The GOsC considers how to reduce the cost of regulation

The GOsC’s annual fee has been fixed at £750 for a number of years and, while this has allowed us to ensure that the organisation and our regulatory services are well resourced and financially secure, Council has considered at what point the fee might need to rise or if the GOsC would need to rethink its approach to regulation in order to contain costs.

In the current economic climate, with some osteopaths reporting a fall in patient appointments, it is essential that we look at how we can reduce the cost of regulation to individual osteopaths and also ensure we work in a cost-effective way.

A recent Government Command Paper, Enabling Excellence, has also asked regulators ‘to secure significant cost reductions over the next three years and contain registration fees’.

At its April meeting, Council explored a range of options which might have the potential to generate savings and allow a reduction in the annual fee. The fee itself is laid down in regulations that require Parliamentary approval but, with government support, we believe these could be amended to allow a reduction to take place.

The options that Council considered were, broadly:

• Seeking to identify internal savings, including a fundamental rethink of how we operate as an organisation.
• Seeking to share costs of some or all of our functions with one or more other regulators.
• Incorporating other professions (such as non-regulated professions) within the GOsC.
• Merger with another regulator.

At this point in time, the latter two options have been ruled out for a number of reasons. First of all, the Government has said that it doesn’t plan to bring any new health professions (apart from practitioners of herbal medicine) into statutory regulation. Second, any mergers would require a new Act of Parliament, which is unlikely to be possible within the next four to five years. Third, Council was of the view that it is important for osteopathy to be regulated as a distinct profession.

In recent months there has been a growing debate among osteopaths about whether the Health Professions Council (HPC) might present an alternative to the GOsC. Our role can be distinguished from that of the HPC in a number of ways: we have a more active involvement in the development and quality assurance of osteopathic education; we undertake and support research into osteopathy and its practice; we spend considerable time and resources communicating, consulting and engaging with the profession; and we develop bespoke guidance and support materials for osteopaths. We are also working hard to develop a bespoke revalidation process and improved continuing professional development (CPD) that supports the development of osteopaths in practice.

So, if we think it is important to retain a distinctive character to osteopathic regulation, what can we do to reduce costs?
Over the next few months we will be looking hard at whether there are better and cheaper ways to do what we currently do. Council will also look at our commitment to those areas such as research and engagement with the profession, and consider whether what makes the GOsC different from other regulators is important to the osteopathic profession.
We will also be talking to other regulators to see whether there are services we can share, particularly aspects of our work such as registration or operating fitness to practise panels, where the work might be common rather than distinctive in nature.

It will also be important for osteopaths to be able to have their say in how they see the role of their regulator going forward and, before any fundamental changes are made to the way in which we work, we will ensure that we engage with the profession and take account of your views.