Column BDA dispatches with Mick Armstrong
Campaigning for a fair deal
‘Ludicrous’ GDC fee proposal is final straw for dissatisfied members T
he GDC must have anticipated that dentists would protest loudly against the ludicrous proposal to pay nearly £ı,000 annually to stay on
the register, but I doubt it was prepared for the anger it unleashed as the focus shifted to whether the regulator is compe- tent to regulate. It’s not just – in fact, it’s blatantly unjust
– that the scale of the rise in the annual retention fee envisaged by the GDC is unprecedented. It is also totally out of line with the fees being charged by other healthcare regulators in the UK. The GDC argues that it must raise fees to
match the number of complaints levelled against registrants. The BDA’s own survey suggests that dentists might grudgingly have accepted a modest rise in fees but in the wake of two successive damning reports by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), there is little sympathy for the regulator’s current plans. The PSA found serious flaws with the
GDC’s fitness to practice processes, taking an unconscionably long time to conclude cases and leaving stressed-out registrants in limbo. Dental Protection Ltd (DPL) has also
expressed concern over the GDC’s incor- rect use of legal tests which has led to a high number of inappropriate referrals to the interim orders (IO) and professional conduct committees. We should remember that the IO committee is only required to intervene when there is a clear and urgent need to protect the public. In DPL director Kevin Lewis’s opinion, there should
be very few circumstances when such urgent action becomes necessary. Against this backdrop, it’s no wonder we have no confidence that – even with a substantial injection of money – the GDC would be capable of improving its performance. Wholly inappropriate statements from
the GDC’s chair comparing dentistry with shopping for groceries do little to avoid compounding the disconnect the profes- sion feels from its regulator. Much has been said about the GDC’s
poor judgement – not to mention poor taste – in using registrants’ money to fund an inflammatory ad in the Telegraph which encourages patients to contact Dental Complaints Service if they are unhappy with their private treatment. The GDC says in its defence that the public don’t know where to complain and so the ad is part of driving the public’s awareness of where they can go if things go wrong. The trouble is that the full-page ad omitted to make any reference to trying to resolve
any concerns at the practice first. It feels not unlike being mugged with a weapon for which you personally have paid during the course of a previous mugging. That’s the common thread in the
profession’s complaints about the GDC – in its efforts to ensure it’s seen to be a tough regulator in the post-Shipman era, it appears to have lost all sense of proportion. Even the English regulator, the Care Quality Commission, concludes that the vast majority of dentists provide good quality care and are low risk to the public. The BDA believes there is no justification
in registrants’ fees being used to pump up a failing system, and it would be unjust and inappropriate to pass on the cost of the GDC’s inefficiency and mismanagement to them. As we informed Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt when we called on him to investigate the GDC’s failings, the regulator must do a lot more to become cost- efficient than demanding shed-loads of money when its own failings are the obvious place to which its attention should be turned. It behoves the GDC to get its own
house in order – it must make doing so an urgent priority if it is to have any hope of regaining the confidence of the dental community it regulates, which is the only way for it to ensure that it protects patient safety. The BDA, at the time of press, is exploring all legal avenues to prevent this infamous increase. We will continue to campaign for a fair
deal for our members whether they are based in Glasgow or Glamorgan, Skye or Scarborough, Aberdeen or Antrim.
Scottish Dental magazine 21
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92