Future of Pharmacy: Baby boomers etc

[OptimistPrime]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Keep reading, my post is also about Americans.

Okay, so I have been thinking about my future career, talking to pharmacists, doing research etc. I live in Canada and it seems that retail pharmacy is being drastically altered. In Ontario, the price of generics has been cut in half. I myself live in BC and a friend of mine told me that the pharmacy she works at received 26 applications from pharmacists who lost their jobs in Ontario. There is no doubt that the BC government will follow suit and cut the generic prices. But it doesn't stop here; the techs will also be given the ability (after some more schooling) to do half the tasks that pharmacists currently perform (doing final checks on the drugs; matching the scripts to the labels etc.). You may think that this is only in Canada and American pharmacists have nothing to worry about right? But the think about what caused Canada to resort to slashing prices and taking jobs away from pharmacists. I speculate that it is because of two main reasons: the first being that the economy is having some difficulty, and the second being that baby boomers are starting to retire (old people need more medical care). This bring us to the fact that America will probably also do something like this as their economy is even worse and they also went through a baby boom era. One thing I wonder is why is America making more pharmacy schools when those who graduate won't be able to find jobs.

My theory is (if these people making these decisions are smart) that they are doing it because they want the retail pharmacy industry to change. No doubt the baby boomers retiring will impact the economies of both Canada and the US for the next 40 years. There will be fewer doctors and more patients. This is why I think that pharmacists will be able to prescribe drugs in a specialized field for which they went to school for. For example if a pharmacist studied hormones, they could prescribe hormonal drugs and also be payed for consultations.

My questions to you:
Do you agree with what I have stated?
Do you have other reasons for why events are going down in the manner that they are?
I am Canadian, so my knowledge of what is happening there is not exactly perfect, you can tell me more about it.
Discuss

I know alot of you have probably already thought about these, but first time I'm seeing it in one post.

 

[pharmwannebe2]

Keep reading, my post is also about Americans.

Okay, so I have been thinking about my future career, talking to pharmacists, doing research etc. I live in Canada and it seems that retail pharmacy is being drastically altered. In Ontario, the price of generics has been cut in half. I myself live in BC and a friend of mine told me that the pharmacy she works at received 26 applications from pharmacists who lost their jobs in Ontario. There is no doubt that the BC government will follow suit and cut the generic prices. But it doesn't stop here; the techs will also be given the ability (after some more schooling) to do half the tasks that pharmacists currently perform (doing final checks on the drugs; matching the scripts to the labels etc.). You may think that this is only in Canada and American pharmacists have nothing to worry about right? But the think about what caused Canada to resort to slashing prices and taking jobs away from pharmacists. I speculate that it is because of two main reasons: the first being that the economy is having some difficulty, and the second being that baby boomers are starting to retire (old people need more medical care). This bring us to the fact that America will probably also do something like this as their economy is even worse and they also went through a baby boom era. One thing I wonder is why is America making more pharmacy schools when those who graduate won't be able to find jobs.

My theory is (if these people making these decisions are smart) that they are doing it because they want the retail pharmacy industry to change. No doubt the baby boomers retiring will impact the economies of both Canada and the US for the next 40 years. There will be fewer doctors and more patients. This is why I think that pharmacists will be able to prescribe drugs in a specialized field for which they went to school for. For example if a pharmacist studied hormones, they could prescribe hormonal drugs and also be payed for consultations.

My questions to you:
Do you agree with what I have stated?
Do you have other reasons for why events are going down in the manner that they are?
I am Canadian, so my knowledge of what is happening there is not exactly perfect, you can tell me more about it.
Discuss

I know alot of you have probably already thought about these, but first time I'm seeing it in one post.

Disagree. I believe the only reason more pharmacy schools are opening up is just because of greed. School want to make money off students by offering a degree that is "sure to get them a job with 6 figures immediately and with a lot of job security". ACPE gets paid when they accredit more schools. According to the ACPE website...application fees are 26,000 plus schools get charged for visiting the schools that are accredited (http://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/CS_fees.pdf).

I do however have complete faith that technicians will never do the same tasks as a pharmacist in USA. Mostly because Americans love lawsuits. If their pills are incorrectly checked they can't really sue an underpaid tech (doubt they would make 6 figs if they were allowed to check and did go thru some additional training). If the "Drug Expert (Pharmacist)" checks it and it is wrong, then they will be able to sue.

