An Analytical Look at the Past, Present and Future Pharmacy Job Market

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

phathead

Future World Drug Lord
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
3,772
Reaction score
9
It is difficult to discuss pharmacy on SDN in recent months without the a of a debate over the condition of the national pharmacy job market beginning. One person states that in their area the market is terrible and pharmacists are routinely unemployed, while another states that the market is healthy and prosperous.

In each case, the individual variables which dictate that view are neglected and because of this an accurate picture is not provided.

What has spawn from these debates is the following article. Here I shall present a summary of data gathered analyzing the health of the pharmacist job market in the United States over the past decade. The most recent set of data points were gathered in 2009 and therefore provide a reasonably accurate depiction of the current conditions we see today.

My hope is that this piece will provide an understanding of current conditions, and add insight into what very well may be in the future to help alleviate any of the concerns some of us may have.

How did we get here?

Before jumping straight into the hard data regarding our the current job market, we must first delve into what circumstances have led us to this point. Most of us here have heard the term "pharmacist shortage" for the entirety of our pharmacy careers, yet may lack a full understanding of how the profession came to have a shortage.

I must admit that I have only been a part of pharmacy since 2001 so I do not have firsthand experience of the profession prior to then. Information stated here is based upon published papers describing said situations and from discussions with more experienced pharmacists.

First it must be clarified that every industry and/or profession has cyclical tendencies. Supply and demand fluctuate on a regular basis when leads equilibrium to rarely be stagnant. In a profession program, these tendencies can often be displayed using graduation rates on a yearly basis. In the case of pharmacy, the graph pictured below, beginning in 1960, recounts yearly graduates into the profession.

figt.jpg


One can easily recognize the rise and fall of graduates over the past fifty years. It is also notable how each rise in graduates corresponds to an important evolutionary step in the practice of pharmacy. For instance the introduction of Tagament in 1979 is believed to be the first catalyst leading to the drug market we see today. In the 1990s, the rise of novel classes such as statins and SSRIs acted as second catalyst, pushing the profession along at breakneck speed.

It is equally important to note that the number of graduates does not necessarily correlate to the number of practicing pharmacists added to the workforce. This will be covered in a later section.

The shortage we are familiar with first began to be recognized towards the end of the 1990s. In fact, as the century drew to a close, the following summation was made in regards to the current workforce conditions of the profession:

"Economists would consider this to be a definition of a short-run shortage because the market has not had time to react. In general, labor shortages lead to increased wages, and these induce employers to substitute other productive inputs for labor and induce workers to enter the occupation, thereby alleviating the shortage. The severity of a shortage is determined by the job market's capacity to supply workers. If years of education and specialized training are required of an occupation, then capacity to supply workers is constrained, and a rapid rise in demand leads to a "dynamic shortage" despite increases in wages."
Supply and demand models are extremely fluid, as previously mentioned, but are not necessarily fluid at the same rate. In fact, supply is almost always chasing demand in hopes of finding that perfect equilibrium. Due to the nature of the profession, there is a considerable lag in being able to close that gap between supply and demand due to the amount of time it takes to produce a pharmacist. This lag is one of the main reasons it became difficult to eradicate the shortage across the country.

An easy way to curb a supply and demand inequality is to increase the cost of the supply. The first half of the decade saw the profession enjoy a rapid rise in salaries and incentives to entice pharmacists from one job to another. It was also not terribly uncommon for a pharmacist to be solicited for a job while at his or her current place of employment.

Due to these facts, pharmacists at the midway through this past decade wielded extraordinary power over their employers. It is a situation that few other have professions enjoyed on such a large scale. Pharmacists had the ability to select virtually any job they wanted and to do so on their own terms. Pharmacy managers, on the other hand, had little choice but to concede.

What then evolved was a subset of pharmacists who became spoiled and misguided. Many grew to enjoy their newfound power and the money that came along with it, while others have yearned for the chance.

This fact remains true today, and one could argue that the sharp uptick in pre-pharmacy and pharmacy students could be attributed to this. A highly unofficial poll conducted with many second and third year students in the past week confirmed that roughly half of the students original reasoning for going into pharmacy was due to the salary involved.

Now that there were a multitude of students fighting for a small number of spots, and because the shortage was not alleviating quickly for one of the aforementioned reasons, additional schools began to open. The logic was, and still is, that the scope of the pharmacist profession will continue to grow as modern healthcare evolves and that the profession will be able to absorb more practitioners. Today this seems like a very logical statement as the breadth of options for a pharmacist seems to be slowing increasing on a consistent basis.

These new schools are also responsible for the sharp upward curve of graduates in recent years. There has been roughly at 25% increase in the number of pharmacy schools in the country over the past decade. A concern has now been raised that we may be producing too many new pharmacists for the profession to after many years of little growth.

Basic economic principals state that if supply truly outstrips demand, the market will be forced to shift and bring the supply back to equilibrium. This could be a self-induced decision or one independent of control, similar to the declining application rates in the past.

It makes little sense to panic because equilibrium will be reached once again. As stated in the quotation from the 2000 study, pharmacy naturally is slow to rebound due to the time needed to procure new pharmacists. This period, much like other time periods, will be used as guideline in the future to hopefully prevent a similar situation from occurring.

Knowing this, the truth on the health of the pharmacy job market may not be as bleak as is expected for reasons. Next, hard data will be looked at an analyzed to help derive whether or not the job market is as poor as it may seem.

A Measure of Current Conditions

The Pharmacy Manpower Project created the Aggregate Demand Index (ADI) in 1999 as a tool to measure the severity of the shortage of pharmacists in the United States. The manner in which a specific point is derived will not be discussed, but over the past decade studies have proven it to be an accurate measure of workforce conditions across the country.

One thing to remember is that the numbers of an index are arbitrary and used only to create a simple display of a complex problem. It generally holds no value and is only relevant when compared to other values in the same index.

Below lists what each value corresponds, which is then followed by the most recent ADI data sets published.

5 = High demand: difficult to fill open positions
4 = Moderate demand: some difficulty filling open positions
3 = Demand in balance with supply
2 = Demand is less than the pharmacist supply available
1 = Demand is much less than the pharmacist supply available
adinat.jpg


adimap.jpg



adisetting.jpg


yearly.jpg


Clearly, the ADI displays that the pharmacy workforce is approaching it's equilibrium point, with a handful of states experiencing a small surplus. For some, alarms may already be sounding when one sees how much the national ADI value has dropped over the past year.

Despite this, one must note the current ADI levels per setting. Only the community setting, consequently the most prevalent setting, is shown to be close to being overly saturated.

This makes sense because pharmacy over the last two decades has begun to evolve from a community based practice to a more involved practice in numerous areas of healthcare. Students today are taught more about long term therapy management and working in conjunction with physicians rather than simply filling prescriptions in a retail location. The differing setting demands reaffirms this notion and shows that while the traditional pharmacist job opportunities may be slowing, there are still jobs in the more novel areas of the profession.

While the ADI itself is more of a real-time indicator of conditions. it is now time to see where the profession has been, and possibly where it is going, by looking at several other key facts.

Where Is The Health of the Job Market?

In 2009, the AACP published its most recent review of the pharmacist workforce in the United States. This was a follow up to earlier statistical studies completed in both 2000 and 2004 respectively. The initial study spawned from the same method thinking as the ADI and has since been used to track the health and viability of the profession.

Here we shall look, and discuss, some of the more important points made during the course of the document.
"88.3% (67.4% full-time and 20.9% part-time) of licensed pharmacists responding to the survey in 2009 were actively practicing pharmacy. In 2004, 86.0% of pharmacists were actively practicing pharmacy and in 2000, 88.2% were actively practicing pharmacy."
We often hear that there are 250,000 pharmacists in the country or that there will be 12,000 graduates this year without considering that not all of those pharmacists are will go into practice. As shown here, roughly 12% of pharmacists do not possess an active role in the workforce. This is an important point to consider when attempting to compare shortage considerations versus the number of new pharmacists.

" In 2000, 44.1% of practicing pharmacists were age 40 or younger. This proportion decreased to 33.0% in 2004, and in 2009 it was only 24.4%. Conversely, in 2000 16.7% of practicing pharmacists were over age 55, and this proportion increased to 24.6% in 2004, and to 32.5% in 2009."

"10% of male pharmacists and 4% of female pharmacists expect to be retired by 2012."
A buzz phrase in healthcare over the past few years states that the Baby Boomers are aging and we will need to be prepared to counteract their new influx into the healthcare system. What is often neglected is that your average pharmacists age is increasing in step. Naturally, this makes sense as it has only been in recent years that there exists a sizable amount of pharmacists entering the work force. It must also be recognized that with a large proportion of older pharmacists comes to the fact that in due time they will decide to cut-back hours and eventually retire.

New students have grim outlooks on the viability of future jobs today, but remember that nearly one half of the profession is within two decades of possible retirement. Even more important is that for these pharmacists, the profession has changed so dramatically since their career's began, that they may be even more liable to cut back their hours or opt for an early retirement altogether.

If things remain as cyclical as they have been, one could argue that this may be the cause of the next shortage a decade or two down the road.

Now let's do a little math using some of the information discussed thus far.

