Gathering place for osteopaths
8%!!!!
After receiving the email from the GOsC asking me about my views on the 8-10% reduction in fees am I the only one that finds this a complete insult to mine/our intelligence?
They have the cheek to say that “substantial” savings and been found and “savings to registrants in the 2012-2013 financial year could be in the order of 8%, over and above inflationary increases which have been absorbed by the GOsC”, well good for them. But their inflation matters have been well and truly covered over the past years by the increase in number of qualified osteopaths and by not promoting the profession any more. We can all make up our own minds what we think of 8%!!
They have always in the past, whenever an argument about reducing fees come up, come back with the old favorite response “oh yes but to reduce the fees we would have to go to parliament, Privy council etc that will take time......” Yet now when they want to look good with their 8% reduction they aim to push it through within 3 months. Panicking due to the up and coming enabling excellence review? Hopefully the Privy council will see this insulting/embarrassing offer and say go back and try again!!
I will be returning my form printed from the email, but I will not be ticking any boxes I will however put in the above to let them know my feelings about their complete and utter incompetence, shall we use the much banded around phrase ‘not fit for purpose’, and apparent contempt they hold the profession in.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by IAN STEWART on -
-
Permalink Reply by Hume O'Rous on -
Why are you called tea coaster and have a gorilla hugging a green dinosaur?
-
Permalink Reply by Small Fry on -
Oh Hume, that's King King vs. Godzilla, an ancient Japanese legend about the end of civilisation, the ambiguity and complexity of good and evil, a battle that can't be won but is anyway, and about the bad guy becoming the hero.
-
community teamPermalink Reply by Ronan O'Brien on -
Hi Teacoaster
8% is a poor show. There's another thread on this topic too:
GOSC council to debate reduction in fees this thursday
ps: the Godzilla image is the new default avatar across the site. It was done to nudge people to update their photo to something other than the default. seems to be working :)
-
Permalink Reply by Yan-Chee Yu on -
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-
Permalink Reply by Hume O'Rous on
-
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards.
-
community teamPermalink Reply by Ronan O'Brien on -
I've just looked at the consultancy by GOSC.
Pretty irrelevant whitewash consultancy if you ask me. Where's the consultancy on the identified savings?
Everyone know's the key to research is asking the right question. The fundamental question, in my view, is if the profession is on board with the level of identified changes? My feeling is we are not. Shoehorning acceptance in by phrasing question 1 in the way it has is deplorable.
-
Permalink Reply by Small Fry on
-
Call me petty, but I was miffed that there wasn't even a reply envelope. Perhaps this was an accident in my case and most people got an envelope, I would accept that. I don't mind paying the postage, and I will do so to return the form blank, ie. not filled in. That way my non-participation won't be mistaken for apathy, but for what it is; non-acceptance of the process. Anyone care to join me?
-
Permalink Reply by Hume O'Rous on
-
I get the distinct impression that individual responses will be ignored by our regulator. There is little point in each of us submitting the sentiments of the type both you and Ronan express. These views I suggest represent the majority of the registrants in GOsC. Can I propose that a petition be drafted to express the collective objections to this entire registration fee project? The content of the petition could reflect the following issues:
- What criteria did the GOsC use to identify their savings?
- Why didn't they consult with the membership in the scope for their savings?
- Why didn't they use this revision exercise to re-evaluate their key role to ensure patient safety, and perhaps reduce the number of functions they have incorporated that do not strictly fit within this remit?
- Will they acknowledge that osteopaths are competing in the UK healthcare marketplace with other providers such as physiotherapists who have only of a fraction of the osteopath's annual registration fees to pay?
- Will they recognise the on-going corrosive effects of excessive registration cost on the next generations of graduates and those considering osteopathy as a future career?
I'm sure there are other important considerations others may have to add. I think that we are being dictated to by an out of touch agency, and the democratic voice of registrants is not being heard.
How many SM members would sign a petition to demand the regulator entirely revise their obligations to both the public, parliament, and registrants?
We get the regulator we deserve (with apologies to melon farmer or whoever disagreed with this view).
Small Fry said:
Call me petty, but I was miffed that there wasn't even a reply envelope. Perhaps this was an accident in my case and most people got an envelope, I would accept that. I don't mind paying the postage, and I will do so to return the form blank, ie. not filled in. That way my non-participation won't be mistaken for apathy, but for what it is; non-acceptance of the process. Anyone care to join me?
-
Permalink Reply by Hume O'Rous on
-
If you trust to karmic principles the obvious answer to this is 'time'.
Yan-Chee Yu said:quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-
Permalink Reply by Small Fry on
-
Hume, I agree, and if you want to organise a consultation, that would be most very welcome. That is not my aim, I just wish to remove all possibility of being labelled an apathetic profession for not participating in this particular piece of whitewash, and the easiest way to achieve this I can think of is to return the forms but leave them blank. Mine is in the post box already.
Until now, the profession has had the reputation of being apathetic and disengaged. I don't think this is true. But right now we're being asked whether we prefer the deckchairs forward or aft-facing. I view this as a test, how we respond says a lot. To fill in the form is active acceptance of this nonsense, not to fill it in is tacit acceptance, which leaves no option but ACTIVE non-participation. Please send back the forms blank.
It is nice to be offered a reduction in fees, really it is. And I feel slightly sorry for the staff of the GOsC counting all the paper-clips and thinking that's what this is all about. The questions people are really asking are, how can the organisation be structured better (restructured), and should it even exist at all? This is the consulation we want, and we need to see it done properly for once. The murmer is getting louder.
© 2012 Created by Ronan O'Brien.
