration of the consultation for public viewing and comments and is archived on the website for future reference.
Jump To:
Helpful Links
Re: automatic cola based fee increases – While we (as pharmacists and technicians OCP is a we thing) have more than ever on the professional horizon, and these do require set up and ongoing monitoring for public safety, and because we are a self-regulating profession that means it’s also up to us to fund these aspects; I do not understand how this translates into an automatic cola increase applied to our annual fees, especially at a time when most in our field don’t get annual raises or cola increases. Re: name changes – I do not see the need to rename or value to make all the required associated changes, especially with other professional scope work to be done. Public confidence doesn’t rest in our titles so much as in our actions. Re: competency vs regional based council – The word “competency” does not convey the intention of being more representative of the patients we serve. As well, it seems like a stretch or “trying way too hard” way of trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone (but failing miserably) by incorporating a sentiment of quality with the notion of consideration of our patients. If we want the council to be more reflective of the patients, then choose a name that actually means that Eg. Population-based council, health-needs based council, patient-reflective council, patient-practice council. And while this is well intentioned, let’s be honest as to what degree we can truly account for representation of all the types of patient care we as an evolving profession provide. We have limits on the size of council due to resources. But as a profession that is increasingly impacting more patients and sectors of healthcare, we can’t necessarily add council spots for every new patient category. And as our population changes over time will the council always be playing catch up to the lagging healthcare reports to determine the council make up? While the geography-based council doesn’t take enough patient practice into consideration, that doesn’t mean it can’t add criteria vs scrapping the whole thing. If anything, population stats and real healthcare are geographically anchored.
This response was submitted by the Ontario Pharmacists Association. Read the full submission here.
I’m confused by these comments about “requesting anonymity.” Even though your e-mail address and name are not posted, the OCP has your identity in the course of making your comments, if they chose to “go back” and check who made what comments. (Not that they should, however). Public disclosure, on the other hand, is not made unless you are speaking for an organization.
I think the main competency to be on a OCP committee should be working in a hospital or retail pharmacy. I see that is missing from the criteria which explains why many regulatory efforts fail. I am against the COLA increase. My dispensing fee and other income doesn’t automatically go up every year and that is the money with which I pay my dues . OCP should stop expanding their activities which result in regulatory overreach and expenses.
Governance – OCP has judiciary, legislature, and executive under one umbrella. The structure of OCP is a monarchy that ought to abuse its power. As a proof, the registrants are requesting anonymity in their comments for this consultation to avoid being singled out. A monarchy is not an acceptable form of self-government for Canada’s largest body of health care professions in the 21st century. OCP’s judiciary, legislative, and executive functions should be entrusted to three different organizations that are completely independent of each other. The law must be changed immediately to allow separation of OCP’s power, which is a gold standard of democracy. Otherwise, Monarch will continue to own the pharmacists and the technicians.
The last fee increase hurt, future increases are unacceptable, I propose a 15 year freeze on increases. Pharmacist’s are making less than ever before, we are not a rich group of professionals. The lucky ones who get to be full time make the same as nurses do and meanwhile their renewal fee is only $270. Where is our cost of living increase? If registrants don’t get increases OCP should not get increases. Find alternative ways to make your ends meet, many of us are having to do just that. One pharmacist was telling me he works for uber because he only gets a few shifts a month.
“Group think” = herd mentality. Where is representation on Council for pharmacists working at Family Health Teams, for example. These are pharmacists doing innovative practice, that are not beholden to corporate interests. Why don’t these pharmacists run for Council? What are the systemic factors that hold these pharmacists back from having a seat on Council. The reality is that the chains have carefully constructed mechanisms that allow their people to have a seat on Council. The decision to mandate cannabis education for example is a disturbing example of how the corporate agenda is affecting College policies. A recent New York Times article raise concerns around corporate interests on regulatory boards- we are not immune to this in Canada. The days of self-regulation are numbered, and OCP is well aware of this. A telling example of the integrity of OCP will be whether they oppose Amazon’s trademark request in Canada for the name “Amazon Pharmacy”. Will the College enforce legislation around what is officially allowed to be called a pharmacy, or will they turn a blind eye (as they usually do) to corporate bullying that threatens the profession?
