Pharmacist graduation rate to be 15,000 new grads per year by 2018....

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BF7

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
406
Reaction score
175
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811430_5

"Even if 2012 proves to be the last year of major academic expansion, the full impact will not be felt until 2018, at which time the job market will have to assimilate new pharmacists at a rate of about 15,000 per year. Contrast that rate with the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, during which the annual number of pharmacy graduates ranged between 6,000 and 8,000.[16] The number surpassed 8,000 for the first time in 2004. By 2008, it had risen to 10,000. It exceeded 12,000 in 2012 and is poised to exceed 14,000 by 2016"


I want to hear from Pharmacists who actually believe that they won't be impacted by this in some form or fashion...either in the form of under-employment (less then 40 hours per week), a reduction in wages or flat out unemployment. For those who feel that this really isn't a big deal, please list specific reasons (I'm specialized, the number of Pharmacists leaving the profession due to retirement will be greater than it's ever been, etc etc...) supported by links to articles supporting your position.

Members don't see this ad.
 
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811430_5

"Even if 2012 proves to be the last year of major academic expansion, the full impact will not be felt until 2018, at which time the job market will have to assimilate new pharmacists at a rate of about 15,000 per year. Contrast that rate with the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, during which the annual number of pharmacy graduates ranged between 6,000 and 8,000.[16] The number surpassed 8,000 for the first time in 2004. By 2008, it had risen to 10,000. It exceeded 12,000 in 2012 and is poised to exceed 14,000 by 2016"


I want to hear from Pharmacists who actually believe that they won't be impacted by this in some form or fashion...either in the form of under-employment (less then 40 hours per week), a reduction in wages or flat out unemployment. For those who feel that this really isn't a big deal, please list specific reasons (I'm specialized, the number of Pharmacists leaving the profession due to retirement will be greater than it's ever been, etc etc...) supported by links to articles supporting your position.
I don't think you'll find many on this board.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I was going to comment but your requirements that all posts have their resources cited in APA format seemed a bit strict. :p

sorry but self centered, myopic view points don't hold any water with me when it comes to this issue:)
 
Attention people: this guy is BMBIOLOGY. He uses a different username to repost this thread. In the past, he used to talk a lot about the number 18,000 grads by 2016. No body in this forum post something like this besides bmbiology. That is why I know it is he. He is obsessed with saturation. Don't listen to his depressing talk. No body ain't got time for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
BF7 don't you own an independent? Shouldn't a glut of new grads be a relatively good thing for your labor costs?
 
I'll hopefully be in management by then so the extra supply will be great. We only deal in residency-trained pharmacists, anyway, so supply is a bit more stable.

If anything, we'll have to do a better job screening candidates and hiring correctly. Just because there are more pharmacists doesn't mean they're going to all be good.

If anything, more supply = more challenges finding the diamonds amongst the weeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
BF7 don't you own an independent? Shouldn't a glut of new grads be a relatively good thing for your labor costs?
But incredibly bad for our profession. Theoretically to answer your question: yes.
 
I'll hopefully be in management by then so the extra supply will be great. We only deal in residency-trained pharmacists, anyway, so supply is a bit more stable.

If anything, we'll have to do a better job screening candidates and hiring correctly. Just because there are more pharmacists doesn't mean they're going to all be good.

If anything, more supply = more challenges finding the diamonds amongst the weeds.
"Hopefully be in management" --- if you're not signing the bottom right hand corner of your checks, then you're just as susceptible as any other pharmacist to these market forces....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
How
So the field is getting saturated? This is the first time I've heard of such.
How often have you seen hard numbers about our field not just becoming over saturated, but with a 20% unemployment rate for new grads by 2018 or so? It's not that way currently... But with new pharmacy schools still popping up nationwide ( including 2 in Texas since fall of 2013) you'd better not be so dismissive and arrogant...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
BF7, would you recommend taking out $378,700 in student loan debt to go to USC College of Pharmacy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
speaking from limited experience, i think a lot of new grads in the area i'm at don't really desire retail so i think retail is sorta stable for those who already have it. for those who don't it's pretty pretty saturated if not impossible. i think a lot of the younger people don't want retail because of prestige, stress, or dealing with angry patients. but it could also be there's more hurdles to get those jobs (any job these days) then there were before.

i feel a lot of people are going into fields not related to pharmacy actually like another thread talked med writing. a Pharm.D is turning to more like a bachelor's degree for certain fields like med writing, market research, labeling, etc. why not hire a pharm.d and pay same as someone you would hire a bachelors with? even bottom of the rung industry jobs like drug information questions for companies are staffed by pharmd's probably making little and working those jobs cause they couldn't find work or didn't want to work certain jobs.

the number of unemployed or underemployed new grads I know of seems to increase every year. most do find work, but not as lucrative as before and no certainty that residencies/fellowships will lead to full-time employment or promotion. it's getting worse year by year from expanding class sizes and new schools. the outlook now and immediate future looks pretty poor. but like in other fields, some feel they are too good for jobs like retail or w/e.