For all intents and purposes, the split in sex of active pharmacists is now 50-50 according to the AACP, and if we assume a total population of pharmacists in the country to be 250,000 we have the following:

(.10)(125,000) + (0.04)(125,000) = 12,500 + 5,000 = 17,500 / 3 years = 5833 pharmacists retiring per year

Granted this is based on data from a singular point in time, but with this fact we are now down to roughly just 6,000 new graduates entering the workforce. Remember that 12% of those 6,000 graduates will not practice at a given point and we are left with 5,280 new pharmacists.

Seems like a lot right? Except that that number represents just a 2% yearly growth for the profession. This number is well below the projected number of new pharmacists that several organizations said we would need over the next two decades to counteract the continued ballooning of the healthcare system.

And if pharmacy holds pace with the projected national average, the rate of retirement should actually increase over the next fifteen years.

This is one reason why the Bureau of Labor Statistics states that the job outlook for pharmacists is rather good. They predict a conservative growth of 17% over the period of 2008 to 2018, roughly in line with the numbers above.

Most importantly, when looking at these numbers consider this analogy before becoming too upset. Population rates are not set simply by the number of births in a given year. It is also determined using the number of deaths per year, as it is the rate that is most important, not a singular number. Without a something to give a number meaning, the number itself is useless.

" Overall, pharmacists working full-time worked an average of 44.2 hours per week in 2000, 43.4 hours per week in 2004, and 43.8 hours per week in 2009."

" A full-time equivalent (FTE) was calculated using the number of reported total hours worked in primary employment and the number of weeks worked annually. We defined 1.0 FTE as a pharmacist working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, or 2080 hours. In 2000, pharmacists were contributing an average of 0.93 FTE to the workforce. In 2004, pharmacists contributed an average of 0.87 FTE and in 2009 they also contributed an average of 0.87 FTE."
Despite what we may want to believe, the actual pharmacist is not physically working more hours than they did ten years ago. In fact, when looking at yearly hours worked, they are working less than they did a decade ago. Granted, this could be explained by the increase in incentive programs over the last decade and in increase in part-time pharmacists, but nonetheless it is an interesting point.

"In 2009, 68% of pharmacists rated their workload level at their place of practice as high or excessively high. This is an increase of 14 percentage points compared to 2004 (54%)."
Few will argue that pharmacists are more overworked than perhaps ever before. Reasons range from a steady increase in the number of prescriptions dispensed yearly (up 39% since 2000), an ever increasing library of drugs, a change in the scope of practice, and PBMs are becoming increasingly involved with the day to day actions of pharmacists. So while pharmacists may be quantitatively working less each year, their actual workload endured on a daily basis is increasing. This, in turn, will have an effect on the real and perceived job market.

"Figure 2.6.1 shows that the largest increases between 2004 and 2009 were for supermarket (from 35% in 2004 to 69% in 2009), mass merchandiser (42% to 67%), and independent pharmacies (43% to 66%)."
highn.jpg


It is interesting to note not only that workloads are increasing, but in what area of pharmacy they are increasing. Is it a coincidence that the two largest areas of increase in stressful workload is from those pharmacies who now employ dispensing free or excessively inexpensive medications? The problems with independent pharmacies are well documented and will not be described here.

" There was a decrease in the proportion of full-time pharmacists working for less than three years at their current place of employment for pharmacists overall (31% in 2000, 20% in 2004, and 16% in 2009)."
One of the signs of severe problems within a profession is when long time employees either voluntarily or involuntarily leave their jobs. Short-term turnover is employee based, not employer or industry based and a certain level is considered healthy. Excessive high short-term turnover rates is a sign of toxicity within the profession and points to an even larger problem. This is something that is not currently being seen.

Now since pharmacists are now more likely to stay with an employer, that employer will have little need to hire a new pharmacist as often. Due to this, it is not that there are less jobs out there for pharmacists, but that there is less fluidity in the tenureship of pharmacists.

One final note that has recently been discussed as a cause for the perceived decrease in jobs. An economy in recession forces workers to find new ways to produce income for this household. For pharmacy, it has been discussed that there are many pharmacy graduates who have returned to practicing or are now working full-time in order to counteract the effects of our current economic situation.

This could be due to a constriction in the specific field they were working in, a significant other being laid off or other personal and financial hardships. A true gauge of the health of the pharmacy job market cannot be undertaken until this particular economic environment begins to climb out of the doldrums.

What Does This All Mean?

Taking all of this into account, what does all of this data mean? Is it worth endless nights of worrying for pharmacy students whether or not they will have job five, ten, twenty years down the road? Or is it better to keep an eye on the big picture and realize that localized situations are not representative of the whole.

During the worst of the shortage years there were still pockets of saturation and even today the reverse remains true. This is not to say that there are distinct areas in the country where a pharmacist may find it nearly impossible to find a job. It is more that the economic, and professional climate, has changed in the last few years and the benefits of the shortage experienced by so many in the past decade are finally waning.

Hopefully this article has served to enlighten some to facts which may not otherwise be readily available. Others will, no doubt, find fault with the facts presented here and will argue accordingly. The important thing is this, It is easy to cry wolf without considering the view of the entire picture. As professionals, we are all educated individuals, but even we can fall into the quirks of human nature.

Being able to look beyond our own small world and into our surroundings is a skill that will reaps rewards tenfold over the course of your life. If one thing is taken from this article, I ask that this be it.

Happy job hunting.



Sources

Aggregate Demand Index. Pharmacymanpower.com. 1999.

Knapp, David. "Professionally Determined Need for Pharmacy Services in 2020." American Journal of Pharmaceutical Edition. Vol 66 (2002)

Midwest Pharmacy Workforce Research Consortium. "Final report of the 2009 National Sample Survey of the Pharmacist Workforce to Determine Contemporary Demographic and Practice Characteristics." AACP.com. (March 1st, 2010)

Mott, David A, et al. "Pharmacist participation in the workforce: 1990, 2000, and 2004." Journal Of The American Pharmacists Association: Japha 46.3 (2006): 322-330. MEDLINE. EBSCO.

Report of the ASHP Task Force on Pharmacy's Changing Demographics. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. Vol 64, 2007.
 
It is difficult to discuss pharmacy on SDN in recent months without the a of a debate over the condition of the national pharmacy job market beginning. One person states that in their area the market is terrible and pharmacists are routinely unemployed, while another states that the market is healthy and prosperous.

In each case, the individual variables which dictate that view are neglected and because of this an accurate picture is not provided.

What has spawn from these debates is the following article. Here I shall present a summary of data gathered analyzing the health of the pharmacist job market in the United States over the past decade. The most recent set of data points were gathered in 2009 and therefore provide a reasonably accurate depiction of the current conditions we see today.

My hope is that this piece will provide an understanding of current conditions, and add insight into what very well may be in the future to help alleviate any of the concerns some of us may have.

How did we get here?

Before jumping straight into the hard data regarding our the current job market, we must first delve into what circumstances have led us to this point. Most of us here have heard the term "pharmacist shortage" for the entirety of our pharmacy careers, yet may lack a full understanding of how the profession came to have a shortage.

I must admit that I have only been a part of pharmacy since 2001 so I do not have firsthand experience of the profession prior to then. Information stated here is based upon published papers describing said situations and from discussions with more experienced pharmacists.

First it must be clarified that every industry and/or profession has cyclical tendencies. Supply and demand fluctuate on a regular basis when leads equilibrium to rarely be stagnant. In a profession program, these tendencies can often be displayed using graduation rates on a yearly basis. In the case of pharmacy, the graph pictured below, beginning in 1960, recounts yearly graduates into the profession.

figt.jpg


One can easily recognize the rise and fall of graduates over the past fifty years. It is also notable how each rise in graduates corresponds to an important evolutionary step in the practice of pharmacy. For instance the introduction of Tagament in 1979 is believed to be the first catalyst leading to the drug market we see today. In the 1990s, the rise of novel classes such as statins and SSRIs acted as second catalyst, pushing the profession along at breakneck speed.

It is equally important to note that the number of graduates does not necessarily correlate to the number of practicing pharmacists added to the workforce. This will be covered in a later section.

The shortage we are familiar with first began to be recognized towards the end of the 1990s. In fact, as the century drew to a close, the following summation was made in regards to the current workforce conditions of the profession:

Supply and demand models are extremely fluid, as previously mentioned, but are not necessarily fluid at the same rate. In fact, supply is almost always chasing demand in hopes of finding that perfect equilibrium. Due to the nature of the profession, there is a considerable lag in being able to close that gap between supply and demand due to the amount of time it takes to produce a pharmacist. This lag is one of the main reasons it became difficult to eradicate the shortage across the country.

An easy way to curb a supply and demand inequality is to increase the cost of the supply. The first half of the decade saw the profession enjoy a rapid rise in salaries and incentives to entice pharmacists from one job to another. It was also not terribly uncommon for a pharmacist to be solicited for a job while at his or her current place of employment.

Due to these facts, pharmacists at the midway through this past decade wielded extraordinary power over their employers. It is a situation that few other have professions enjoyed on such a large scale. Pharmacists had the ability to select virtually any job they wanted and to do so on their own terms. Pharmacy managers, on the other hand, had little choice but to concede.

What then evolved was a subset of pharmacists who became spoiled and misguided. Many grew to enjoy their newfound power and the money that came along with it, while others have yearned for the chance.

This fact remains true today, and one could argue that the sharp uptick in pre-pharmacy and pharmacy students could be attributed to this. A highly unofficial poll conducted with many second and third year students in the past week confirmed that roughly half of the students original reasoning for going into pharmacy was due to the salary involved.