It is important that the public, technicians, and pharmacists voice their opinions during a Consultation. However, some people have noticed that feedback made for a Consultation fall on a deaf ear. If this is the case, you should direct your concerns both to the Ministry of Health (http://www.infogo.gov.on.ca/infogo/home.html#orgProfile/909/en) and Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC, https://hprac.org/en/forms/contact.aspx). Just one person’s complaint may not be heard, but you will be heard when many raise their concerns at the same time. There are 20,000 pharmacists and technicians in OCP’s Registry to accomplish this.
I am concerned about the “group think” that is eventually going to occur over time, as some of the minimum qualifying parameters will be best achieved by persons working for large corporations and institutions. These persons are also more likely to have the “popular vote” because of the internal communication and promotion that may occur within these types of organizations. The pressure on some of these board members, while sincerely participating as pharmacist individuals, in the public interest, is intense when the public gallery regularly includes paid corporate staff overseeing the performance. What makes Ontario great is the large number of thriving independents. I worry about the culture that will be created when particularly like-minded people are all on the board. There needs to be a pathway for the innovators and the change-makers to enter.
The request for anonymity on these posts are telling. It speak to a breakdown in trust in OCP, and a fear of repercussions if identity was revealed. This should be troubling for a regulatory body, or at least a regulatory body that is interested in acting in the public’s best interest.
please keep this comment as anonymous. Increasing fees is a concern, personally I do not agree with this.
I’m not sure why pharmacists need to be paying for these cost increases when their salaries dont take into account inflation whatsoever. If the sole mandate of OCP is to protect the public then it makes no sense for pharmacists to be paying more out of pocket every year.
Submitting this anonymously. Re: COLA – I am against this increase. the college should continue to find more efficiencies and cutbacks within the college before putting it on the back of pharmacists. As a front line community pharmacist working in a corporate store , I have had the following reductions and changes to my reimbursement model; No wage increase since 2011. Now responsible for payment of the OCP license fee. Now responsible for payment of malpractice and liability insurance. Once again, the costs of the business of pharmacies is being put on the back of the pharmacist not the corporations and college. I love my profession. I love solving complex patient care situations. It is a challenge to remain positive. Fill more, bill more, increase your professional service billings (medschecks, pharmaceutical opinions and soon to be OTC prescribing) but less pay, less staff support and more risk. Yet the college, educators and the corporations wonder why there is a hesitation among pharmacists to practice to their full scope when our level of reimbursement keeps getting reduced yet the burden of increased responsibilities and liabilities continues to grow.
I think proposed changes in Council is very well move and also compentecy base council is something we need it. Otherthan that increases in all fees is not fare move. Reason: Why all fees, try to prioritize fees. One side we have an argument that cost of living is increasing – Agreed and True. Doesn’t it includes YOUR pharmacists or just Council? Ifvwe think Cost of living does apply to Pharmacy, Try to be reasonable be fees that they have to pay every year and on that their profession and work is depended. You can increase other fees which does not affect cost of living of Pharmacist too such as Good Standing Certificate Fees or etc (I am sure College can figure out other fees). Increase penalty – because that does affect in increasing Cost of living. At last, why don’t College just hold on to Fees and see how other measures work till next years, may who knows they might not be needed at this point. If it is still deemed necessary, going for all fees is not certainly right step with all this cuts and all. See how your pharmacist professionals react after getting Common Elements Prescribing and compensation, may be they are ready to digest this biscuit after that or it will easy for they to digest. I am sure Ontario Pharmacist are doing very great job, I am from other province but certainly I can see difference. Note: College also needs consider Number members according to population of provice, it will fair work load on Reduced member and it will not compromise QUALITY of decision making process or public health care. I am very certain that college will count and consider each opinion by their front fighters “Pharmacist”. Good Luck!! Thank you for asking opinion. I know we are being heard by OCP. Regards
RE- Reduction in Council Size to allow for parity of public and professional members- this seems quite concerning to me, as it makes me wonder whether pharmacy as a self-regulating profession is being threatened. I am troubled that few pharmacists are commenting on this consultation. I feel that is a direct reflection on how poorly OCP has engaged with its members. Front-line pharmacists are likely feeling largely helpless when it comes to influencing pharmacy policy that is in the public interest, as OCP continues to ignore concrete patient safety concerns within its purview that have repeatedly been raised by members.