Also I don't think that pharmacists will be able to prescribe based on area of practice (except for VA system). Currently PA's and Nurse Practicer's are closing the doctor gap. Nurses are also pushing for a doctorate and ability to prescribe.


ps: if you don't mind....what exactly is going on in canada. I know that techs are allowed to final check but from what I heard pharmacists allowed this to occur....can you please elaborate.

 

[Argentium]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=639184

here it is in one post.

 

[PolarBearFire]

I don't understand how techs who are barely trained and certified to count drugs are going to be able to handle final checks. I was a tech with years of experience, that doesn't mean I could handle final checks or consultations. I could probably fill 99% of all retail prescriptions without any difficulty but that did not make me a pharmacist or capable of final checks.

 

[crazybob]

:troll:

 

[PolarBearFire]

Also pharmacists should never get general Rx writing responsibilities. If you want to write Rx, go be an MD. A pharmacist's is a specialist on DRUGS and they are just not generally trained to diagnose. Of course I'm talking about general pharmacists. If in the future, with additional training pharmacist's can become weird MD/Pharmd hybrids, I would be all for that.

 

[OptimistPrime]

Disagree. I believe the only reason more pharmacy schools are opening up is just because of greed. School want to make money off students by offering a degree that is "sure to get them a job with 6 figures immediately and with a lot of job security". ACPE gets paid when they accredit more schools. According to the ACPE website...application fees are 26,000 plus schools get charged for visiting the schools that are accredited (http://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/CS_fees.pdf).

I do however have complete faith that technicians will never do the same tasks as a pharmacist in USA. Mostly because Americans love lawsuits. If their pills are incorrectly checked they can't really sue an underpaid tech (doubt they would make 6 figs if they were allowed to check and did go thru some additional training). If the "Drug Expert (Pharmacist)" checks it and it is wrong, then they will be able to sue.

Also I don't think that pharmacists will be able to prescribe based on area of practice (except for VA system). Currently PA's and Nurse Practicer's are closing the doctor gap. Nurses are also pushing for a doctorate and ability to prescribe.


ps: if you don't mind....what exactly is going on in canada. I know that techs are allowed to final check but from what I heard pharmacists allowed this to occur....can you please elaborate.

Well in some countries (such as Britain), pharmacists already have the ability to prescribe certain drugs. And with fewer doctors and far greater patients because of the baby boomers retiring; there will be an immense pressure on the current doctors. I believe that there are not that many more medical schools being opened like there are pharmaceutical schools. And like I said, techs will be able to go to school for some more time to be able to do some of the checks which pharmacists do. For example they will check if the dates of refills are reasonable, if the patient name is correct, number of pills are correct etc. And a pharmacist will come in at the end to look over everything, mostly considering drug interactions. So lets say a pharmacy employs 3 pharmacists, under the new system they will employ maybe 2.

And so I have a question to you, if America's economy is so far in the crapper, at some point to recover won't cuts in government funded areas, and increase in taxes have to take place?

 

[OptimistPrime]

I don't understand how techs who are barely trained and certified to count drugs are going to be able to handle final checks. I was a tech with years of experience, that doesn't mean I could handle final checks or consultations. I could probably fill 99% of all retail prescriptions without any difficulty but that did not make me a pharmacist or capable of final checks.

With more schooling (perhaps another year) they will be able to check things over. I too have worked in a pharmacy as a tech, and the pharmacists spend some time making sure there are no mistakes in the pill count, instructions to take the drug etc. These tasks can be performed by a tech in my opinion.

Also pharmacists should never get general Rx writing responsibilities. If you want to write Rx, go be an MD. A pharmacist's is a specialist on DRUGS and they are just not generally trained to diagnose. Of course I'm talking about general pharmacists. If in the future, with additional training pharmacist's can become weird MD/Pharmd hybrids, I would be all for that.

I agree that pharmacists should not get Rx responsibilities with the current education they receive, but with further specialization in certain areas it would be quite feasible. Sounds exciting to me actually; give a whole new dynamic to pharmacy. If pharmacists know so much about how the drug affects a person, with more education they should be easily able to learn about the condition symptoms etc. Those money hungry doctors would be angry.