Now that there were a multitude of students fighting for a small number of spots, and because the shortage was not alleviating quickly for one of the aforementioned reasons, additional schools began to open. The logic was, and still is, that the scope of the pharmacist profession will continue to grow as modern healthcare evolves and that the profession will be able to absorb more practitioners. Today this seems like a very logical statement as the breadth of options for a pharmacist seems to be slowing increasing on a consistent basis.

These new schools are also responsible for the sharp upward curve of graduates in recent years. There has been roughly at 25% increase in the number of pharmacy schools in the country over the past decade. A concern has now been raised that we may be producing too many new pharmacists for the profession to after many years of little growth.

Basic economic principals state that if supply truly outstrips demand, the market will be forced to shift and bring the supply back to equilibrium. This could be a self-induced decision or one independent of control, similar to the declining application rates in the past.

It makes little sense to panic because equilibrium will be reached once again. As stated in the quotation from the 2000 study, pharmacy naturally is slow to rebound due to the time needed to procure new pharmacists. This period, much like other time periods, will be used as guideline in the future to hopefully prevent a similar situation from occurring.

Knowing this, the truth on the health of the pharmacy job market may not be as bleak as is expected for reasons. Next, hard data will be looked at an analyzed to help derive whether or not the job market is as poor as it may seem.

A Measure of Current Conditions

The Pharmacy Manpower Project created the Aggregate Demand Index (ADI) in 1999 as a tool to measure the severity of the shortage of pharmacists in the United States. The manner in which a specific point is derived will not be discussed, but over the past decade studies have proven it to be an accurate measure of workforce conditions across the country.

One thing to remember is that the numbers of an index are arbitrary and used only to create a simple display of a complex problem. It generally holds no value and is only relevant when compared to other values in the same index.

Below lists what each value corresponds, which is then followed by the most recent ADI data sets published.

adinat.jpg


adimap.jpg



adisetting.jpg


yearly.jpg


Clearly, the ADI displays that the pharmacy workforce is approaching it's equilibrium point, with a handful of states experiencing a small surplus. For some, alarms may already be sounding when one sees how much the national ADI value has dropped over the past year.

Despite this, one must note the current ADI levels per setting. Only the community setting, consequently the most prevalent setting, is shown to be close to being overly saturated.

This makes sense because pharmacy over the last two decades has begun to evolve from a community based practice to a more involved practice in numerous areas of healthcare. Students today are taught more about long term therapy management and working in conjunction with physicians rather than simply filling prescriptions in a retail location. The differing setting demands reaffirms this notion and shows that while the traditional pharmacist job opportunities may be slowing, there are still jobs in the more novel areas of the profession.

While the ADI itself is more of a real-time indicator of conditions. it is now time to see where the profession has been, and possibly where it is going, by looking at several other key facts.

Where Is The Health of the Job Market?

In 2009, the AACP published its most recent review of the pharmacist workforce in the United States. This was a follow up to earlier statistical studies completed in both 2000 and 2004 respectively. The initial study spawned from the same method thinking as the ADI and has since been used to track the health and viability of the profession.

Here we shall look, and discuss, some of the more important points made during the course of the document.
We often hear that there are 250,000 pharmacists in the country or that there will be 12,000 graduates this year without considering that not all of those pharmacists are will go into practice. As shown here, roughly 12% of pharmacists do not possess an active role in the workforce. This is an important point to consider when attempting to compare shortage considerations versus the number of new pharmacists.

A buzz phrase in healthcare over the past few years states that the Baby Boomers are aging and we will need to be prepared to counteract their new influx into the healthcare system. What is often neglected is that your average pharmacists age is increasing in step. Naturally, this makes sense as it has only been in recent years that there exists a sizable amount of pharmacists entering the work force. It must also be recognized that with a large proportion of older pharmacists comes to the fact that in due time they will decide to cut-back hours and eventually retire.

New students have grim outlooks on the viability of future jobs today, but remember that nearly one half of the profession is within two decades of possible retirement. Even more important is that for these pharmacists, the profession has changed so dramatically since their career's began, that they may be even more liable to cut back their hours or opt for an early retirement altogether.

If things remain as cyclical as they have been, one could argue that this may be the cause of the next shortage a decade or two down the road.

Now let's do a little math using some of the information discussed thus far.

For all intents and purposes, the split in sex of active pharmacists is now 50-50 according to the AACP, and if we assume a total population of pharmacists in the country to be 250,000 we have the following:

(.10)(125,000) + (0.04)(125,000) = 12,500 + 5,000 = 17,500 / 3 years = 5833 pharmacists retiring per year

Granted this is based on data from a singular point in time, but with this fact we are now down to roughly just 6,000 new graduates entering the workforce. Remember that 12% of those 6,000 graduates will not practice at a given point and we are left with 5,280 new pharmacists.

Seems like a lot right? Except that that number represents just a 2% yearly growth for the profession. This number is well below the projected number of new pharmacists that several organizations said we would need over the next two decades to counteract the continued ballooning of the healthcare system.

And if pharmacy holds pace with the projected national average, the rate of retirement should actually increase over the next fifteen years.

This is one reason why the Bureau of Labor Statistics states that the job outlook for pharmacists is rather good. They predict a conservative growth of 17% over the period of 2008 to 2018, roughly in line with the numbers above.

Most importantly, when looking at these numbers consider this analogy before becoming too upset. Population rates are not set simply by the number of births in a given year. It is also determined using the number of deaths per year, as it is the rate that is most important, not a singular number. Without a something to give a number meaning, the number itself is useless.

Despite what we may want to believe, the actual pharmacist is not physically working more hours than they did ten years ago. In fact, when looking at yearly hours worked, they are working less than they did a decade ago. Granted, this could be explained by the increase in incentive programs over the last decade and in increase in part-time pharmacists, but nonetheless it is an interesting point.

Few will argue that pharmacists are more overworked than perhaps ever before. Reasons range from a steady increase in the number of prescriptions dispensed yearly (up 39% since 2000), an ever increasing library of drugs, a change in the scope of practice, and PBMs are becoming increasingly involved with the day to day actions of pharmacists. So while pharmacists may be quantitatively working less each year, their actual workload endured on a daily basis is increasing. This, in turn, will have an effect on the real and perceived job market.

highn.jpg


It is interesting to note not only that workloads are increasing, but in what area of pharmacy they are increasing. Is it a coincidence that the two largest areas of increase in stressful workload is from those pharmacies who now employ dispensing free or excessively inexpensive medications? The problems with independent pharmacies are well documented and will not be described here.

One of the signs of severe problems within a profession is when long time employees either voluntarily or involuntarily leave their jobs. Short-term turnover is employee based, not employer or industry based and a certain level is considered healthy. Excessive high short-term turnover rates is a sign of toxicity within the profession and points to an even larger problem. This is something that is not currently being seen.

Now since pharmacists are now more likely to stay with an employer, that employer will have little need to hire a new pharmacist as often. Due to this, it is not that there are less jobs out there for pharmacists, but that there is less fluidity in the tenureship of pharmacists.

One final note that has recently been discussed as a cause for the perceived decrease in jobs. An economy in recession forces workers to find new ways to produce income for this household. For pharmacy, it has been discussed that there are many pharmacy graduates who have returned to practicing or are now working full-time in order to counteract the effects of our current economic situation.

This could be due to a constriction in the specific field they were working in, a significant other being laid off or other personal and financial hardships. A true gauge of the health of the pharmacy job market cannot be undertaken until this particular economic environment begins to climb out of the doldrums.

What Does This All Mean?

Taking all of this into account, what does all of this data mean? Is it worth endless nights of worrying for pharmacy students whether or not they will have job five, ten, twenty years down the road? Or is it better to keep an eye on the big picture and realize that localized situations are not representative of the whole.

During the worst of the shortage years there were still pockets of saturation and even today the reverse remains true. This is not to say that there are distinct areas in the country where a pharmacist may find it nearly impossible to find a job. It is more that the economic, and professional climate, has changed in the last few years and the benefits of the shortage experienced by so many in the past decade are finally waning.

Hopefully this article has served to enlighten some to facts which may not otherwise be readily available. Others will, no doubt, find fault with the facts presented here and will argue accordingly. The important thing is this, It is easy to cry wolf without considering the view of the entire picture. As professionals, we are all educated individuals, but even we can fall into the quirks of human nature.

Being able to look beyond our own small world and into our surroundings is a skill that will reaps rewards tenfold over the course of your life. If one thing is taken from this article, I ask that this be it.

Happy job hunting.



Sources

Aggregate Demand Index. Pharmacymanpower.com. 1999.

Knapp, David. "Professionally Determined Need for Pharmacy Services in 2020." American Journal of Pharmaceutical Edition. Vol 66 (2002)

Midwest Pharmacy Workforce Research Consortium. "Final report of the 2009 National Sample Survey of the Pharmacist Workforce to Determine Contemporary Demographic and Practice Characteristics." AACP.com. (March 1st, 2010)

Mott, David A, et al. "Pharmacist participation in the workforce: 1990, 2000, and 2004." Journal Of The American Pharmacists Association: Japha 46.3 (2006): 322-330. MEDLINE. EBSCO.