I strongly oppose the cost-of-living increase. It appears that Pharmacists wages have declined. Add to this, the recent increase in the number of Pharmacy Technicians and Pharmacy Assistants taking over the traditional role of the Pharmacists. The result of this has been a reduced number of job openings for Pharmacists and hence an additional reduction in wages for Pharmacists. Surely, in their continuing role as protector of the public, OCP will not choose to increase bitterness among their member pharmacists. I trust that this time, OCP will make this consultation process worthwhile and given the numerous comments opposing fee increases will choose not to increase the fees.
In having read the comments submitted so far, I am struck by the number that have focused on the “COL” increases geared to the CPI, but which have not addressed the overall scope of the proposed changes being asked for commentary. I don’t believe in tying annual increases to the CPI index, because even though other colleges are alleged to have done so, what is their population base in terms of members as compared to pharmacists and technicians in pharmacy? Many of the proposed changes appear geared towards (again) making the PUBLIC feel they are being represented, at the expense of the profession-at-large. Previous council agendae have made it clear that the OCP is worried about not having “control” over any government moves resulting from the Cayton Report. As such, they want to ensure they “keep control” by getting nepotistic representation on critical government panels, etc. in order to ensure their own continuance. I’m not sure that has a “public interest” focus, however; and they claim to have to act in that interest in all they do. So be it; it applies here, then. My further comments are in no particular order below: 1) Pharmacy Connection (whether paper, or e-format) should be changed to “Public Connection” and only carry public-interest content — because, again, it’s about the public, not members (er, registrants). By using “registrant” it conveys that there is no self-protection because those registrants of the college are not “members”; although it’s really semantics to appease the public eye. 2) Having cover photos on Connection that show what is alleged to be Council, but including non-council personnel (staff of OCP) has never been appropriate. Show the council — period — in a council photo. Support staff includes field staff, etc. and they are never represented in the photo, but are no less an employee of the college than those that appear in the council grouping photo. 3) Staff should provide all comments “as they are” to the council (Board), so they can read them in advance of a meeting. There is no need (and in fact, a danger involved) to distill hundreds of comments down to what certain STAFF might decide are the areas of concern worthwhile to bring to the attention of the decision makers (tail wagging the dog?). 4) Any oversight over the college(s) should NOT be the MOHLTC, because while there is a method to have the MOHLTC hold the colleges responsible for abiding by the LEGISLATED mandates contained in the statutes (eg, RHPA), when you report apparent violations to the MOHLTC, they actually thank you for the notice and REFER YOU BACK TO THE VERY COLLEGE YOU’RE BRINGING TO THEIR ATTENTION for resolution. They fail to act, so it’s not protecting the public. There is also a disturbing migration of personnel, historically, from the MOHLTC to the college, and vice versa, which creates optics of bias and conflict of interest…if not in reality. 5) I would have concern over a bias shown by any Screening Committee in not allowing a qualified person to run for the Board as a director, due to past bias (direct, or indirect) and influencing of that consideration by staff of the college. As such, I believe a neutral party must be retained to perform such screening. 6) Directors on the Board should be RESTRICTED, to only ONE representing chain pharmacy interests. If the college will be able to use discretion to determine what areas of the population should be represented via competency-based selections, then they certainly can do so in setting out from whence arise those persons. The OPA already represents the interests of PHARMACY along with its new CEO coming directly from the NPAC. No representation for PHARMACY practice should be allowed on the Board to avoid conflict; it should represent PHARMACISTS and their duty to the public interest/safety, not corporate penny pinchers. 