This article was originally published on OT's website on November 18.  

Fees for retention paid to the GOC from optometrists were agreed to rise significantly – from £219 to £325  from next April.

The Council met on November 18 to decide 2010-2011 fees for optometrists and dispensing opticians following calls for practitioners to be able to make staged payments, and differential fees set for DOs in its consultation on fee proposals.

It decided to go ahead with differential fees, with DOs paying £280, and bodies corporate, like optometrists, paying £45 more at £325.

The rise in fees will no doubt be an unwelcome surprise to many practitioners, all of whom are fighting off difficult economic times.

Bob Hughes, chief executive of the AOP, said: “Whilst the AOP recognises that the GOC is addressing past financial issues, as well as coping with an ever-increasing burden by government, in agreeing a differential fee for dispensing opticians it is regrettable that the GOC are allowing DOs to both be subsidised by optometrists and also downgraded as a profession, achieving the worst of both worlds.  

“We have sought assurances from the GOC that they are not wilfully expanding their activities and that, at long last, they have in place a medium-term financial strategy to ensure that their fees start to level out for the following year, because a third successive massive increase would indicate an organisation now out of control.”

Expenditure by the Council is estimated to balloon in the next two years as proposed in a draft budget published on the GOC website, from £4.018m (2008-2009) to £5.074m in 2009-2010, and to £5.75m in 2010-2011.

In its draft budget registration costs will rise from £374,208 in 2009-2010 to £576,670 in 2010-2011, and council members and meetings costs will increase from £323,636 to £421,926.

However, its costs in staging its fitness to practise cases are estimated to fall – from £441,656 in 2009-10, to £400,754 in 2010-2011 – as the Council stages more cases at its Harley Street premises.

Nevertheless, in its business priorities costings for 2010-2011 the Council is looking to spend £91,000 in piloting online retention in its registration department – aiming in effect to end postal retention by registrants – which it calls a ‘key modernisation project’ and one that will ‘address known issues with the retention process, to improve customer service, and to achieve long-term efficiencies. Registration costs are estimated to rise from £374,208 (2009-2010) to £576,670 in 2010-2011.

It is hoped that the GOC will receive a DoH grant of £96,000 for piloting revalidation and investigate how this will fit with its CET scheme.

Also the Council is looking to spend £60,000 to review the risks and benefit to the public of: optical service delivery to identify emerging mechanisms; the current regulatory regime for dispensing opticians; the latest regulatory regime for businesses or partnerships providing optical services in the UK.

Speaking about the increase in fees, David Hewlett, FODO chief executive, said: “This is a hard time for the whole optical sector but we are investing in the future and an independent regulator for optics, and FODO members understand that. The new GOC has opened up its plans, processes and budgeting to independent scrutiny in new and very welcome ways.  As a result we are reassured that, although fees increases are never welcome, these increases are necessary and justified and try to meet the concerns of all.”

In a statement from ABDO its general secretary, Anthony Garrett, said:  “Whilst I am grateful to all those who voted for the reduced level of payment I am desperately disappointed by the level of increase and the failure of the GOC once again to address the issue of payments by instalments. To ask low paid registrants to pay £280 in one go is insensitive and shows a lack of concern for those affected.”

Commenting on the proposed increases ABDO president Barry Duncan said: “Members will be bitterly disappointed at this level of increase. Given that the regulated functions of DOs are inadequately policed by the GOC, members will undoubtedly be considering whether it is worth maintaining their registration.

"Despite this setback I would urge all colleagues to continue to register as it is without doubt in their long-term interest and that of the profession as a whole.

"We will be making further representations to the GOC well in advance of next year’s budget meeting to protect our members in the best way that we can.”

Elsewhere on its agenda the Council discussed code of conduct and whistleblowing, education visits, the GOC’s Welsh Language Scheme.

top | back

Name: Email address: Message: * Responses may be edited

S Sharma
March 12th, 2010
This fee increase is ridiculous. They must introduce a reduced fee for a retired person who works occasionally and for those who live abroad but would still want to maintain our registration.

Farah
December 22nd, 2009
Please also spare a thought for working mums. I work one day a week in order to try and balance my much loved profession with my home life. However, increases such as these in professional fees means I am seriously considering the worth of working at all. Please can I suggest concessionary fees for people such as myself and Susan, it would be a great worry off our shoulders. The AOP see the sense of fairness in it, surely it isn't that hard for the GOC to see this also.
With regards to the sudden increases in fees I have two words...FINANCIAL PLANNING? If I was in charge I would seriously question my long term financial planners/forecasters as, in my opinion, moving from £169 to £325 a year over two years means someone definately got it very wrong!

JAMES SMITH
December 16th, 2009
I think the increase in fee is ridiculous, especially as contact lenses and spectacles seem less regulated than ever. Someone needs to investigate the GOC - I find their hap hazard ways are very disturbing.