Report of the ASHP Task Force on Pharmacy's Changing Demographics. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. Vol 64, 2007.


oy, go study for midterms 🙁
 
Fantastic work.

I was at the talk where this year's Pharmacy Manpower results rolled out, and this largely echoes a lot of the talking points that were brought up. Based on the ADI (which is a fairly biased measure, but it is somewhat objective), there is roughly a net balance between positions needed and positions desired.

However, you have to take a few things into account:

The ADI lacks the granularity to get anything more than a general overview of the job market. For example, there may be jobs available in rural areas that are undesirable living locations coexisting with a complete saturation in the more desirable suburban and urban areas. This averages out to an overall demand or balance, but it really doesn't speak to what the true picture is.

Secondly, it doesn't account for the desirability of jobs, simply that they exist. A job at Chain X is very different than a job at Teaching Institution Y, but they all get rolled into the same aggregate. To an individual pharmacist, this information is not very useful.

Finally, and this a point you mentioned, the trend in ADI is very concerning. The measure lags somewhat behind what is actually the reality, and it is getting very close to the break even point. After accounting for the bias in the measure, I have a feeling that it is probably past that point in most locations.

Overall though, a very well thought-out piece. It certainly puts the debates on here in perspective, and should be required reading for every prospective and current pharmacy students (as well as any newfangled college of pharmacy opening this week).
 
Epic. Thread. 👍

The increase in pharmacists that find they have an excessively high workload was the biggest shock to me...20-30% increase in many areas...😱
 
What caused the increase in demand/shortage of pharmacists?

1. "Reasons range from a steady increase in the number of prescriptions dispensed yearly (up 39% since 2000)"

2. reimbursement rates were increasing, and led to growth of cvs/walgreens/retail (1) - read sources at bottom

3. medicare part d brought in new consumers - 2006 - 11million enrolled, 2010 - 27.6 million enrolled.

4. pharmacist graduation rates were declining/not meeting demand of retail expansion, your graph




present/future - what has caused the equilibrium/surplus

1. since about 2002, precription drug return/reimbursement rates have been declining.

which means profit margins decline and you get paid less every prescription you fill, which means you need to fill more to get the same amount and cvs gets less return on assets (3)


2. both walgreens and cvs declined in value by 20% in the last year. no comment on rite aid. (2)

i don't know where bls got the 2% increases from but i hope it is very conservative. cvs is pretty much not growing and walgreens has been growing, but modestly compared to the past. blame it on the economy i guess?

3. you can't talk about the future of pharmacy without talking about healthcare.

healthcare costs are currently 17% of gdp and medicare/medicaid is ~20% of federal spending. (4)

the purpose of the healthcare reform was to control this.
reimbursements will be cut.

but on the flip side, there are ~30million new people. hurray. how accurate this figure is, i don't know.


4. it is inevitable that mail order pharmacy grows and becomes more efficient.

"Mail-order pharmacies can afford this because by relying on computers and automation, they can fill as many as 80,000 prescriptions in a day. It could take a year before the average retail pharmacy filled that many. " (5)

i'm not saying they will replace pharmacists at all. i'm just saying they are growing and are more efficient which means you can have less pharmacists.


5. sure, if the economy bounces back we can have more pharmacists working again. lets look at your analysis again

" In 2000, 44.1% of practicing pharmacists were age 40 or younger. This proportion decreased to 33.0% in 2004, and in 2009 it was only 24.4%. Conversely, in 2000 16.7% of practicing pharmacists were over age 55, and this proportion increased to 24.6% in 2004, and to 32.5% in 2009."
"

"88.3% (67.4% full-time and 20.9% part-time) of licensed pharmacists responding to the survey in 2009 were actively practicing pharmacy. In 2004, 86.0% of pharmacists were actively practicing pharmacy and in 2000, 88.2% were actively practicing pharmacy."

first of all ^ does not mean 12% of graduating pharmacy students are not working in pharmacy. this means that 12% of all licensed pharmacists are not practicing pharmacy, which i am sure is much more proportionately skewed to those that retired, just retired, or wanted a career change.

so 33% are age 55yrs+, .32.5*250,000 = 81250 pharmacists >55.

according to your analysis of "5833 pharmacists retiring per year"

assuming it is linear, then 81250/5833 = 13yrs or 68yrs old when they retire

81250 - 17,500 over 3 yrs = 63750

next 3 yrs = 5833 retire/yr

assuming they retire at 65.
seven yrs after that = 63750/7 = 9107 retire/yr

assuming they retire at 68.
10 yrs after initial 3 = 63750/10 = 6375retire/yr

graduates per yr = ~12,000
12000 - 5833 retiring = 6167 surplus

even if you assume a generous 8% do not practice pharmacy
12000*.92 - 5833 = 5207 surplus

if 1% growth
250000*.01 = 2500
5207- 2500 = 27077 surplus

if 2% growth
5207- 5000 = 207 surplus

at 2% growth rate, 5000 new pharmacists/yr seems like a lot of growth.
5000/2pharmacists at each store = 2500 pharmacies opening.
is that a reasonable estimate?



now you said 25% new pharmacy schools opened in the last decade. assuming 2.5% increase in schools/yr

i dont know the exact number but roughly ~110 - 120 pharmacy schools so each class is
12,000/110 - 12,000/120 = ~105students/school

2.5% increase = ~300 more students/yr
just add to the surplus. now THIS number seems generous because the last 2 yrs of your chart shows 600 - 700 student increases.

net
2707 + 300 = 3007 surplus
2707 + 600 = 3307surplus

207 + 300 = 507surplus
207 + 600 = 807surplus

also, 100% - 32.5% - 24.4% = 43.1% * 250000 = 107750 pharmacists between the ages of 40 yrs - 55 yrs.

if they retire equally
107750/15 = 7183 retire/yr
which is slightly better than now and still does not compensate for the increase in schools, slow in expansion of retail, and retirement.

ANYWAYS, ultimately this is all guessing.

again, healthcare reform, economy, how pharmacists expand role, all factor much more.

no matter how you look at it, currently, it does not add up. sorry.


(1)
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...kPf6Z4&sig=AHIEtbQLLnBoZi3F78lU4u7PfsF4n5saCQ


(2)
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=...=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined



(3) http://www.pbmi.com/2007report/pharmacy_reimbursement/index.html

(4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Health_costs_USA_GDP.gif

(5)
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/11/430578/patients-pharmacies-adapt-to-drugs.html#ixzz0zIFv53Ur
http://dbt.consultantlive.com/display/article/1145628/1583046
 
(.10)(125,000) + (0.04)(125,000) = 12,500 + 5,000 = 17,500 / 3 years = 5833 pharmacists retiring per year
I get this. ^


Granted this is based on data from a singular point in time, but with this fact we are now down to roughly just 6,000 new graduates entering the workforce. Remember that 12% of those 6,000 graduates will not practice at a given point and we are left with 5,280 new pharmacists.
I dont get this. ^


According to charts we havent had "only 6000 new graduates" since 1974.
Now (2010), we are generating over 12,000 new graduates.
If 5833 retire per year, and we pump out 12000, thats a surplus of 7000 kids. Thats not an equilibrium at all!
Thats not even a "waning" of the shortage, but a vast vast overshoot and vast vast oversupply of young labor.
 
I get this. ^



I dont get this. ^



According to charts we havent had "only 6000 new graduates" since 1974.
Now (2010), we are generating over 12,000 new graduates.
If 5833 retire per year, and we pump out 12000, thats a surplus of 7000 kids. Thats not an equilibrium at all!
Thats not even a "waning" of the shortage, but a vast vast overshoot and vast vast oversupply of young labor.

right, but you're not taking into account the natural growth of the profression. it is currently growing by roughly 2% each year meaning a creation of roughly 5000 jobs per year. that only leaves a surplus of 1000 right now, which is fine when you consider that there will be a percent error in all number. and that graduate rates will continue to go up and down each year.

perhaps i should go back and reword that section.
 
What caused the increase in demand/shortage of pharmacists?

1. "Reasons range from a steady increase in the number of prescriptions dispensed yearly (up 39% since 2000)"

2. reimbursement rates were increasing, and led to growth of cvs/walgreens/retail (1) - read sources at bottom

3. medicare part d brought in new consumers - 2006 - 11million enrolled, 2010 - 27.6 million enrolled.

4. pharmacist graduation rates were declining/not meeting demand of retail expansion, your graph




present/future - what has caused the equilibrium/surplus

1. since about 2002, precription drug return/reimbursement rates have been declining.

which means profit margins decline and you get paid less every prescription you fill, which means you need to fill more to get the same amount and cvs gets less return on assets (3)


2. both walgreens and cvs declined in value by 20% in the last year. no comment on rite aid. (2)

i don't know where bls got the 2% increases from but i hope it is very conservative. cvs is pretty much not growing and walgreens has been growing, but modestly compared to the past. blame it on the economy i guess?

3. you can't talk about the future of pharmacy without talking about healthcare.

healthcare costs are currently 17% of gdp and medicare/medicaid is ~20% of federal spending. (4)

the purpose of the healthcare reform was to control this.
reimbursements will be cut.

but on the flip side, there are ~30million new people. hurray. how accurate this figure is, i don't know.


4. it is inevitable that mail order pharmacy grows and becomes more efficient.