7) The composition of the selection committee must be transparent, just as the composition of members of the HPARB is public info found on the website of the Ontario government. 8) It is very disturbing to read what the college proposes as being “competency-based” considerations for inclusion in the selection process: acute, rural, community, hospital, Indigenous, northern, other. Does anyone see COMPOUNDING, given the time and $$ spent on instituting NAPRA’s sterile and non-sterile compounding standards into practice at both community and hospital levels of practice??? Certainly, such an inclusion is directly relevant in this day and age, given the Sheldrick incident that was “associated” (allegedly) with a compounding pharmacy (even though, it was in truth a dispensing error, period). Given the number of drug shortages in Canada and their continued escalation, compounding will certainly become a vital aspect of patient care, and needs inclusion in any Board that is created in the public interest. There is also a glaring absence of any recognition of specialty practice areas (e.g., veterinary pharmacy), which still pays the same fees as any other pharmacy/pharmacist/tech yet will have NO representation under these proposed changes. That is plain wrong. 9) No directors should be permitted to serve (or be appointed) who have any membership/associations with pharmacy associations (such as OPA, NAPRA, etc.). 10) New directors to the Board should NOT have served previously as members of OCP council. Start with new blood, because the old processes will be re-vamped moving forward under this new doctrination, along with public interest concerns in forming committees, etc. Now is the time to completely change with the new “appointees” from screening, not to be tainted with “old school” motives, etc. 11) Given that a current member of council divulged personal health information to the public and yet returned to council and was permitted to remain, and given that college personnel read the professional blogs, etc. on other topics, it is reasonable to believe that they “knew” this occurred and yet the member was allowed to remain. That should not happen with an adequate screening committee, moving forward — IF it is independent of the college. I wish everyone good luck with this venture, but as stated at the outset, council has likely already made up its mind in that it has formed its opinions and “must” now circulate its proposals to the membership for comment in order to fulfill the statutory obligation before moving forward. It would be nice to see comments significantly impact outcomes this time around, but I have my O2 tank ready whilst holding my breath.
I agree with limiting the term to two consequent terms of 3 years maximum. It’s a positive change that will ensure that we don’t deal with professional bureaucrats. I strongly disagree with reducing the number of counselors including two Deans of Pharmacy . The Deans have completely different agenda from a working pharmacist and often lack understanding of what’s going on in the real world. Lastly, I strongly oppose fee increases. It’s absolutely criminal considering that salaries have fell by more than 10$ per hour in Ontario and are below starting salary level in 2000. In addition, the major chains stopped covering the college fees for the first time in over 29 years. College must find efficiencies someplace else and show solidarity and sensitivity towards the financial struggles of its members. Pharmacists graduate after 7-10 years of university and are offered 30$ per hour! And the liability insurance costs have tripled too since the introduction of injection services.
Automatic fee increases based on CPI would be acceptable IF pharmacists also got such guaranteed annual increases. This is not the case of course and in fact pharmacist wages have declined so I believe the College should also lower it’s wages and benefits to keep its costs and fees from escalating.
Just a couple of questions. I’d like to know what the rationale is for the change in titles; Council vs Board of Directors, Member vs Registrant, etc. Also, would like to know why OCP wants to decrease the size of Council in order to achieve parity instead of increasing the size of Council in order to achieve parity. It has always seemed best to me, especially in a democracy, to have more voices, more input, more discussion and more dialogue when making important decisions, rather than less.