BF7, would you recommend taking out $378,700 in student loan debt to go to USC College of Pharmacy?

I would advise you NOT to go to that school. I wouldn't recommend pharmacy school now to anyone unless they can graduate with no or VERY little student debt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811430_5

"Even if 2012 proves to be the last year of major academic expansion, the full impact will not be felt until 2018, at which time the job market will have to assimilate new pharmacists at a rate of about 15,000 per year. Contrast that rate with the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, during which the annual number of pharmacy graduates ranged between 6,000 and 8,000.[16] The number surpassed 8,000 for the first time in 2004. By 2008, it had risen to 10,000. It exceeded 12,000 in 2012 and is poised to exceed 14,000 by 2016"


I want to hear from Pharmacists who actually believe that they won't be impacted by this in some form or fashion...either in the form of under-employment (less then 40 hours per week), a reduction in wages or flat out unemployment. For those who feel that this really isn't a big deal, please list specific reasons (I'm specialized, the number of Pharmacists leaving the profession due to retirement will be greater than it's ever been, etc etc...) supported by links to articles supporting your position.


I will be impacted but thought I will contribute anyway:

Simply there will be more part time as in other ancillary health fields. It may be common where some rph are unemployed for some time in their career. I have prepared for this and frankly am shocked it has not gotten bad yet. By 2018 I will be happy at 16-32 hours weekly. So far pharmacy has been good to me and I do not regret, yet I fear for new grads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A good friend of mine graduated from pharmacy school last year. She graduated with honors and is now working part time for an Irish pub and Hooters. Times are tough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
No, I wanted to go into pharmacy at one point to take the easy way out.
 
.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just because I'm new to SDN doesn't imply that I wasn't aware of the various health care fields prior to today. LOL
 
A good friend of mine graduated from pharmacy school last year. She graduated with honors and is now working part time for an Irish pub and Hooters. Times are tough.
Graduated with honors and now works at hooters? I'm calling BS. Everyone knows that any pharmacy student who graduated with honors first goes to work at twin peaks....hooters is for nursing school dropouts...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Graduated with honors and now works at hooters? I'm calling BS. Everyone knows that any pharmacy student who graduated with honors first goes to work at twin peaks....hooters is for nursing school dropouts...

Haha! Very funny!
 
Just because I'm new to SDN doesn't imply that I wasn't aware of the various health care fields prior to today. LOL

The fact that you have a picture (that looks kinda photoshopped) of a female, provocatively dressed, with part of her breast hanging out just makes me not want to take your posts seriously.

Just my $0.02.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The fact that you have a picture (that looks kinda photoshopped) of a female, provocatively dressed, with part of her breast hanging out just makes me not want to take your posts seriously.

Just my $0.02.

Spoken like a fan of Fox News. ;)

My O Chem professor thinks that pharmacy is a joke of a profession kept alive by greedy republicans. LOL
 
Hmmm... I wouldn't worry so much about this number.
For every rotation, take every single moment to learn how to deal with every single problem. Because every problem creates another opportunity to learn something, and make you even better than yesterday, and prepares you for tomorrow. For example, when you meet upset, crazy, or mad patients/customers, it's the learning opportunity to deal with them and find ways to calm them down. And, next time you see them again, they are completely different persons. (Haha... I saw many of this situations at retails :p)
Make yourself competence to every situation, and I'm sure you will not be one in unemployment statistic.

Just my another $0.02
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As to the OP, what is the point? You want to hear from people who oppose your point of view, but only if they do research? Are you like trying to trick people into doing your term paper or something? This is an opinion board, not a research board!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What about Fox Sports? Surely you watch Fox Sports, and that makes you a Fox News fan in a round-about way.

Nah I don't even watch Fox Sports. If I did watch a sports channel, it would be CSN.

Off-topic though, I do like to watch Hannity and the O'Reilly Factor from time to time if we're talking news.
 
"Hopefully be in management" --- if you're not signing the bottom right hand corner of your checks, then you're just as susceptible as any other pharmacist to these market forces....

Not exactly.

Management, in this case, we are probably talking about mid level management such as pharmacy/district managers and DOPs, are immune to some and more susceptible to a different set of market forces.

