Education providers face funding crisis

April is supposed to be 'the cruellest month' and this could ring true for some smaller CET providers to optometry this year.
In two months the GOC is scheduled to sign its contract with Act Consulting, the successful bidder to administrate mandatory CET. The group has proposed a raft of fees (see panel below) aimed at those who deliver CET to practitioners. And current opinion within the profession believes that if the proposals go ahead it will end the contribution of at least several training groups.
Nationally, optometry is well served by CET businesses and associations but the possibility of the vital, grass-roots providers disappearing appears to be very real.
'We will no longer be able to function,' Lancashire Optical Society chairman Ruth Cuthbert told optician this week. 'We're a successful society attracting about 70 members from the local area to hear ophthalmologists and optometrists.
'I feel it would be unlikely that the speakers we currently use would be willing to pay a fee, especially as they usually donate their fee to an optical charity. A small society like ours could not afford to pay the fees speakers are likely to charge under the new scheme.'
John Goacher, honorary secretary of the Yorkshire Optical Society, agrees. If the fees are set too high, he says, then local AOP and LOC meetings would become 'financially non-viable' as CET meetings. He also believes that local ophthalmologists would be unwilling to pay a registration fee to give one lecture a year, which would leave the burden on the provider.
'We await further details of fee levels,' he told optician. 'If they are nominal then it would not cause too many problems. At the levels which have appeared in some reports it could be fatal for locally arranged CET.'
And he added: 'Personally, although Act have expertise in administration of CET-type activity and have done this for commercial organisations, they have no knowledge of how voluntary schemes have to be run at minimum cost. Somebody needs to get this across quickly.
'Obviously these proposals will limit the availability of CET, probably raise costs and make it more difficult for optometrists to activate their personal development plans.'
A meeting last week between the AOP and FODO, and the GOC ended with no significant way forward.
Administration of the system is the millstone around the profession's neck Ð it is required for everyone for every point, and must be paid for one way or another (see panel). The AOP and FODO want to pay for CET by adding a nominal fee, expected to be around £20, to practitioners' annual GOC registration fee to split the cost between practitioners and providers. The profession's representatives are unlikely to give in, but there may not be time for the GOC to appease them.
The AOP and FODO are confident Act is a competent and experienced company, but they, as representatives of the interests of the profession, fear the current proposal Ð which sees providers foot the bill Ð would severely restrict CET because of the large administration costs involved.
'Optometrists don't want to see CET providers destroyed,' FODO executive director Bob Hughes said this week. 'We want to encourage people to do more and a variety of CET. Under the current proposal it would only be the much more committed people who would do it. The current proposal makes those running CET responsible for its funding, and courses being run by local groups would be lost.
'The only fair way is for the GOC to add the cost to the registration fee Ð it has a responsibility to do this in the most cost-effective way. The system of raising the money is a matter for the GOC to lay down and they can, if they choose, vary from the proposals that were in their tender document.
'The fairest way is for all practitioners to pay a set fee, so they are all charged the same amount for CET and the burden is off the providers. If the GOC ignores our proposal, we believe they will have acted so as to destroy educational provision.'
The GOC did consider funding CET along the lines of the AOP/FODO proposal, but decided it wasn't the fairest way to run the system.
Registrar Peter Coe explained: 'The risk should not be on the registrant to pay up front. The [add-on] would only cover administration, and providers would still need to pay a nominal amount to run courses. Any increase to the registration fee would have to cover all the adminstrative costs of CET funding despite the fact some practitioners take more advantage of CET provision than others.'
He stressed that it was not just that the points had to be recorded, but that every course had to be checked that it was accredited, then the attendees confirmed. All these elements require administration and therefore funding.
'We will have to review it, and see if the AOP/FODO suggestion is allowed under the rules. We have to look at whether or not it will involve having to re-tender. Any changes would have to go through our system before the Council meeting in March (for approval) and the contract has to be signed by April. Many things are still up in the air.'April is supposed to be 'the cruellest month' and this could ring true for some smaller CET providers to optometry this year.