I have not had a raise in 10 years. I agree with the other posts- no fee increase. Why should the college employees get a raise using my hard earned dollars and I don’t get a raise?
Non-registrant Council Members: [A] Apply the proposed competency criteria to the non-registrant Council members. A candidate must be able to understand, analyse, and critically speak of the matters presented by OCP. This person must not be associated with the medical industry (except for the non-voting member proposed below), the pharmacy industry, or the pharmaceutical industry. [B1] Create a few non-voting advisor positions: one journalist (major mass-media outlets rotating), one religious leader (major religious groups rotating), another medical professional (registered medical professions rotating), one delegate of Minister of Health. [B2] Examples of non-registrant Council member expertise: leader of for-the-profit corporation, leader of RENOWNED not-for-the-profit organization, business analyst, human resources specialist, logistic specialist, renowned business consultant, lawyer, auditor. [C] Appoint the same number of non-registrants as registrants, but not more than registrants. [D] Pay $500 – 1000 per day to make these expert leaders serious about steering OCP.
Registrant Council Members: [A] Do NOT apply the proposed competency criteria to the Council members who are pharmacists and technicians. Doing so will allow the executives of drugstore chains dominate the Council, and Council topics and decisions will gravitate toward the merit of large retail corporates and universities. [B] Balance the Council by the practice type of the members: at least 1 technician from hospital, at least 1 technician from community pharmacy, and equal number of pharmacists from hospitals, independent pharmacies, & chain drugstores. Include at least 1 pharmacist who serves long-term care facilities. Include at least 2 community pharmacists who do not represent the interests of pharmacy operators/owners: these pharmacists have the most intimate knowledge of patients’ needs. A franchise is a chain. Relatively small number of pharmacists work for hospitals, but hospital sector serves the entire population of the public, therefore, a notable hospital representation is essential. Dean(s) of pharmacy school(s) may or may not be in the Council. Council can have just one dean at a time, with schools rotating every 6 – 12 months. [C] 9 seats for registrants may not be enough to cover the all practice settings that OCP projects to address. [D] No comment on the remuneration for registrant Council members. Honorarium may be appropriate for the members who are on hourly wages, and are not compensated for the Council meeting by their employers.
Governance – Method of Council Appointment: Who sit on the committee to select the Council candidates? What is a transparency in this setting? OCP can pre-select the candidates who are convenient for OCP or for a particular interest group before their names are announced for an election. Will OCP publicly post the names of all applicants, and the reason for disqualifying any of them, if the failed applicants opt for it? How does OCP collect and utilize the public’s feedback about the election?
Governance – Council’s Responsibility: Hold Council accountable for the performance and behaviours of OCP. If a significant flaw with OCP is found, and if the issue is not addressed within a proper time frame, Council should be dissolved, and new Council members elected from a different roster.
Governance – Suggestions for Structural Change: Redefining Council is necessary, but not enough. OCP requires these three new elements in its governance: 1.) oversight by an organization independent of OCP, 2.) public scrutiny of its operations for transparency, and 3.) an external organization that processes registrants’ & public’s concerns about OCP. The Council meets only a few times a year, and does not know how OCP operates day to day, nor is Council mandated to direct OCP’s operations. Registrants are not able to speak out, or seek a recourse, because of fear of OCP’s power and authority over their licences. Everybody should think about this, and bring this weakness of OCP to the attention of the Council and the Ministry of Health. (Write a letter. http://www.infogo.gov.on.ca/infogo/. See my comment on “Governance: Current Issues’)
Governance – Current Issues: OCP should be accountable not only for the public, but also for the pharmacists and technicians in its registry. The registrants are the constituency, the tax payors, and the shareholders of OCP as their self-government, even though tangible shares are not issued to them. Let me point out three systematic problems with OCP. 1.) OCP is a self-sufficient, extraterritorial entity that floats within the boundary of Ontario without oversight. 2.) There is a long-standing secrecy in OCP. 3.) OCP is detached from its own constituency: there is no system to reflect the registrants’ opinions in OCP’s activities, save for the Consultations, which is insufficient. Ontario Government says it does not touch OCP’s business no matter what it may do. Somebody already commented above that OCP has been dismissive. I have seen fear and distrust of OCP among pharmacists. I have a grave concern about OCP’s looking like an oligarchy instead of democracy.