Being the more experienced and moderately in leadership, mid managers are not subjected to the basic cost cutting measures such as cutting hours or RPhs staffs. These cost cutting measures are what I think companies instinctively try to do first, but these measures usually falls under the jurisdiction of the middle management.

But we are more susceptible to organizational changes. The worst is a down sizing of a company. Selling off or closing facilities, hence reducing the needs for number of middle managers, or concentrate more duties under each managers. It can be as drastic as eliminating an entire layer or in some cases, out sourcing. This is usually the biggest risk working for a company who's on a defensive/survival mode.

If you are a middle manager, the prudent move is try to make into upper (corporate) level management. Basically be big enough to given a golden parachute. A million dollar bonus if the company grows big, or a million dollar severance package if the company goes down.

However, over all, middle managers are still safer than ground level troops, as the intermediary (aka necessary evil) to carry out the corporate directives.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly.

Management, in this case, we are probably talking about mid level management such as pharmacy/district managers and DOPs, are immune to some and more susceptible to a different set of market forces.

Being the more experienced and moderately in leadership, mid managers are not subjected to the basic cost cutting measures such as cutting hours or RPhs staffs. These cost cutting measures are what I think companies instinctively try to do first, but these measures usually falls under the jurisdiction of the middle management.

But we are more susceptible to organizational changes. The worst is a down sizing of a company. Selling off or closing facilities, hence reducing the needs for number of middle managers, or concentrate more duties under each managers. It can be as drastic as eliminating an entire layer or in some cases, out sourcing. This is usually the biggest risk working for a company who's on a defensive/survival mode.

If you are a middle manager, the prudent move is try to make into upper (corporate) level management. Basically be big enough to given a golden parachute. A million dollar bonus if the company grows big, or a million dollar severance package if the company goes down.

However, over all, middle managers are still safer than ground level troops, as the intermediary (aka necessary evil) to carry out the corporate directives.

As long as state boards require that a Pharmacist oversee the dispensing process (in person) the worker bee pharmacist will always have more opportunities for employment than a middle manager. Your post is the exact opposite of what happens in REALITY. The reality will be that wages will stagnate or go down and hours will likely be cut with only the PIC getting 40 hours a week once the glut of Pharmacists enters the market. The SMART pharmacists are opening their own stores or purchasing existing stores as we speak....what's bad for a our profession (the PharmD surplus) will be good for EMPLOYERS....
 
As to the OP, what is the point? You want to hear from people who oppose your point of view, but only if they do research? Are you like trying to trick people into doing your term paper or something? This is an opinion board, not a research board!

Your post noted above summarizes perfectly why some people excel in life (and their profession) and others eventually feel victimized by circumstances. Too many simply want to be passengers in their own life and profession. Don't say you weren't warned....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As long as state boards require that a Pharmacist oversee the dispensing process (in person) the worker bee pharmacist will always have more opportunities for employment than a middle manager. Your post is the exact opposite of what happens in REALITY. The reality will be that wages will stagnate or go down and hours will likely be cut with only the PIC getting 40 hours a week once the glut of Pharmacists enters the market. The SMART pharmacists are opening their own stores or purchasing existing stores as we speak....what's bad for a our profession (the PharmD surplus) will be good for EMPLOYERS....

Think about it. Middle managers basically stems from the most experienced of the staff. We can step down to fill in for staff job, but not the other way around.

When company think about cost cutting. The basic math is: there is 1 middle manager vs 10-40 staff. Keep in mind that there is still a shortage of pharmacy managers/DOPs. Can't say the same for ground level staff.
 
Think about it. Middle managers basically stems from the most experienced of the staff. We can step down to fill in for staff job, but not the other way around.

When company think about cost cutting. The basic math is: there is 1 middle manager vs 10-40 staff. Keep in mind that there is still a shortage of pharmacy managers/DOPs. Can't say the same for ground level staff.


You keep thinking that way and you're going to end up severely disappointed.... by 2018 new grads will be coming out of school and being hired on at $42 per hour and you're making $65+. ........and your take is "I'm more experienced, I've got blood sweat and tears into this company, I can do that job but they can't do mine...etc., etc.".....you know what that is going to get you in corporate America? An extra few weeks of severance pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You keep thinking that way and you're going to end up severely disappointed.... by 2018 new grads will be coming out of school and being hired on at $42 per hour and you're making $65+. ........and your take is "I'm more experienced, I've got blood sweat and tears into this company, I can do that job but they can't do mine...etc., etc.".....you know what that is going to get you in corporate America? An extra few weeks of severance pay.