"Mail-order pharmacies can afford this because by relying on computers and automation, they can fill as many as 80,000 prescriptions in a day. It could take a year before the average retail pharmacy filled that many. " (5)

i'm not saying they will replace pharmacists at all. i'm just saying they are growing and are more efficient which means you can have less pharmacists.


5. sure, if the economy bounces back we can have more pharmacists working again. lets look at your analysis again

" In 2000, 44.1% of practicing pharmacists were age 40 or younger. This proportion decreased to 33.0% in 2004, and in 2009 it was only 24.4%. Conversely, in 2000 16.7% of practicing pharmacists were over age 55, and this proportion increased to 24.6% in 2004, and to 32.5% in 2009."
"

"88.3% (67.4% full-time and 20.9% part-time) of licensed pharmacists responding to the survey in 2009 were actively practicing pharmacy. In 2004, 86.0% of pharmacists were actively practicing pharmacy and in 2000, 88.2% were actively practicing pharmacy."

first of all ^ does not mean 12% of graduating pharmacy students are not working in pharmacy. this means that 12% of all licensed pharmacists are not practicing pharmacy, which i am sure is much more proportionately skewed to those that retired, just retired, or wanted a career change.

so 33% are age 55yrs+, .32.5*250,000 = 81250 pharmacists >55.

according to your analysis of "5833 pharmacists retiring per year"

assuming it is linear, then 81250/5833 = 13yrs or 68yrs old when they retire

81250 - 17,500 over 3 yrs = 63750

next 3 yrs = 5833 retire/yr

assuming they retire at 65.
seven yrs after that = 63750/7 = 9107 retire/yr

assuming they retire at 68.
10 yrs after initial 3 = 63750/10 = 6375retire/yr

graduates per yr = ~12,000
12000 - 5833 retiring = 6167 surplus

even if you assume a generous 8% do not practice pharmacy
12000*.92 - 5833 = 5207 surplus

if 1% growth
250000*.01 = 2500
5207- 2500 = 27077 surplus

if 2% growth
5207- 5000 = 207 surplus

at 2% growth rate, 5000 new pharmacists/yr seems like a lot of growth.
5000/2pharmacists at each store = 2500 pharmacies opening.
is that a reasonable estimate?



now you said 25% new pharmacy schools opened in the last decade. assuming 2.5% increase in schools/yr

i dont know the exact number but roughly ~110 - 120 pharmacy schools so each class is
12,000/110 - 12,000/120 = ~105students/school

2.5% increase = ~300 more students/yr
just add to the surplus. now THIS number seems generous because the last 2 yrs of your chart shows 600 - 700 student increases.

net
2707 + 300 = 3007 surplus
2707 + 600 = 3307surplus

207 + 300 = 507surplus
207 + 600 = 807surplus

also, 100% - 32.5% - 24.4% = 43.1% * 250000 = 107750 pharmacists between the ages of 40 yrs - 55 yrs.

if they retire equally
107750/15 = 7183 retire/yr
which is slightly better than now and still does not compensate for the increase in schools, slow in expansion of retail, and retirement.

ANYWAYS, ultimately this is all guessing.

again, healthcare reform, economy, how pharmacists expand role, all factor much more.

no matter how you look at it, currently, it does not add up. sorry.


(1)
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...kPf6Z4&sig=AHIEtbQLLnBoZi3F78lU4u7PfsF4n5saCQ


(2)
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=...=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined



(3) http://www.pbmi.com/2007report/pharmacy_reimbursement/index.html

(4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Health_costs_USA_GDP.gif

(5)
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/11/430578/patients-pharmacies-adapt-to-drugs.html#ixzz0zIFv53Ur
http://dbt.consultantlive.com/display/article/1145628/1583046

Couple of problems with your argument. First you are correct about the effect of decling rate payments. I chose not to go over that because that would be an even longer article.

Second, you're focusing solely on retail pharmacy. Everyone knows that retail pharmacy is essentially satuated. The real growth lies outside of retail pharmacy, and can be seen with an increase in hospital, clinical, etc pharmacists. Not including those who do only MTMs and the like.

Third, you mentioned a decline in value of Walgreens/CVS. That's just value, not directly reflective of hiring tendencies. The value of almost every industry is down now.

Fourth, I said 12% of grads at a given point do not practice. Keyword there being point. And you cannot argue this, because it's been proven many times. Some go into reseach, others add on like a MD or something, still others go into the financial aspects.

Finally retirement rates not linear by any means. They are far too dependent on cultural and socioeconomic aspects to remain linear. And school growth is slowly dramatically. Most of that growth I mentioned occured 5 years ago. It is not an good indicator of what is happening right now.
 
that only leaves a surplus of 1000 right now, which is fine when you consider that there will be a percent error in all number. and that graduate rates will continue to go up and down each year.

natural growth?
% error can go either way. jobs can even decline or they can increase. Graduate rates are INCREASING because of the new schools every year. In fact, it's increasing at a crazy rate. YOUR GRAPH shows this that the last few years of it, the number of graduating pharmacists graduated about 600+ more, or 6% more/yr.

This is at a point we don't need them and expansion is much slower than 6%jobs/yr


Second, you're focusing solely on retail pharmacy. Everyone knows that retail pharmacy is essentially satuated. The real growth lies outside of retail pharmacy, and can be seen with an increase in hospital, clinical, etc pharmacists. Not including those who do only MTMs and the like.

retail pharmacies make up 61% of the pharmacy workforce. Of course they are significant. But I did not realize you weren't talking about it.

Where exactly is the data that hospitals are increasing jobs to fill the surplus? hospitals are about 22% of the pharmacy workforce. So you'd need a big increases in hospital jobs/others to fulfill the saturation.
A 5% increase in hospital creates 3000 new jobs. There are roughly 5000 hospitals. I haven't heard of any new expansion.

Third, you mentioned a decline in value of Walgreens/CVS. That's just value, not directly reflective of hiring tendencies. The value of almost every industry is down now.

That is true, and I think I mentioned this. But take a look at their balance sheets.

Wag = -11% earnings growth, CVS = -7.3% earnings growth
can't really create jobs when you are negatively growing.

Fourth, I said 12% of grads at a given point do not practice.
good point.

Finally retirement rates not linear by any means. They are far too dependent on cultural and socioeconomic aspects to remain linear. And school growth is slowly dramatically. Most of that growth I mentioned occured 5 years ago. It is not an good indicator of what is happening right now.

I'm pretty sure i mentioned they weren't linear but assumed it for the purpose of the analysis. It gives a decent estimate of the avg number of retirees/yr.

8 schools are supposed to open this year and 5 schools next year. The growth occurred in the last 5 yrs which is very relevant to now.

8 schools * 100 = 800 new pharmacy grads. 500 for next yr.
 
Wow, Phat...how do you fit everything into a day?
 
natural growth?
% error can go either way. jobs can even decline or they can increase. Graduate rates are INCREASING because of the new schools every year. In fact, it's increasing at a crazy rate. YOUR GRAPH shows this that the last few years of it, the number of graduating pharmacists graduated about 600+ more, or 6% more/yr.

This is at a point we don't need them and expansion is much slower than 6%jobs/yr

Again, you're mis-reading numbers. Yes, there has been a sharp increase in graduation rates. Yes there is that many more per year, but not all of them go into practice and many of those additional graduates fill additional jobs which have been created. It's more towards 2%, like I showed, than 6%.

Even then, such explosive rates in an increase in graduates cannot be maintained. It will taper off soon, and I would surmise that this would be near the 2014 graduation year.

Where exactly is the data that hospitals are increasing jobs to fill the surplus? hospitals are about 22% of the pharmacy workforce. So you'd need a big increases in hospital jobs/others to fulfill the saturation.
A 5% increase in hospital creates 3000 new jobs. There are roughly 5000 hospitals. I haven't heard of any new expansion.

I just offered up hospital pharmacists as merely an example of an area other than retail that is experiencing growth. What about the innovative hospitals who are treating patients with a M.D./RPh combo? Or how a hospital pharmacy today is more relied upon than in years past due to the nature of the current drug library?

I will start digging for hard data, but I am completely sure that it is out there. Over the next decade the percentages of pharmacists employed in retail will decrease, although to what point I have no idea.

That is true, and I think I mentioned this. But take a look at their balance sheets.

Wag = -11% earnings growth, CVS = -7.3% earnings growth
can't really create jobs when you are negatively growing.

Negative earnings growth over short term does not mean that there will not be any growth in the future. Again, realize that many many companies and industries have had negative earnings growth over the past few years. We always hear about the housing market bubble, but what about all of the over priced commercial land that WAGs and CVS purchased to build their new pharmacies?

Additionally, the vast majority of pharmacies have negative growth right now. The chain of 14 stores I just worked at was down 15% in volume over the last 18 months. That wasn't just us, that was across the board at all pharmacies. When the economy picks up, and the health care system in this country is finally moderately reformed, this will no longer be a problem.

I'm pretty sure i mentioned they weren't linear but assumed it for the purpose of the analysis. It gives a decent estimate of the avg number of retirees/yr.

Right, one of the biggest variables in all job markets right now is retirement rates. On one hand, many older workers want to retire earlier because of the sheer amount of change that has occurred in the last fifty years. The problem is, for the typical worker, most of them cannot due to lack of savings. Pharmacists, on the hand, are mostly unaffected by this second fact, due to the high salaries they have enjoyed over the last several years. Even then, working just a part-time status would be more than financially stable for a semi-retiree.

