By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Predicted rise in FtP referrals failing to emerge post-Francis

An expected surge in fitness practise cases that underpinned the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s decision to increase the registration fee has so far failed to emerge, the regulator revealed yesterday.

NMC council members also said that a further fee rise pencilled in for 2015 was not a “forgone conclusion” and promised to reduce the fee if its cash reserves surpassed target levels.

The NMC registration fee went up from £76 to £100 on 1 February. The regulator had originally wanted to increase the fee to £120, but opted for the lower figure following an outcry from the profession and the offer of a grant from the government.

A subsequent rise to £120 in 2015 was also previously discussed by the regulator’s council, though it has not been formally agreed.

The NMC claimed the fee rise in February was necessary to cope with its workload, including a forecast 8% surge in referrals – predicted partly as a result of the publication of the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Public Inquiry report.

But the NMC’s latest council meeting on Thursday heard that FtP referrals were in fact down by 10% in 2012-13, compared with the same point in the previous year.

NMC director of FtP Sarah Page however cautioned that it was too early to draw any conclusions about the impact of the Francis report, which was published six weeks ago.

The meeting also heard that if its expenditure continued at current levels and a further fee increase was implemented in 2015, the regulator would have built up £30m in reserves by 2018.

Asked by Nursing Times how such a situation could be justified to registrants, NMC chair Mark Addison said they would look to reduce the fee if the reserve level looked like it would be significantly higher than its target of between £5m and £10m.

However, he pointed out the NMC was required to hold that level of reserves under accounting rules set by the Charity Commission.

Council member Judith Ellis stressed the second increase in 2015 was not a “foregone conclusion”.

The meeting also considered a report on introducing variable registration fees depending on circumstances – for example, if a registrant worked part-time or was low paid – or paying fees in instalments.

The council agreed not to pursue either option at this time, but to review the situation in 12 months.

NMC director of corporate services Mark Smith said the introduction of a system for payments in instalments would have to be introduced carefully to “avoid registrants lapsing by mistake”.

He also pointed out any cut in the fee for lower paid workers would have to be made up by an increase for those earning more.

In a statement released following the meeting, the NMC urged more nurses to take advantage of rules allowing them to claim a tax rebate on their fee worth £20. A recent survey of registrants found nearly three quarters did not claim this money back.

Chief executive Jackie Smith said: “In these hard times it makes sense for nurses and midwives who pay their own fee to look at the tax relief available, which they may be able to backdate to previous tax years as well.”

 

Sign our Speak Out Safely petition to support a transparent and open NHS. We are calling on the government to implement recommendations from the Francis report that will increase protection for staff who raise concerns about patient care.

Readers' comments (6)

  • Susan Markham

    Quote...

    “The NMC claimed the fee rise in February was necessary to cope with its workload, including a forecast 8% surge in referrals – predicted partly as a result of the publication of the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Public Inquiry report.”

    So the NMC knew about the findings of the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Public Inquiry report before -even - the Government knew?

    They actually ramped our fees up in advance.

    They knew there was a Tsunami coming.

    They knew they caused it.

    They made us pay for the non-existant damage when it didn’t happen.

    AND NOW....

    “But the NMC’s latest council meeting on Thursday heard that FtP referrals were in fact down by 10% in 2012-13, compared with the same point in the previous year.”

    We are still paying - EVEN THOUGH THERE WASN’T A Tsunami !!!!!

    It actually beggars belief.... any other corporate organisation would have been blown away long ago... but hey? This is the UK and the NMC is OK!

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • and they took money from the Government - probably for tea and biscuits...

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Susan Markham

    Seriously?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • tinkerbell

    As the rush is off then, can you refund me the bit that you're not using as i need it at the moment, cos got more going out than i got coming in. Or if we've still got a nursing profession left next year can you reduce the cost of my retention fee next year. Thank you for your due consideration in this matter.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Why did the NMC predict that there would be an increase in FtP? did they assume it would all come down to the nurses? Why do they think it was the responsibility of other nurses around the country to pay for these predicted FtP cases? Did they have advance knowledge of the Francis Report?

    Can we now expect a refund? if not, why not, what is the legal position.

    Is any of our money being spent on their recent data protection fine?

    What steps have they taken to save or reduce their spending?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • If the nmc put the fees up because they predicted an increased work load and fit to practice cases from mid staffs then, as they haven't happened, do we get our money back.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

newsletterpromo