Just some perspective. So even if a mid manager make $70/hr vs a new grad making $45. The $25/hr difference, how does that compare to to the cost saving potential if the mid level manager can eliminate 1 out of 20 staff pharmacist off of the roster? On the converse side. Can you get new grad to manage 20 staff? How many million does it cost when the state or the joint commission hand your facility its ass?

I have no illusions of where mid management rest. We are a necessary evil in many ways, and I don't aways enjoy it. But when comes to cost savings, the low hanging fruit the ones going first. That's just how numbers crunches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
$70/hr to surf the internet? LOL
 
Just some perspective. So even if a mid manager make $70/hr vs a new grad making $45. The $25/hr difference, how does that compare to to the cost saving potential if the mid level manager can eliminate 1 out of 20 staff pharmacist off of the roster? On the converse side. Can you get new grad to manage 20 staff? How many million does it cost when the state or the joint commission hand your facility its ass?

I have no illusions of where mid management rest. We are a necessary evil in many ways, and I don't aways enjoy it. But when comes to cost savings, the low hanging fruit the ones going first. That's just how numbers crunches.
Speaking of low hanging fruit... What are your thoughts on clinical pharmacists versus staffers when it comes time to make lay offs? I heard Kaiser was centralizing a lot of its clinical types, eliminating the "out of the basement" dream jobs. A colleague and I debate this often, as he says the clinical guru will be the first one on the chopping block if he barely knows how to process orders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Speaking of low hanging fruit... What are your thoughts on clinical pharmacists versus staffers when it comes time to make lay offs? I heard Kaiser was centralizing a lot of its clinical types, eliminating the "out of the basement" dream jobs. A colleague and I debate this often, as he says the clinical guru will be the first one on the chopping block if he barely knows how to process orders.

I personally value operational flexibility, mainly because I work in a relatively small facility. To me, the ability for anyone to step into each other's shoes when someone's sick or on vacation is critical. If a candidate comes to me saying they won't do this or that, they are out. At the same time, I know just how critically clinical thinking skills are. I recently had an MD blow up because one of my pharmacists followed an order literally without thinking or clarifying with the MD. I don't need robots. I need people who have clinical experience/ability to think.

So what I'm getting at is, at least for small (and maybe medium) sized facilities, dedicated clinical pharmacists doesn't fit the bill. To have 1 or few unicorns that can't fill in for or be filled by others, are just operational risks. An all hybride staff makes more sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Just some perspective. So even if a mid manager make $70/hr vs a new grad making $45. The $25/hr difference, how does that compare to to the cost saving potential if the mid level manager can eliminate 1 out of 20 staff pharmacist off of the roster? On the converse side. Can you get new grad to manage 20 staff? How many million does it cost when the state or the joint commission hand your facility its ass?

I have no illusions of where mid management rest. We are a necessary evil in many ways, and I don't aways enjoy it. But when comes to cost savings, the low hanging fruit the ones going first. That's just how numbers crunches.
Because they can ( and will) consolidate middle management much more quickly. They have investments in real estate ( brick and mortar) and will need to have pharmacists filling those positions. If they can hire almost 2 front line pharmacists and thereby fill a front line need at 2 brick and mortar stores for almost the same hourly rate as it takes to keep you (unless you can be in 2 stores at once ) you don't positively impact the bottom line. ($70 for you + $45 for another PHARMD -- a loss of $25 per hour when compared with hiring 2 front line RPhs) Productivity reports can be read and evaluated from anywhere. You obviously don't work for a chain drug store ( like a majority if pharmacists do) so your viewpoint is skewed. As a pharmacist I agree with you about the value that experience brings... But big chain stores and PBMs are run by MBAs not practicing PharmDs. The financial realities are that those in middle management are the low hanging fruit you mentioned above.
 
Because they can ( and will) consolidate middle management much more quickly. They have investments in real estate ( brick and mortar) and will need to have pharmacists filling those positions. If they can hire almost 2 front line pharmacists and thereby fill a front line need at 2 brick and mortar stores for almost the same hourly rate as it takes to keep you (unless you can be in 2 stores at once ) you don't positively impact the bottom line. ($70 for you + $45 for another PHARMD -- a loss of $25 per hour when compared with hiring 2 front line RPhs) Productivity reports can be read and evaluated from anywhere. You obviously don't work for a chain drug store ( like a majority if pharmacists do) so your viewpoint is skewed. As a pharmacist I agree with you about the value that experience brings... But big chain stores and PBMs are run by MBAs not practicing PharmDs. The financial realities are that those in middle management are the low hanging fruit you mentioned above.