8 schools are supposed to open this year and 5 schools next year. The growth occurred in the last 5 yrs which is very relevant to now.

8 schools * 100 = 800 new pharmacy grads. 500 for next yr.

School's may keep opening, but eventually the market will not be able to handle the supply. Many of the school's who have been chartered to open the last few years were first conceived during the height of the shortage. Even the one's who are opening this year and the next were on the tail end of this fear.

I mean, what are you going to do if you decide to allocate millions and millions of dollars for a new professional program, only to see that it may not be needed? Suddenly tell the state and/or benefactors that, "Sorry, we don't need the money after all"? Or take it and run with it?

Yes, we're going heavy on the school side, but demand will force schools to either cut back class sizes or schools themselves. That, and I think the accreditation board will begin to have a hand in some of this in the coming year.
 
Even then, such explosive rates in an increase in graduates cannot be maintained. It will taper off soon, and I would surmise that this would be near the 2014 graduation year.

School's may keep opening, but eventually the market will not be able to handle the supply. Many of the school's who have been chartered to open the last few years were first conceived during the height of the shortage. Even the one's who are opening this year and the next were on the tail end of this fear.

I mean, what are you going to do if you decide to allocate millions and millions of dollars for a new professional program, only to see that it may not be needed? Suddenly tell the state and/or benefactors that, "Sorry, we don't need the money after all"? Or take it and run with it?

Yes, we're going heavy on the school side, but
demand will force schools to either cut back class sizes or schools themselves. That, and I think the accreditation board will begin to have a hand in some of this in the coming year.

The supply and demand of pharmacist labor is different than the supply and demand for pharmacy degrees.
The job market can be as saturated as it wants, and schools will still be pumping out graduates.
Schools dont respond to the job market, they respond to the applicant market. And right now, with 10 applicants for every 1 spot in pharmacy school, Schools are not gonna shut down any time soon...

Why hasnt the applicant pool responded to the poor job market? Why, if there are a surplus of pharmacists and shortage of jobs do students just keep on applying to pharmacy school?
Because of the myth perpetuated by BLS, Pharmacy Man Power, Obamacare, and studentdoctor.net. You guys keep saying: 'there is no labor surplus, there is a continued and lasting National pharmacist shortage; youre gonna strike it rich being a pharmacist', and the young kids believe it and they keep applying.
What you guys are doing coaxing these kids who read these forums, is evil. The kids are gonna suffer when they graduate. We're gonna suffer. Employers are gonna take advantage when they see 10 hungry graduates for every 1 spot. Everyone involved loses.

Are we trying to look cool, denying the labor surplus and acting like its not there? Is it cool to act tough and laugh at all the kooky whistle-blowers?
You guys can probably act tough now, but five years down the line, when 12 thousand of us are standing in the unemployment line, its gonna be hard to act tough; its gonna be hard to act calm, cool, and collected.

By then it will be too late for the whistle-blowers to even say, "I told you so." because they're standing in the same line as you, same line as the graduates the before them, and the same line as the graduates years after them.

All the same line, all the same lot, all unemployed.

---

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up?

like a Raisin.

in the sun?


[FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva](Hughes, 1951..)
 
Dammit, you're right.

I'm enrolling in truck driving school tomorrow and dropping out of pharmacy school.

Gosh, I don't want to have to compete for a job, no sireeeee bob.

Good GOD the entitlement that this generation reeks of makes me sick.
 
Dammit, you're right.

I'm enrolling in truck driving school tomorrow and dropping out of pharmacy school.

Gosh, I don't want to have to compete for a job, no sireeeee bob.

Good GOD the entitlement that this generation reeks of makes me sick.

10 people competing for 9 jobs is doable.
1.2 applicants per 1 opening is doable.

100 applicants competing for 10 jobs? Thats pushing the human limit.
that means 90 people, 9000 people, 90% of graduating pharmacists will have to seek alternatives means. 12,000 graduating youngsters, chock-loaded with 100k of debt will have no way of paying that money back.

If they cannot pay back their student loans, how can they even imagine supporting a mortgage? or supporting their families?
This means we are losing an entire generation to debt.

Blessed are those who are hungry, for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:3-12
 
Last edited:
10 people competing for 9 jobs is doable.
1.2 applicants per 1 opening is doable.

100 applicants competing for 10 jobs? Thats pushing the human limit.
that means 90 people, 9000 people, 90% of graduating pharmacists will have to seek alternatives means. 12,000 graduating youngsters, chock-loaded with 100k of debt will have no way of paying that money back.

If they cannot pay back their student loans, how can they even imagine supporting a mortgage? or supporting their families?
This means we are losing an entire generation to debt.
Imagine an entire generation of young people, set adrift and lost at sea.
Do those who are already rescued laugh at those still stranded?
Do those sitting perched on dry land, look down and mock those who are still treading, crying, gasping for breath?

Now is not the time for joking, jeering, moral platitudes.
Now is the time to act fast, rescue those in danger of drowning, and lend helping hands to those peers who need it most. Blessed are those who are hungry, for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5: 3-12


thank you. good gawd, my sentiments exactly on both of your comments.

passion4sci, no one said they aren't capable of competing for jobs.

we have massive student debt, which makes finding a job that much more important. where do we draw the line? 20:1 for each job? 100:1?

it's simply about ratios, and pharmacy isn't too great right now.

i don't think most people here chose pharmacy. it would be stupid because there are a lot simpler ways to make 100k without 100k+ loans and 4 years of our time.
 
"there are a lot simpler ways to make 100k without 100k+ loans and 4 years of our time."

Tell me more.
 
100 applicants competing for 10 jobs? Thats pushing the human limit.
that means 90 people, 9000 people, 90% of graduating pharmacists will have to seek alternatives means. 12,000 graduating youngsters, chock-loaded with 100k of debt will have no way of paying that money back.

I am gonna go ahead and call BS on your example. I don't buy that number at all. What is the actual number of new grads who cannot find jobs? Nowhere near 90%.

It is pointless to let yourself be stressed about something you cannot control. Fear mongering is even worse.
 
Again, you're mis-reading numbers. Yes, there has been a sharp increase in graduation rates. Yes there is that many more per year, but not all of them go into practice and many of those additional graduates fill additional jobs which have been created. It's more towards 2%, like I showed, than 6%.

Even then, such explosive rates in an increase in graduates cannot be maintained. It will taper off soon, and I would surmise that this would be near the 2014 graduation year.

I think this 2014 prediction is wildly off. Some schools haven't even graduated their first class yet so they are only going to add to the graduates in the next few years. A new school that opens next fall won't affect the numbers until 2015. And new schools that haven't even begun accepting applicants are in the pipeline. Unless existing schools are cutting down on their available seats, the number of graduates is only going up. Have you heard of this happening? I've only heard of existing schools looking to open up new branches. As long as new schools keep opening up, the number of graduates is going to increase no matter what the outlook is in the economy. When we start seeing schools shrinking their class sizes or closing altogether then the numbers will decline but even then there will be a three to four year lag time.
 
Are we trying to look cool, denying the labor surplus and acting like its not there? Is it cool to act tough and laugh at all the kooky whistle-blowers?
You guys can probably act tough now, but five years down the line, when 12 thousand of us are standing in the unemployment line, its gonna be hard to act tough; its gonna be hard to act calm, cool, and collected.
Thank you! I always laugh when I see pharmacy students responding to worried pre-pharms with "😴" and "Use the search function". Being tired of hearing about the surplus of pharmacists doesn't make it any less true.
 
Back in 1999-2000, when I was in college doing pre-req for pharmacy, I never heard of an unemployed pharmacist. Pharmacy was a sure bet. Jobs available everywhere, even in Orange County (most saturated location in California). Why? Because everyone was trying to make money faster by going to Computer Science/Engineering/IT. You can easily made 40-50 dollars/hour with a bachelor degree in computer programming. And it take only 4 yrs, instead of 6 yrs + for pharmacy. You see, less competition = more jobs available = more choice.

Today, 10 yrs later, with the economy collapsed...everyone is in the healthcare field. Everyone wanna be doctors, pharmacists, dentists to make big bucks. That is why the market is so much more saturated and competitive. Worse, pharmacy schools open at a crazy rate. When I started pharmacy school in 2004, we had around 80 schools. Today, only 6 yrs later, we have close to 120 schools!!!! that's like 40 more schools added!!!! 50% rate increasing in 6 yrs! This is very ridiculous!

It would be okay if jobs are adding annually, instead of staying there and no growth....as it is today.

So we've heard of from competitive job market (back in 2009) --> some unemployed pharmacist ( 2010 -->today)...What's next? Many unemployed pharmacists? very likely if things continue to go this direction.
It's very doomy for new grads and future grads....
 
Very nice read. 👍

I was surprised by the ADIs for some states. I expected them to be much lower for places like California the Northeast (mostly from comments I've seen on here). I'm also glad to see Alaska is still offering those million-dollar sign-on bonuses though. 😛
 
According to charts we havent had "only 6000 new graduates" since 1974.
Now (2010), we are generating over 12,000 new graduates.
If 5833 retire per year, and we pump out 12000, thats a surplus of 7000 kids. Thats not an equilibrium at all!
Thats not even a "waning" of the shortage, but a vast vast overshoot and vast vast oversupply of young labor.