 

[OptimistPrime]

:troll:

care to elaborate? I'm just posting my opinion based on facts and I'm showing my reasoning. If you are scared of what I'm saying it is not my problem.

 

[byork]

:troll:

Actually, you're the troll in this thread.

I'm interested in Canadian pharmacists opinions of the situation here. It's not asked in that other thread.

 

[group_theory]

With more schooling (perhaps another year) they will be able to check things over. I too have worked in a pharmacy as a tech, and the pharmacists spend some time making sure there are no mistakes in the pill count, instructions to take the drug etc. These tasks can be performed by a tech in my opinion.



I agree that pharmacists should not get Rx responsibilities with the current education they receive, but with further specialization in certain areas it would be quite feasible. Sounds exciting to me actually; give a whole new dynamic to pharmacy. If pharmacists know so much about how the drug affects a person, with more education they should be easily able to learn about the condition symptoms etc. Those money hungry doctors would be angry.

The problem is medical conditions aren't neatly packaged and present classically. Often times there are confounding factors that only serve to confuse the picture. And patients don't present with multiple choices for you to pick. More education might be helpful, but so is clinical experience. There is a reason why doctors do residency - it's not because they spent all of medical schools doing nothing or learning nothing. It's to learn how to take all those book knowledge and apply it to real life. And remember, if you want to be the one doing the diagnosis along with management, you better be prepared to live with the consequences of delayed/mis-diagnosis.

65 year old patient presents to you with increase shortness of breath and tachycardia. Do you really want to work this complaint up in a retail pharmacy setting? What about a 5 year old kid with a one week history of fever? What about a one week old infant with fever? Or a 17 year old male with chief complaint of fatigue.

 

[crazybob]

care to elaborate? I'm just posting my opinion based on facts and I'm showing my reasoning. If you are scared of what I'm saying it is not my problem.

Actually, you're the troll in this thread.

I'm interested in Canadian pharmacists opinions of the situation here. It's not asked in that other thread.

The possible future of pharmacy has been discussed many, many times.

If you were interested in the future of pharmacy specifically for Canada, you should have left out the part about pharmacy in the US in the first post, since it is always under topics for discussion.

The OP asked about the situation in the US without reading the other threads that have discussed it so many times.

 

[OptimistPrime]

The problem is medical conditions aren't neatly packaged and present classically. Often times there are confounding factors that only serve to confuse the picture. And patients don't present with multiple choices for you to pick. More education might be helpful, but so is clinical experience. There is a reason why doctors do residency - it's not because they spent all of medical schools doing nothing or learning nothing. It's to learn how to take all those book knowledge and apply it to real life. And remember, if you want to be the one doing the diagnosis along with management, you better be prepared to live with the consequences of delayed/mis-diagnosis.

65 year old patient presents to you with increase shortness of breath and tachycardia. Do you really want to work this complaint up in a retail pharmacy setting? What about a 5 year old kid with a one week history of fever? What about a one week old infant with fever? Or a 17 year old male with chief complaint of fatigue.

You fail to understand what I am saying. I'm saying that pharmacist will be able to prescribe SOME types of medications. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/06/02/pharmacists-ontario.html Read this, I might not know about America but I do know about Canada and our provinces have started changing the roles of pharmacists like the rest of the world. And what I'm saying is to engage the American posters too, that it may have an impact on your country because you are not much different.

The possible future of pharmacy has been discussed many, many times.

If you were interested in the future of pharmacy specifically for Canada, you should have left out the part about pharmacy in the US in the first post, since it is always under topics for discussion.

The OP asked about the situation in the US without reading the other threads that have discussed it so many times.

I asked about the American situation, and that makes me a troll? Seriously I'm putting my thoughts out there, part of my intent was to inform others if I can and stimulate them to think. Just because it was discussed once before does not mean it cannot be discussed again, not everyone will perform that specific search. So how about you ease up and also read that link I posted above; I read some of that "other thread" and as far as I got I did not see anything about pharmacist prescribing. Keep your mind open brother, you do not know everything and if that is your mentality it will always bring you down.