Who hires a mid level manager just to manage 1 other pharmacist? The PIC in a 2 RPH store isn't a mid-level manager, hence doesn't make $25/hr more.

Keep in perspective, a DOP manages 10-40 staff. If a hospital has significantly more than that many in staff, usually there's a pharmacy manager under the DOP to take the load off.
 
Last edited:
Who hires a mid level manager just to manage 1 other pharmacist? The PIC in a 2 RPH store isn't a mid-level manager.
Mid level manager= DM. Then if you aren't willing to work in your store on the front line, you've just become more expendable ... Now it's $70+$45 +$45. Which number stands out? Who is required BY LAW to be present in order to conduct pharmacy business? The $45 per hour employee or the $70 mid level manager? Are these companies simply going to close stores and lose valuable real estate to keep their mid level managers? So why again would a mid level manager making $70 be more secure than a front line pharmacist making $45? In this scenario there will be a lot fewer employees making $70 per hour and they will be working harder and covering a wider area and more stores without a shadow of a doubt.you simply don't understand the BUSINESS of community pharmacy.
 
Mid level manager= DM. Then if you aren't willing to work in your store on the front line, you've just become more expendable ... Now it's $70+$45 +$45. Which number stands out? Who is required BY LAW to be present in order to conduct pharmacy business? The $45 per hour employee or the $70 mid level manager? Are these companies simply going to close stores and lose valuable real estate to keep their mid level managers? So why again would a mid level manager making $70 be more secure than a front line pharmacist making $45? In this scenario there will be a lot fewer employees making $70 per hour and they will be working harder and covering a wider area and more stores without a shadow of a doubt.you simply don't understand the BUSINESS of community pharmacy.

By your logic, why does all the chains have DM's? Why have several layers of managers from PIC all the way up to VP? Why not just all just front line run by bunch of new grads? You haven't thought it through in depth.
 
Lol is it going to be $45 already. I have to get out of this field. I saw this coming a decade ago. But I repeat myself
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Speaking of low hanging fruit... What are your thoughts on clinical pharmacists versus staffers when it comes time to make lay offs? I heard Kaiser was centralizing a lot of its clinical types, eliminating the "out of the basement" dream jobs. A colleague and I debate this often, as he says the clinical guru will be the first one on the chopping block if he barely knows how to process orders.

Disconnected pure decentralized clinical positions are on the chopping block in every setting, or will be soon. You can run an effective clinical program centrally and expect production at the same time for 80%+ of most hospitals.

In fact, there shouldn't even be a distinction between "staff" and "clinical" on the inpatient side.

Staff = Clinical = Staff. If you're not setting your department up this way, it's not, if but when, the axe falls.

Of course, if you lay off good managers, your rx department will continue to hemorrhage money. But what do I know about running a business, the OP knows how to run it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Who hires a mid level manager just to manage 1 other pharmacist? The PIC in a 2 RPH store isn't a mid-level manager, hence doesn't make $25/hr more.

Keep in perspective, a DOP manages 10-40 staff. If a hospital has significantly more than that many in staff, usually there's a pharmacy manager under the DOP to take the load off.
The disconnect between the world ( and economics) of hospital pharmacy and community pharmacy is a wide one as evidenced by your posts. The changes in economic factors ( more aggressive MAC Pricing by PBMS, the coming surplus nationwide) seeping into community pharmacy have far more reaching implications for our profession than you can obviously fathom.
 
Disconnected pure decentralized clinical positions are on the chopping block in every setting, or will be soon. You can run an effective clinical program centrally and expect production at the same time for 80%+ of most hospitals.

In fact, there shouldn't even be a distinction between "staff" and "clinical" on the inpatient side.

Staff = Clinical = Staff. If you're not setting your department up this way, it's not, if but when, the axe falls.

Of course, if you lay off good managers, your rx department will continue to hemorrhage money. But what do I know about running a business, the OP knows how to run it all.

Pharmacist jobs are indeed subject to market forces, including those who are "good managers."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Almost 7 out of 10 of all Pharmacist jobs are community based or mail order based. As I noted above, our profession is in for a rude awakening. It already has become difficult for some pharmacists to find employment in some cities and states. It will reach epidemic proportions by 2018. Consolidation of jobs has already occurred in the Mail order industry with the worst PBM of them all, Express Scripts leading the charge. 150+ Pharmacists laid off in DFW, 130+ Pharmacists laid of in Tampa, etc....

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2014/04/30/express-scripts-layoffs-to-flood-tampa-bay.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...pts-to-cut-1-890-jobs-close-two.html?page=all

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...pts-lays-off-500-in-irving-and-fort-worth.ece
 
Top