Navdip
December 10th, 2009
It's a shame that D&A is going to be no more - arguably less employable positions for us all. But, as Sandra Neave points out, with new EU driving regulations, if the College of Optometrists and the AOP could lobby on our behalf, we could all be in for extra work which could secure some of our futures. 'Europe' has come up with something which could benefit us all, so it would be a shame to see this opportunity go to waste. If, for example, GPs get paid say £15 for Pxs to read off a Snellen Chart, yet we do 'involved' eye exams and would probably claim maybe only an extra tenner quite happily to include all the new paperwork involved? I assume this 'driving' situation would be a private transaction as the NHS would not cover this?

George
December 7th, 2009
I feel that the deregulation brought us the optical and dispensing assistant, big companies, lower salaries and double the work. That means more mistakes and more litigations in my book. I am a CLO so I have to pay, but if I was practising as a DO I wouldn't as I cannot understand what the fee is for. You cannot deregulate a profession and then ask the people in it to pay a fee so that you can discipline them in case they make a mistake. The whole thing is mad. I think in those lines that every DO, from a legal point of view, should actually question the GOC what the fee is for.

Susan
December 5th, 2009
I will be 60 in March and am continuing to work one day a week. As ABDO do a reduced fee for people working like this I rang the GOC who said they had no plans to reduce their fees. I think this is scandalous. I will be working to supplement my pension as finances have not come up to what was expected. I feel the GOC should do reduced fees in these circumstances.

Christopher
December 4th, 2009
I feel an expenses row! Move from Harley Street for a start.

NickB
December 3rd, 2009
After a near 30% increase last year, a further 48% increase for the coming year - scandalous... Are those responsible for the financial planning at the GOC suitably qualified? I suggest a "GOC investigation".

Sandra Neave
November 28th, 2009
As an optometrist married to a driving instructor I was interested to read in his driving instructor journal about a new EU initiative/directive concerning driving vision standards. The author Peter Laub wrote: 'From 26 August 2010 (I assume) all applicants for a driving license or renewal of one (and all licenses are now valid for only for 10 years at a time) shall undergo an appropriate investigation to ensure that they have adequate visual acuity (at least 0.5, 6/12, or 20/40 snellen for group 1) and where there is reason to doubt that the applicant’s vision is adequate, he/she shall be examined by a competent medical authority’ and ‘at this examination attention shall be paid, in particular, to the following: visual acuity, field of vision, twilight vision, glare and contrast sensitivity, diplopia and other visual functions that can compromise safe driving.’

He went on to ask if the law was likely to be changed so that license applicants would be required to have their ‘eyes tested at least by a qualified optometrist BEFORE they go in for the practical driving test and BEFORE they re-apply every ten years for their license renewal.’

Can we hope that part of our GOC fees will be used to ensure that the optometrist's ability to be involved in examining drivers vision is protected? Or will this be another role that trained nursing staff or orthoptists will be deemed to be more competent to do because they have greater medical contacts, whilst we are only high street retailers who are only interested in selling spectacles?

kiran
November 26th, 2009
Is the GOC aware of the newly qualified optometrist and DO wage? Year on year starting wages are being cut and the days where 'optometrists are sitting comfortable' are long gone.

Christopher
November 25th, 2009
Matthew I can't agree enough; at least the optoms will have their CET grant (£458) to go towards the GOC fee. What else would you use the grant for? CET? You'd be mad to spend it on CET when there is so much for free available.

Jonathan P Reason
November 25th, 2009
It was patriotism that used to be the last refuge of the scoundrel, but now, it seems, it has been replaced by the mantra (as typifies the GOC) of 'public protection' whereby anything may be done, providing it is in the name of 'public protection'. The GOC is clearly out of step with all of its constituents. The ironic thing is that whilst ever increasing rules and the heavy hand of bureaucracy may look impressive to law makers, the complexity and red tape ultimately benefits no one except the self-importance of the regulators themselves - which is what we are seeing at present.

Matthew
November 21st, 2009
When the GOC does not regulate dispensing in any meaningful way, remind me why I pay these fees? This and the lack of money towards CET for DOs, the situation is insane.

Andrew
November 20th, 2009
I am sorry but I have to take exception to the comment made by Bob Hughes in this story which says that OOs are subsidising DOs.

When OO's can claim £438 a year for CET, which they can do at no cost to themselves, I would claim that in fact DOs are subsidising OOs.

OOs are sitting quite comfortably as far as I can see. You have to be registered to perform eye examinations, but there is necessity to be registered to dispense glasses to the majority of the public.

James Armstrong
November 20th, 2009
We all expect to pay a little more each year for just about everything these days but an increase of 48% seems absurd.

I fully agree that DOs should have a lower registration fee - or perhaps they should pay the same but be entitled to the same grant as more and more 'free' CET seems to be unsuitable for dispensing opticians.

What are we to expect next year? We are told not to expect spiraling fees, however, the bar is set now so anything less than 48% can be dictated as a good outcome.

Stuart
November 20th, 2009
No wonder the fee has to go up if the GOC can drag out a decision on staged payments for 18 months! Why are these 'legislative changes' a "costly, complex and time-consuming process"? Surely, you simply sit all the people required in a room and ask them if they agree to staged payments...if they all say 'yes'...Job done.

mohammad hasham
November 20th, 2009
Does this price increase affect optometry students?