 

[OptimistPrime]

I am sure pharmacists do not want to be diagnosing patients, and I have only said that pharmacists may have the ability to prescribe certain drugs. There are many other ways we can go about this. For example if the doctor presented the problem which the patient was encountering to the pharmacist. The pharmacist could then look at the problem and prescribe a medication for it because technically pharmacists know more about drugs than doctors do. Pharmacists spend 4 years learning about drugs while doctors spend how long? Can't imagine that it is too long since doctors have so much to cover. Another situation in which a pharmacist could prescribe would be if a patient had been on a certain drug for an uncurable disease for the past 2 years. This would ease the load on the doctors and patients wouldn't have to wait days or weeks (takes about 3 weeks to see my family doctor) to get their prescriptions written up.

 

[PolarBearFire]

I am sure pharmacists do not want to be diagnosing patients, and I have only said that pharmacists may have the ability to prescribe certain drugs. There are many other ways we can go about this. For example if the doctor presented the problem which the patient was encountering to the pharmacist. The pharmacist could then look at the problem and prescribe a medication for it because technically pharmacists know more about drugs than doctors do. Pharmacists spend 4 years learning about drugs while doctors spend how long? Can't imagine that it is too long since doctors have so much to cover. Another situation in which a pharmacist could prescribe would be if a patient had been on a certain drug for an uncurable disease for the past 2 years. This would ease the load on the doctors and patients wouldn't have to wait days or weeks (takes about 3 weeks to see my family doctor) to get their prescriptions written up.

In that case the doctor writes a prescription based on the recommendation of the pharmacist. This is happening in more and more hospitals. This is great for pharmacist and patient care however the MD always makes the final decision. This system works because it is the medical doctor that is the one examining the patient. It doesn't make sense to alter this work flow.

Even though MDs will be in short supply in the future, there will be more and more nurses taking up more responsibilities. If anyone is going to get to write more prescriptions it is the nurses. Especially when there are Doctor of Nursing degrees. Pharmacists are going to be the least likely profession to get more prescription writing responsibilities.

 

[owlegrad]

In that case the doctor writes a prescription based on the recommendation of the pharmacist. This is happening in more and more hospitals. This is great for pharmacist and patient care however the MD always makes the final decision. This system works because it is the medical doctor that is the one examining the patient. It doesn't make sense to alter this work flow.

Even though MDs will be in short supply in the future, there will be more and more nurses taking up more responsibilities. If anyone is going to get to write more prescriptions it is the nurses. Especially when there are Doctor of Nursing degrees. Pharmacists are going to be the least likely profession to get more prescription writing responsibilities.

Really, the least likely?

 

[OptimistPrime]

In that case the doctor writes a prescription based on the recommendation of the pharmacist. This is happening in more and more hospitals. This is great for pharmacist and patient care however the MD always makes the final decision. This system works because it is the medical doctor that is the one examining the patient. It doesn't make sense to alter this work flow.

Even though MDs will be in short supply in the future, there will be more and more nurses taking up more responsibilities. If anyone is going to get to write more prescriptions it is the nurses. Especially when there are Doctor of Nursing degrees. Pharmacists are going to be the least likely profession to get more prescription writing responsibilities.

Please explain how the education received by nurses about drugs is so much greater than that of pharmacists. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't nurses also learn how to fold towels and give sponge baths? No offense intended, just pointing out that the 4 years they spend getting their degree isn't all learning about drugs and their effects. Yeah sure with a doctorate, they may be better equipped to prescribe but why are pharmacists at the bottom of the list? Remember, we are looking at just the drug side of the prescription and not diagnosis side.

 

[GamecockPharmD]

group_theory is right. **** gets complicated. physicians go to school to diagnose and treat. we went to school to be drug experts. the role of a pharmacist, especially in a retail setting, is safety. everyone screws up a prescription every once in a while. people go to see different physicians and they all prescribe different things. this causes problems that pharmacists fix. pharmacists should not have independent prescriptive authority. if a pharmacist has a collaborative practice agreement with a physician or works for the VA, then some prescriptive authority is fine as long as everyone knows their role. pharmacists can be excellent disease state managers and are capable of managing and prescribing for chronic health conditions such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and managing anticoagulation. the doctor gap should be filled by working as a team and not stepping on toes. this new DNP degree is such a joke. nurse practitioners are trying to open a back door to practice medicine instead of going to MD or DO school. PharmDs have never sought independent prescriptive authority and never should. I can understand awarding a PharmD degree because all this drug knowledge is actually difficult, but I don't see the point in awarding a doctorate in ass-wiping and giving sponge baths.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I think the opposite. The MD and PharmD as doctorate level degrees is laughable. "Doctorate" is supposed to indicate a level of education that makes one a master of a subject to the highest degree possible. New pharmacists and new physicians are useless out of school. They certainly aren't masters of their trade. A 4 year pharmacy or medicine program should be a bachelors degree. Give them a doctorate after residency, maybe.