I'm surprised no one else has quoted this. 12000-5833=6167. that's only a difference of 334. I'm not going to comment what I think of the article, but if you're going to try to slam it using the stats at least do the mental math first. if the numbers were correct, 334 isn't thaaat huge of a surplus.
 
I'm surprised no one else has quoted this. 12000-5833=6167. that's only a difference of 334. I'm not going to comment what I think of the article, but if you're going to try to slam it using the stats at least do the mental math first. if the numbers were correct, 334 isn't thaaat huge of a surplus.

I think you misunderstood what he meant...He said instead of having 5833 new grads per year to replace 5833 retiring pharmacists annually, we're having 12,000 instead !!! That means (12,000-5833= 6167) pharmacists won't have jobs = unemployed.
 
I'm surprised no one else has quoted this. 12000-5833=6167. that's only a difference of 334. I'm not going to comment what I think of the article, but if you're going to try to slam it using the stats at least do the mental math first. if the numbers were correct, 334 isn't thaaat huge of a surplus.


math iz h@rd.
 
Would there be a way to find out how many pharmacists are unable to retire because they can't find a new pharmacist? I'm sure that must happen somewhere in the country.
 
Anyone who believes that competition is a good thing needs to look at what has happened to IT over the decade. IT has increased competition from outsourcing and more schools producing STEM graduates. The propaganda that is sold on commericials and corporations that they cannot find "qualified" employees because they aren't as smart as the "competition" from oversees. This is complete BS. People will always go where the greatest ROI is on their investment and in this case it is their degree. Take a look at this link on a popular IT forum about pharmacy and outsourcing http://community.dice.com/t5/Career...ing-the-careers-of-US-Pharmacists/td-p/181010

Also, corporate doesn't give a crap about "patient care". They care about filling the most Rx's at the cheapest cost. If a newbie pharmacist from a diploma mill will do it cheaper and they have a valid license then that it all I need. As someone told me, a ******ed monkey in a white coat with a license on the wall is just as good as long as I can bill the insurance company.

Need to wake up folks...education doesn't guarantee employement no matter how smart you are. It's all about money. Gordon Geeko probably should be teaching some classes.
 
Gosh, I don't want to have to compete for a job, no sireeeee bob.

Good GOD the entitlement that this generation reeks of makes me sick.

lmao.

Yes...how dare people be concerned that they are graduating with 100s of thousands of dollars in loans in a market where there are less jobs being created than people entering the workforce...those losers... 🙄

....

I interviewed with a DM for all of the Philadelphia area today. If you people heard the horror show he described to me for what he projects for 2012 and 2015, it would make many of you sick. He anticipates not being able to hire ANY of his interns next year. In the entire region. No new stores...and there are already dozens of floaters that only get part time in the system...some only getting per diem. I am, and have reason to be, very sour about the job market...and yet this dude made me think my outlook was rosy as all hell and pipedreamtastic.

I saw some things today that made me very frightened. And they were straight from the horses mouth...
 
Exactly.

What does it say when graduates from WVU,UK, or other colleges that are in rural settings that cannot find a position. Everyone says that the metro areas are saturated but there are these "rural" areas flowing with milk and honey with bountiful job opportunities. If you can't find a job in WV or eastern KY which is the most rural, redneck, confederate flag flying places on the continent then the market is saturated and guess what that is where we are at. There is nothing, even at independents. "You graduated in top 2% of your class, that's nice....so can you work prn for $15 less an hour because I have a list of others that will. Competition...a nice word that says I will pay you a migrant immigrants salary to fill a hole behind a counter.
 
Guess I should go ahead and look at culinary school.

For all the talk of doom and gloom you folks like to throw out there, you never offer valid alternatives for anyone to consider.

Point is, it's rough out there for everyone. There's no field, save for general practice medicine (maybe??) and your run-of-the-mill nurse/PA that can consider itself to NOT be uber-competitive. Being good at what you do, being always flexible, and having a lot of credentials to throw at people (Past WE, ECs in undergrad+pharm school, grades IN pharm school, elite memberships, whatever) will net you a job. Yeah, maybe it won't be exactly what you want, and maybe you'll struggle a little to make your loan payment for a while, but America is built on hard-work and integrity. No one wants an entry-level job any more. Everyone's ****ing entitled and it bothers the **** out of me. If I need to scrub ****ing toilets for 6 hours after my shift as a pharmacist to make ends meet for 2 1/2 years until I GET the position I want, then I will, and I won't ****ing bitch and moan about it on a god damn forum.

And Mikey, maybe these people just don't like you.
 
Guess I should go ahead and look at culinary school.

For all the talk of doom and gloom you folks like to throw out there, you never offer valid alternatives for anyone to consider.

Point is, it's rough out there for everyone. There's no field, save for general practice medicine (maybe??) and your run-of-the-mill nurse/PA that can consider itself to NOT be uber-competitive. Being good at what you do, being always flexible, and having a lot of credentials to throw at people (Past WE, ECs in undergrad+pharm school, grades IN pharm school, elite memberships, whatever) will net you a job. Yeah, maybe it won't be exactly what you want, and maybe you'll struggle a little to make your loan payment for a while, but America is built on hard-work and integrity. No one wants an entry-level job any more. Everyone's ****ing entitled and it bothers the **** out of me. If I need to scrub ****ing toilets for 6 hours after my shift as a pharmacist to make ends meet for 2 1/2 years until I GET the position I want, then I will, and I won't ****ing bitch and moan about it on a god damn forum.

And Mikey, maybe these people just don't like you.

you make some good points here but i think you're on one side of the spectrum while many other people here are on the complete opposite side (the whiners). i, like you, have had it up to here with these people who think just because they got into pharm school that they will be served a job on a silver platter. i can't tell you how many times and from how many people i've heard the phrase "c's = pharmd's". i really would like to rip these students a new one but on the other hand i'd rather be patient and see how they fare four years from now. i too have worked in ****ty environments with long hours since i was 15 and i'm probably as shameless as you are when it comes to performing lowly tasks. on the other hand though, for those of us that busted our asses in undergrad (getting a BS especially) and doing things like participating in clubs, community service, research, etc. i think the entitlement to a certain level of job security is not unwarranted, especially when you consider the wonderful job the pharmacy schools do on selling the profession to prospective students, especially those too naive/unaware to do the research for themselves (ie: people who don't read sdn or actively seek out this type of information). it is a huge investment of time, money, and effort that SHOULD yield better job opportunities. i know this isn't the reality of it but come on, the toilet scrubbing example is way too far fetched.

we are simply getting to the point where us future/current pharmacists will have to justify our worth to employers, and those who are worthy will do so.
 
it is a huge investment of time, money, and effort that SHOULD yield better job opportunities. i know this isn't the reality of it but come on, the toilet scrubbing example is way too far fetched.

we are simply getting to the point where us future/current pharmacists will have to justify our worth to employers, and those who are worthy will do so.

Yeah...sure...but there's a big difference if the employers look for us vs we look for the employers. There's also a big difference where we have the choice to choose the employers vs the employers are in control to choose a handy of us waiting in a line. The respect is down the toilet when I am an employer and I know there're a lot of people in line begging me for a job.

Look around other professions, such as MD, or even physician assistants (PA). They have way more choices than us. They can choose what hospitals to work for and the hospitals need them, beg them to bring patients in, beg them to bring business to..,etc..And PA job market is still very in demanding. Lots of hospitals/clinic are looking for PAs and they are being treated very well: free food, free drinks, personal office/room, parking at physician's slots....

It's time to cut the supply from the pharmacy workforce!!!! Or else very bad bad outcomes.
 
I agree for once with you, Rx4L, about lowering supply. There should be more stringent requirements for opening schools, OR there should be more stringent examinations for becoming licensed (Think NAPLEX should be more like CPJE, much more difficult).

Eventually we may end up with a law school-esque system where in order to get any decent job you'll need a 98+%tile PCAT and a 3.75+ UG GPA and a wall filled of certs. of appreciation. It's DEFINITELY not there yet. Nowhere close. There are essentially 4 tiers to the law school system and many unranked schools. ABA-accredited schools number more than pharmacy schools do and I'm not even counting un-accredited schools (Which there are a scary number of... like People's College of Law).

1448099709_9ebf2d2aa2_b.jpg



That is a REAL School, that people get J.D.s from, that end up eventually passing the CA Bar and becoming attorneys.

Pharmacy is nowhere near that bad--yet.
 
I agree for once with you, Rx4L, about lowering supply. There should be more stringent requirements for opening schools, OR there should be more stringent examinations for becoming licensed (Think NAPLEX should be more like CPJE, much more difficult).

Eventually we may end up with a law school-esque system where in order to get any decent job you'll need a 98+%tile PCAT and a 3.75+ UG GPA and a wall filled of certs. of appreciation. It's DEFINITELY not there yet. Nowhere close. There are essentially 4 tiers to the law school system and many unranked schools. ABA-accredited schools number more than pharmacy schools do and I'm not even counting un-accredited schools

.


pharmacy won't end up with the law tier system. why would it?

you can clearly see the difference between a crap lawyer and a good one. they provide a service.

pharmacists can't really differentiate themselves. cvs/walgreens will hire the cheapest. isn't that pretty clear?
 