In two months the GOC is scheduled to sign its contract with Act Consulting, the successful bidder to administrate mandatory CET. The group has proposed a raft of fees (see panel below) aimed at those who deliver CET to practitioners. And current opinion within the profession believes that if the proposals go ahead it will end the contribution of at least several training groups.
Nationally, optometry is well served by CET businesses and associations but the possibility of the vital, grass-roots providers disappearing appears to be very real.
'We will no longer be able to function,' Lancashire Optical Society chairman Ruth Cuthbert told optician this week. 'We're a successful society attracting about 70 members from the local area to hear ophthalmologists and optometrists.
'I feel it would be unlikely that the speakers we currently use would be willing to pay a fee, especially as they usually donate their fee to an optical charity. A small society like ours could not afford to pay the fees speakers are likely to charge under the new scheme.'
John Goacher, honorary secretary of the Yorkshire Optical Society, agrees. If the fees are set too high, he says, then local AOP and LOC meetings would become 'financially non-viable' as CET meetings. He also believes that local ophthalmologists would be unwilling to pay a registration fee to give one lecture a year, which would leave the burden on the provider.
'We await further details of fee levels,' he told optician. 'If they are nominal then it would not cause too many problems. At the levels which have appeared in some reports it could be fatal for locally arranged CET.'
And he added: 'Personally, although Act have expertise in administration of CET-type activity and have done this for commercial organisations, they have no knowledge of how voluntary schemes have to be run at minimum cost. Somebody needs to get this across quickly.
'Obviously these proposals will limit the availability of CET, probably raise costs and make it more difficult for optometrists to activate their personal development plans.'
A meeting last week between the AOP and FODO, and the GOC ended with no significant way forward.
Administration of the system is the millstone around the profession's neck Ð it is required for everyone for every point, and must be paid for one way or another (see panel). The AOP and FODO want to pay for CET by adding a nominal fee, expected to be around £20, to practitioners' annual GOC registration fee to split the cost between practitioners and providers. The profession's representatives are unlikely to give in, but there may not be time for the GOC to appease them.
The AOP and FODO are confident Act is a competent and experienced company, but they, as representatives of the interests of the profession, fear the current proposal Ð which sees providers foot the bill Ð would severely restrict CET because of the large administration costs involved.
'Optometrists don't want to see CET providers destroyed,' FODO executive director Bob Hughes said this week. 'We want to encourage people to do more and a variety of CET. Under the current proposal it would only be the much more committed people who would do it. The current proposal makes those running CET responsible for its funding, and courses being run by local groups would be lost.
'The only fair way is for the GOC to add the cost to the registration fee Ð it has a responsibility to do this in the most cost-effective way. The system of raising the money is a matter for the GOC to lay down and they can, if they choose, vary from the proposals that were in their tender document.
'The fairest way is for all practitioners to pay a set fee, so they are all charged the same amount for CET and the burden is off the providers. If the GOC ignores our proposal, we believe they will have acted so as to destroy educational provision.'
The GOC did consider funding CET along the lines of the AOP/FODO proposal, but decided it wasn't the fairest way to run the system.
Registrar Peter Coe explained: 'The risk should not be on the registrant to pay up front. The [add-on] would only cover administration, and providers would still need to pay a nominal amount to run courses. Any increase to the registration fee would have to cover all the adminstrative costs of CET funding despite the fact some practitioners take more advantage of CET provision than others.'
He stressed that it was not just that the points had to be recorded, but that every course had to be checked that it was accredited, then the attendees confirmed. All these elements require administration and therefore funding.
'We will have to review it, and see if the AOP/FODO suggestion is allowed under the rules. We have to look at whether or not it will involve having to re-tender. Any changes would have to go through our system before the Council meeting in March (for approval) and the contract has to be signed by April. Many things are still up in the air.'April is supposed to be 'the cruellest month' and this could ring true for some smaller CET providers to optometry this year.