Honorarium for Council Members: Is this on top of the expense allowances described in the Bylaw No. 5, which is going to be replaced by Bylaw No. 6? Travel cost reimbursement may be a good thing to encourage a representation of the remote areas.
Change of Titles: CEO and Board of Directors do not sound wrong, but they can be misleading. These are the titles often used by for-the-profit & not-for-the-profit enterprises. Is OCP an enterprise? Registrar and Council are quite descriptive of the functions of a health profession’s self-government. Please explain what motivates OCP to change the names of its functions. Which sector of the public has been inconvenienced by the titles, Registrar and Council, in what occasion, in what manner? Is it when somebody files a complaint against a pharmacist? Is it when a contractor is hired under Registrar’s name? Has anybody experienced a disgrace or insubordination because of those titles?
Public Attention: Were mass-media notified of this important Consultation? Mass-media is the only way to solicit public attention. OCP’s governance affects how pharmacists & technicians function in their practices, and therefore, public safety and how their money is spent. We all owe our licences, educations, and wages to the public. If this Consultation is not widely debated by the members of the general public, how valid is its outcome?
Financial Questions: There are many questions that need the answers. The complete financial statements from 2018 does not have enough information. – What are the short-term and long-term budget? – What other projects will be carried forward to 2020, and what projects concluded in 2019 (not just the highlights in the Annual Report, but ALL projects)? – How much money was expended on each project, each functionality, and each department? – Which agencies were contracted to do what for how much? – How much was spent on academic or vanity purposes (such as graphic design)? – How many employees work for OCP to require nearly 13 million dollars of personnel cost (OCP Annual Report 2018)? – We do not need to know the names of all of OCP employees, but a detailed organizational chart should be presented to us. – The number of registrants and pharmacies rapidly increased over the past 12 years, giving OCP a chance to achieve an economies of scale in the routine duties. A better cost performance creates more money savings. Where did the savings go?
Actually, pharmacists’ hourly wages have been going down over the past decades. In a past issue of Pharmacy Connection, OCP said, the increase of membership dues was necessary, because the AIMS project cost a lot of money, but did not say how much it cost in 2018 & 2019, or how much it would cost going forward. (To know this, I had to make a special request for a detailed financial report, after reading through an annual report.) OCP did not say how it tried to mitigate the increase of expenses by adjusting budgets for other projects. Therefore, the members/registrants could not give OCP an informed consent.
I couldn’t find a definition for the two classes of hospitals. Is a teaching hospital one that teaches pharmacists and/or other health care providers? Almost every hospital in Ontario participates in some kind of learning or preceptorship program, whether with one of the universities or one of the community colleges, for pharmacist students, pharmacy technician students or pharmacy assistant students as well as students in other healthcare fields. There should be a clear definition of what is meant by “teaching” vs “community” hospital or the terminology should be changed to reflect some kind of metric (e.g., over/under 300 beds).
I am concerned that community pharmacist representation is over-weighted towards sectors which overlap i.e., norther/remote/rural/Indigenous, while there is under-representation of those practising in urban community pharmacies. My understanding is that the pharmacist workforce is more highly concentrated in urban centres. Therefore, I suggest that pharmacist representation should more accurately reflect this demographic.