Im with P4S. There are worse off careers and most in a similar situation as pharmacy. Law, like P4S mentions, is in horrible posistion. That doesn't stop people from applying and spending 100k+ on an education that does not even come close to insuring its grads jobs. There are ~ 200 Law schools. Some enroll as many as 400 students all at least enroll 100. I don't know how many actually graduate(my guess between 30-40k a year), but i can gurantee the amount of jobs don't even come close. Not to mention, most that do attain jobs are in the 35-65k range salary wise.
To also put in perspective I think they administered between 150-180k LSAT's last year alone.
An over supply of Lawyers does not keep people from attending Law school. Whats the plan then? Get into the best school you can, and be as high in class rank as you can.
Is the system fair? No. It is what it is.
This may be what happens to pharmacy.
My suggestion to all is, do the best you can. There is nothing more you can do.
 
I agree for once with you, Rx4L, about lowering supply. There should be more stringent requirements for opening schools, OR there should be more stringent examinations for becoming licensed (Think NAPLEX should be more like CPJE, much more difficult).

Eventually we may end up with a law school-esque system where in order to get any decent job you'll need a 98+%tile PCAT and a 3.75+ UG GPA and a wall filled of certs. of appreciation. It's DEFINITELY not there yet. Nowhere close. There are essentially 4 tiers to the law school system and many unranked schools. ABA-accredited schools number more than pharmacy schools do and I'm not even counting un-accredited schools (Which there are a scary number of... like People's College of Law).

1448099709_9ebf2d2aa2_b.jpg



That is a REAL School, that people get J.D.s from, that end up eventually passing the CA Bar and becoming attorneys.

Pharmacy is nowhere near that bad--yet.

I doubt it will get that bad. The responsibilties a pharmacist has, including being around controlled substances, monitoring drug interactions, verifying scripts, etc could mean life or death for patients... this is rarely the case in law.
 
pharmacy won't end up with the law tier system. why would it?

you can clearly see the difference between a crap lawyer and a good one. they provide a service.

pharmacists can't really differentiate themselves. cvs/walgreens will hire the cheapest. isn't that pretty clear?
I beg to differ.
 
Yeah...sure...but there's a big difference if the employers look for us vs we look for the employers. There's also a big difference where we have the choice to choose the employers vs the employers are in control to choose a handy of us waiting in a line. The respect is down the toilet when I am an employer and I know there're a lot of people in line begging me for a job.

Look around other professions, such as MD, or even physician assistants (PA). They have way more choices than us. They can choose what hospitals to work for and the hospitals need them, beg them to bring patients in, beg them to bring business to..,etc..And PA job market is still very in demanding. Lots of hospitals/clinic are looking for PAs and they are being treated very well: free food, free drinks, personal office/room, parking at physician's slots....

It's time to cut the supply from the pharmacy workforce!!!! Or else very bad bad outcomes.

I see what you're saying but I'd think that applies more to retail. Correct me if I'm wrong, especially since you work in a hospital, but aren't hospitals looking for more qualified applicants (ie: people with residencies, experience, credentials)? That's why I say proving your worth is of utmost importance. As for PA, I would bet a lot on that career taking as well in the next 10 or so years. I found out an interesting statistic about my school today. For the class of 2013 they received about 2100 applications and for my class they received 1800 application, a difference of 300. Sounds fairly significant to me.. any one else see this trend at their school?
 
pharmacists can't really differentiate themselves. cvs/walgreens will hire the cheapest. isn't that pretty clear?

Work experiences and involvement in organizations and the community will set them apart.
 
pharmacy won't end up with the law tier system. why would it?

you can clearly see the difference between a crap lawyer and a good one. they provide a service.

pharmacists can't really differentiate themselves. cvs/walgreens will hire the cheapest. isn't that pretty clear?

I don't agree and I believe you haven't spent very much time working with or being around attorneys if this is really what you think. It isn't "clear" to see the difference between a good attorney and a bad attorney. No where near that black and white, similar to pharmacy.

Take clinical pharmacy for instance. ClinPharm #1 might be awesome at the clerical component to his job, but might provide a terrible persona for patients at his Coumadin Clinic to interface with. Prima facia, this is a bad pharmacist, right? That's all the pt. sees... but he never makes errors, he titrates based on INR on the fly sans EpoCrates, etc... contrast to ClinPharm #2, who is slow to titrate and performs in a subpar fashion on his clerical duties but provides a warm, caring persona for his pts. Prima facia, this is the better pharmacist.

Point: There are many ways we all can demonstrate our superiority as pharmacists. Yeah, retail might be a deadzone of "blahness", but maybe not. How about an RPh who, despite not really having much time to herself, not getting regular potty breaks, etc still keeps an amazing "face" on, provides excellent customer/patient care and exceeds expectations on a corporate (DRE etc) and personal level vs. someone like Drug Monkey who oibviously hates his life+job (Assuming for the sake of this argument that he lets it affect his job, we don't know for sure, but for the sake of argument).

I do not buy it for a cotton-pickin' microsecond that pharmacists have no way to differentiate themselves from their peers. I have seen exactly the opposite in every pharmacy and setting that I have volunteered/worked at.
 
I doubt it will get that bad. The responsibilties a pharmacist has, including being around controlled substances, monitoring drug interactions, verifying scripts, etc could mean life or death for patients... this is rarely the case in law.

You might be right. I hope it doesn't get that bad.

While attorneys might not be able to titrate a dose of a blood thinner incorrectly or provide a 19.9% solution vs. a 0.9% solution and end up debilitating/killing a pt, an attorney can easily make errors and wipe someone out of their life's savings, tons of money, or lose a case and cost someone their life/liberty/patent/whatever.

It's all relative. If you're an intellectual property attorney representing a company that has patented BCRA-1 and -2 (The "breast cancer genes") and you win, allowing said company (*cough Myriad cough*) to patent these genes and their tests (and thereby making them cost $$$$ and be inaccessible to MOST pts who need them) you're inadvertantly, and indirectly, causing death and harm to come to untold numbers of pts in the future until the patent expires.

Sure, that's a nebulous concept and is hard to put into tangible terms at times (like my example above of 19.9% vs 0.9% causing immediate death) but it's not as rare as you make it sound... not whatsoever.
 
I see what you're saying but I'd think that applies more to retail. Correct me if I'm wrong, especially since you work in a hospital, but aren't hospitals looking for more qualified applicants (ie: people with residencies, experience, credentials)? That's why I say proving your worth is of utmost importance. As for PA, I would bet a lot on that career taking as well in the next 10 or so years. I found out an interesting statistic about my school today. For the class of 2013 they received about 2100 applications and for my class they received 1800 application, a difference of 300. Sounds fairly significant to me.. any one else see this trend at their school?

I actually expected this to start happening, albeit maybe not this soon. Unfortunately there is still probably always going to be way more applicants than seats at every school, so it won't really matter.
 
You might be right. I hope it doesn't get that bad.

While attorneys might not be able to titrate a dose of a blood thinner incorrectly or provide a 19.9% solution vs. a 0.9% solution and end up debilitating/killing a pt, an attorney can easily make errors and wipe someone out of their life's savings, tons of money, or lose a case and cost someone their life/liberty/patent/whatever.

It's all relative. If you're an intellectual property attorney representing a company that has patented BCRA-1 and -2 (The "breast cancer genes") and you win, allowing said company (*cough Myriad cough*) to patent these genes and their tests (and thereby making them cost $$$$ and be inaccessible to MOST pts who need them) you're inadvertantly, and indirectly, causing death and harm to come to untold numbers of pts in the future until the patent expires.

Sure, that's a nebulous concept and is hard to put into tangible terms at times (like my example above of 19.9% vs 0.9% causing immediate death) but it's not as rare as you make it sound... not whatsoever.


I can't help but notice that the attorney in your example would be considered a GOOD attorney (they won the case). So by your examples a bad pharmacist is one that kills one or a few people (directly), whereas a good lawyer is one that kills several people (indirectly). Have something against lawyers? :laugh:
 
I can't help but notice that the attorney in your example would be considered a GOOD attorney (they won the case). So by your examples a bad pharmacist is one that kills one or a few people (directly), whereas a good lawyer is one that kills several people (indirectly). Have something against lawyers? :laugh:

In this example, yea. 😛

Thank you for avoiding the substantive point completely and electing instead of pursue an argument of semantics. Nicely done.
 
In this example, yea. 😛

Thank you for avoiding the substantive point completely and electing instead of pursue an argument of semantics. Nicely done.

Your Welcome!

Honestly, I am not sure I understand your substantive point. Attorneys as well as pharmacists can differentiate themselves between being good or bad? Attorneys as well as pharmacists hold peoples lives in their hands? If either of those was your point I agree. Don't really have anything to add on that front. I wasn't trying to argue semantics (at least I don't think I was).

But your example struck me as being inappropriate, in that you compared a bad pharmacist with a "good" attorney. In both cases the result was loss of life. Struck me as being a tiny bit unfair (though not inaccurate). Good attorneys also do plenty of "good" for society as well. Nothing comes to mind right now but I am sure examples exist.
 
This thread is in the wrong forum. The Pre-Pharmacy forum is for people trying to get into pharmacy school. **** like this is about the profession, thus belongs in the PharmD forum.

What has happened is that too many now-student-ex-wannabe posters are still yet to make the jump over the forum they have earned the right to post on...a phenomenon which I find rather strange for such a pretentious ass group of wankers like yourselves.
 
Top