In two months the GOC is scheduled to sign its contract with Act Consulting, the successful bidder to administrate mandatory CET. The group has proposed a raft of fees (see panel below) aimed at those who deliver CET to practitioners. And current opinion within the profession believes that if the proposals go ahead it will end the contribution of at least several training groups.
Nationally, optometry is well served by CET businesses and associations but the possibility of the vital, grass-roots providers disappearing appears to be very real.
'We will no longer be able to function,' Lancashire Optical Society chairman Ruth Cuthbert told optician this week. 'We're a successful society attracting about 70 members from the local area to hear ophthalmologists and optometrists.
'I feel it would be unlikely that the speakers we currently use would be willing to pay a fee, especially as they usually donate their fee to an optical charity. A small society like ours could not afford to pay the fees speakers are likely to charge under the new scheme.'
John Goacher, honorary secretary of the Yorkshire Optical Society, agrees. If the fees are set too high, he says, then local AOP and LOC meetings would become 'financially non-viable' as CET meetings. He also believes that local ophthalmologists would be unwilling to pay a registration fee to give one lecture a year, which would leave the burden on the provider.
'We await further details of fee levels,' he told optician. 'If they are nominal then it would not cause too many problems. At the levels which have appeared in some reports it could be fatal for locally arranged CET.'
And he added: 'Personally, although Act have expertise in administration of CET-type activity and have done this for commercial organisations, they have no knowledge of how voluntary schemes have to be run at minimum cost. Somebody needs to get this across quickly.
'Obviously these proposals will limit the availability of CET, probably raise costs and make it more difficult for optometrists to activate their personal development plans.'
A meeting last week between the AOP and FODO, and the GOC ended with no significant way forward.
Administration of the system is the millstone around the profession's neck Ð it is required for everyone for every point, and must be paid for one way or another (see panel). The AOP and FODO want to pay for CET by adding a nominal fee, expected to be around £20, to practitioners' annual GOC registration fee to split the cost between practitioners and providers. The profession's representatives are unlikely to give in, but there may not be time for the GOC to appease them.
The AOP and FODO are confident Act is a competent and experienced company, but they, as representatives of the interests of the profession, fear the current proposal Ð which sees providers foot the bill Ð would severely restrict CET because of the large administration costs involved.
'Optometrists don't want to see CET providers destroyed,' FODO executive director Bob Hughes said this week. 'We want to encourage people to do more and a variety of CET. Under the current proposal it would only be the much more committed people who would do it. The current proposal makes those running CET responsible for its funding, and courses being run by local groups would be lost.
'The only fair way is for the GOC to add the cost to the registration fee Ð it has a responsibility to do this in the most cost-effective way. The system of raising the money is a matter for the GOC to lay down and they can, if they choose, vary from the proposals that were in their tender document.
'The fairest way is for all practitioners to pay a set fee, so they are all charged the same amount for CET and the burden is off the providers. If the GOC ignores our proposal, we believe they will have acted so as to destroy educational provision.'
The GOC did consider funding CET along the lines of the AOP/FODO proposal, but decided it wasn't the fairest way to run the system.
Registrar Peter Coe explained: 'The risk should not be on the registrant to pay up front. The [add-on] would only cover administration, and providers would still need to pay a nominal amount to run courses. Any increase to the registration fee would have to cover all the adminstrative costs of CET funding despite the fact some practitioners take more advantage of CET provision than others.'
He stressed that it was not just that the points had to be recorded, but that every course had to be checked that it was accredited, then the attendees confirmed. All these elements require administration and therefore funding.
'We will have to review it, and see if the AOP/FODO suggestion is allowed under the rules. We have to look at whether or not it will involve having to re-tender. Any changes would have to go through our system before the Council meeting in March (for approval) and the contract has to be signed by April. Many things are still up in the air.'April is supposed to be 'the cruellest month' and this could ring true for some smaller CET providers to optometry this year.
