Hey guys, just wanted to ask what your opinion was on the issue of computer automation in regard to pharmacist job displacement. Will automated pill filling machines such as script-pro, etc eventually reduce the number of Rph's needed? I recently heard from a health care economist that often demand for professional services can be cyclical, as he stated that there were not near the jobs available 15 years ago in pharmacy as there are now, and in fact, it was somewhat difficult to find a job as a pharmacist in the late 80's/early 90's.

In my opinion, the increase in technology will initially diminish some of the demand for pharmacists, but will most likely have a dramatic effect on tech jobs. Additionally, things such as the 2006 medicare part D medication therapy management initiatives will likely assist in changing the pharmacist's role to more of an interactive one rather than a primarily dispensing one. Although I feel the demand for pharmacists will decline somewhat in the next 20 years, the increase in Rx volume should be enough to keep everyone employed; however, I do feel that unless pharmacists begin to assume other duties, salaries will either become stagnant, or will decline slightly.

Anyway, what opinion/s do you all have on the issue?

you may want to do a search on this topic... it looks rather familiar


as far as it diminishing tech jobs.... in most states there is a tech/pharmacist required ratio so if it kills tech jobs then it will kill pharmacist jobs...

here in AL the law is 3:1 with at least one tech being certified.
if you want more tech help you have to 1. hire an intern 2. hire another pharmacist and then add on techs..
say you have the need for 8 techs.. right now it would require 3 pharmacists....
in the future if you bring that number down even by 2 you will cut the need for one pharmacist

Hey guys, just wanted to ask what your opinion was on the issue of computer automation in regard to pharmacist job displacement. Will automated pill filling machines such as script-pro, etc eventually reduce the number of Rph's needed? I recently heard from a health care economist that often demand for professional services can be cyclical, as he stated that there were not near the jobs available 15 years ago in pharmacy as there are now, and in fact, it was somewhat difficult to find a job as a pharmacist in the late 80's/early 90's.

In my opinion, the increase in technology will initially diminish some of the demand for pharmacists, but will most likely have a dramatic effect on tech jobs. Additionally, things such as the 2006 medicare part D medication therapy management initiatives will likely assist in changing the pharmacist's role to more of an interactive one rather than a primarily dispensing one. Although I feel the demand for pharmacists will decline somewhat in the next 20 years, the increase in Rx volume should be enough to keep everyone employed; however, I do feel that unless pharmacists begin to assume other duties, salaries will either become stagnant, or will decline slightly.

Anyway, what opinion/s do you all have on the issue?
I agree with above. That's why we're pushing to get re-imbursed for counseling because eventually, machines will take over in the dispensing prospect (besides they do it with less errors and more efficiently). Also, with regards to Part D MTM act, pharmacists are one of the health care professionals that counsel patients on drugs. Nurses, etc can do it as well with less pay.

We had a symposium on how technology will affect our profession; very realistic and scary at the same time.

I agree with above. That's why we're pushing to get re-imbursed for counseling because eventually, machines will take over in the dispensing prospect (besides they do it with less errors and more efficiently). Also, with regards to Part D MTM act, pharmacists are one of the health care professionals that counsel patients on drugs. Nurses, etc can do it as well with less pay.

We had a symposium on how technology will affect our profession; very realistic and scary at the same time.

Would that be a 2 year or 4 year nurse? :rolleyes:

I don't find this scary at all. Pharmacists are not paid to simply lick, stick, and pour. They counsel too. As technology increases, the demand on the pharmacist will change. I believe this will be what pushes pharmacists to counsel more. I've come across many of the older pharmacists who do not like this idea as they came from a different era where counseling was the physician/nurse's job. However, in school they focus more on counseling now. I think the technology is a good thing. Honestly, who would want to just count pills when a machine can do it for you??? There's more to a pharmacists job and that's why I think this is a good thing. Also, there are many opportunities for pharmacists in other areas as well. Such as becoming a certified diabetes educator and setting up screenings and such. With the increase in technology, pharmacists will be able to have more time to perform screenings and to monitor patients more closely. I truly believe this will make our profession even stronger!

Yah of course. I wish all we did as pharmacists was counsel and educate patients. Licking, sticking, and filling is the worst part and hopefully it'll get replaced by machines soon. I just think that it's going to be hard convincing insurance companies that counseling is a crucial part of drug therapy and that we should get reimbursed for it. I was referring to a potential decrease in pay as "scary".

Diabetes screenings, immunizations, heart burn, blood pressure monitoring, smoking cessation programs, etc are only a few of the different services pharmacists offer :thumbup:

I automated 3 different hospital pharmcies. And I never had to reduce any pharmacy FTEs. So intead of technicians filling the cassettes and pharmacists checking it, technicians now fill the Pyxis or Acudose.. while pharmacists have more time to participate in clinical runs.. or actually processing physician orders from the nursing units.

Automation makes our operation more efficient. Automation will replace pharmacist? lol.. No.