I am reticent to leave a comment on this consultation. It is very clear from OCP’s recent consultations that they are very dismissive and disrespectful of comments raised in these consultations by members (pardon me, “registrants”), and OCP staff seem to often dilute the concerns raised when summarizing the comments for Council. That being said, I am a strong believer in speaking out, and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the public record. My comments are as follows: 1. Reduction in Council Size to allow for parity of public and professional members – I agree with this 2. Shift to a competency-based Council from a regionally-based one – Long overdue – The Council membership over the years seems stacked in favour of corporate agendas and the resumes need vetting! 3. Separation of Council and statutory committees – This seems reasonable 4. Other Changes Agree with term limits. The semantic changes on member seems like reshuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic, but sure, go for it. In terms of initiating a taxable honorarium for Council and committee members – this requires more information. Were these people getting honorariums before? If not, why the change? What is the dollar amount on the honorarium? Is this in keeping with what other regulatory Colleges do? e.g. nursing? In terms of the cost-of-living increase, I strongly oppose this. That being said, there were so many other comments opposing fee increases in OCP’s last consultation, that all fell on deaf ears. I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN OCP’S CONSULTATION PROCESS.
All the proposed changes regarding council and committee members are good, but I completely disagree with in reading the fees as it is completely unjustified. If the college can make a law for the pharmacy owners to give raise to the pharmacist on a regular basis, then only the fee can be increased. College should not only govern the profession but also help the members to grow.
We can understand about increase in fee to adjust expenses. College should look at the ground reality of profession as well. Every employer is cutting pharmacist rightful benefit and getting themselve rewarded to please share holder. Pharmacist is very important for patient safety/protection who is trying to balance between corporate greed and patient benefit. Corporation decide to waive co-payment or unethical super low professional fee and then forcing employee (pharmacist) to generate more revenue by either way and cutting pharmacist salary and freezing rightful wages and benefit (which is ongoing since 5 years) to increase share holder and Nonpharmacist CEO and executive salary and compensation (share holder thinks themselves cleaver as creating precarious working conditions for pharmacist and always pressing to compromise moral duty to generate profit for them). College should step in as to protect primary mandate by supporting working condition. Because in present model, every responsibility is on pharmacist while he has no voice at either end i.e. corporate and college. College should make non-pharmacist executive of corporate equally liable for everything done at local working place, so they must think about patient benefit and protection. This is high time to think about this otherwise it will be too late to do anything.
We are not receiving cost of living increases – why should you? The college is presiding over the demise of the profession in the name of acting in “the public interest”. It is in the business of creating more work for less pay while at the same time like pigs at the trough looking to collect more in fees. I am against these increases.
If the college does not get involved in the “business” of Pharmacy when they choose to turn a blind eye, they should not be allowed an inflation adjusted increase to take home when the practise is deteriating (e.g. lack of staff in retail such that we carry out our professional duties is a manner that would be perceived by the public to be disgraceful). The profession based on its current compensation model is non-sustainable. When practise is being carried out in a disgraceful manner, the regulators who are responsible for the profession should not be rewarded. If your reading this and part of the regulatory body and feel that this is another post by a discruntled professional I will remind you that sentiments like this are growing ever more common. Until you realize that “protecting the public” sometimes means intervening to change the way in which corporate retail pharmacy is being run and how independents bill insurance, and stand up to MOHLTC to ensure adequate compensation (e.g. $7.50 per flu shot), sentiments like this will be the norm.
I do not agree with the cost of living increase. The College needs to consider the cutbacks experienced by pharmacies which in turn affect their hard-working pharmacists, because they do not have the capacity to even give raises to their staff. I have not had a raise in over 6 years. It’s not justified that the College can impose mandatory fee increases when their members aren’t even getting an adjusted income to reflect inflation. The College should be supporting our bottom line not trying to cut into it.
Sounds good. Go for it.
I wish to remain anonymous, I am a Pharmacist. I 100% disagree with a cost of living increase. Until Pharmacist compensation is also subject to a cost of living increase, the College has ZERO right to increase fees. Pharmacists and pharmacies are facing nothing but cuts cuts cuts…and the college wants to increase it’s compensation? Reflect on that and propose to your members how this measure is fair???