In two months the GOC is scheduled to sign its contract with Act Consulting, the successful bidder to administrate mandatory CET. The group has proposed a raft of fees (see panel below) aimed at those who deliver CET to practitioners. And current opinion within the profession believes that if the proposals go ahead it will end the contribution of at least several training groups.
Nationally, optometry is well served by CET businesses and associations but the possibility of the vital, grass-roots providers disappearing appears to be very real.
'We will no longer be able to function,' Lancashire Optical Society chairman Ruth Cuthbert told optician this week. 'We're a successful society attracting about 70 members from the local area to hear ophthalmologists and optometrists.
'I feel it would be unlikely that the speakers we currently use would be willing to pay a fee, especially as they usually donate their fee to an optical charity. A small society like ours could not afford to pay the fees speakers are likely to charge under the new scheme.'
John Goacher, honorary secretary of the Yorkshire Optical Society, agrees. If the fees are set too high, he says, then local AOP and LOC meetings would become 'financially non-viable' as CET meetings. He also believes that local ophthalmologists would be unwilling to pay a registration fee to give one lecture a year, which would leave the burden on the provider.
'We await further details of fee levels,' he told optician. 'If they are nominal then it would not cause too many problems. At the levels which have appeared in some reports it could be fatal for locally arranged CET.'
And he added: 'Personally, although Act have expertise in administration of CET-type activity and have done this for commercial organisations, they have no knowledge of how voluntary schemes have to be run at minimum cost. Somebody needs to get this across quickly.
'Obviously these proposals will limit the availability of CET, probably raise costs and make it more difficult for optometrists to activate their personal development plans.'
A meeting last week between the AOP and FODO, and the GOC ended with no significant way forward.
Administration of the system is the millstone around the profession's neck Ð it is required for everyone for every point, and must be paid for one way or another (see panel). The AOP and FODO want to pay for CET by adding a nominal fee, expected to be around £20, to practitioners' annual GOC registration fee to split the cost between practitioners and providers. The profession's representatives are unlikely to give in, but there may not be time for the GOC to appease them.
The AOP and FODO are confident Act is a competent and experienced company, but they, as representatives of the interests of the profession, fear the current proposal Ð which sees providers foot the bill Ð would severely restrict CET because of the large administration costs involved.
'Optometrists don't want to see CET providers destroyed,' FODO executive director Bob Hughes said this week. 'We want to encourage people to do more and a variety of CET. Under the current proposal it would only be the much more committed people who would do it. The current proposal makes those running CET responsible for its funding, and courses being run by local groups would be lost.
'The only fair way is for the GOC to add the cost to the registration fee Ð it has a responsibility to do this in the most cost-effective way. The system of raising the money is a matter for the GOC to lay down and they can, if they choose, vary from the proposals that were in their tender document.
'The fairest way is for all practitioners to pay a set fee, so they are all charged the same amount for CET and the burden is off the providers. If the GOC ignores our proposal, we believe they will have acted so as to destroy educational provision.'
The GOC did consider funding CET along the lines of the AOP/FODO proposal, but decided it wasn't the fairest way to run the system.
Registrar Peter Coe explained: 'The risk should not be on the registrant to pay up front. The [add-on] would only cover administration, and providers would still need to pay a nominal amount to run courses. Any increase to the registration fee would have to cover all the adminstrative costs of CET funding despite the fact some practitioners take more advantage of CET provision than others.'
He stressed that it was not just that the points had to be recorded, but that every course had to be checked that it was accredited, then the attendees confirmed. All these elements require administration and therefore funding.
'We will have to review it, and see if the AOP/FODO suggestion is allowed under the rules. We have to look at whether or not it will involve having to re-tender. Any changes would have to go through our system before the Council meeting in March (for approval) and the contract has to be signed by April. Many things are still up in the air.'