Now a doctorate in nursing...sure...4 years is enough...

 

[CanPharm]

Health costs are soaring and the government needs to find a way to control these costs. From what I've heard, doctors and hospitals will be next on the cutting board. To them, pharmacy/drugs is the easiest to take on first.

I think the main thing that is really going to affect retail pharmacies is the banning of the "kickbacks"/professional allowances, which was a large source of income for pharmacies. By doing so, the government has essentially taken a large chunk of income, and have not provided a clear way to replace this loss of income. As a result, independent pharmacies will likely close since they can't rely on front store sales to sustain their business like the big chains. That being said, it is business as usual for big chain pharmacies in my area. In the midst of these cuts, Loblaws (a large grocery chain) announced that they will increase the number of stores WITH a pharmacy. In light of all this, the government has also promised reimbursement for cognitive services and potential increase in scope of practice for pharmacists (ie injections, MTM, minor ailment assessment/prescribing, screening clinics, educational sessions, prescribing refills, etc).
Pharmacy technicians will also be allowed to do the final check for a prescription. BUT, they are only allowed to do so AFTER a pharmacist has assessed the appropriateness of the prescription. This is being proposed to decrease the pharmacists' technical duties and allow them to focus on clinical services.
My thoughts: With the increased number of new patients from the projected closings of independent pharmacies, and the expected increase in the number of prescriptions, it probably still makes sense for the big chains to keep or even increase their pharmacist staff. It is still too early to decide how everything will play out since so many new things are being introduced at once. We will have to let the dust settle and do the math to see if it is still profitable to have a large number of pharmacists on staff. The most optimistic outlook would be that the government gives appropriate reimbursement for a variety cognitive services that will allow for a pharmacy to be sustainable/profitable. If this occurs, pharmacists will need to be kept on at all times and technicians will not be able to replace pharmacists.

**I forgot to mention that there is a trend towards family health teams, where pharmacists are employed by the government into a family medical clinic. Maybe this may be the future of retail/community pharmacists in the distant future?**

 

[jinga]

Health costs are soaring and the government needs to find a way to control these costs. From what I've heard, doctors and hospitals will be next on the cutting board. To them, pharmacy/drugs is the easiest to take on first.

I think the main thing that is really going to affect retail pharmacies is the banning of the "kickbacks"/professional allowances, which was a large source of income for pharmacies. By doing so, the government has essentially taken a large chunk of income, and have not provided a clear way to replace this loss of income. As a result, independent pharmacies will likely close since they can't rely on front store sales to sustain their business like the big chains. That being said, it is business as usual for big chain pharmacies in my area. In the midst of these cuts, Loblaws (a large grocery chain) announced that they will increase the number of stores WITH a pharmacy. In light of all this, the government has also promised reimbursement for cognitive services and potential increase in scope of practice for pharmacists (ie injections, MTM, minor ailment assessment/prescribing, screening clinics, educational sessions, prescribing refills, etc).
Pharmacy technicians will also be allowed to do the final check for a prescription. BUT, they are only allowed to do so AFTER a pharmacist has assessed the appropriateness of the prescription. This is being proposed to decrease the pharmacists' technical duties and allow them to focus on clinical services.
My thoughts: With the increased number of new patients from the projected closings of independent pharmacies, and the expected increase in the number of prescriptions, it probably still makes sense for the big chains to keep or even increase their pharmacist staff. It is still too early to decide how everything will play out since so many new things are being introduced at once. We will have to let the dust settle and do the math to see if it is still profitable to have a large number of pharmacists on staff. The most optimistic outlook would be that the government gives appropriate reimbursement for a variety cognitive services that will allow for a pharmacy to be sustainable/profitable. If this occurs, pharmacists will need to be kept on at all times and technicians will not be able to replace pharmacists.

Interesting. I think the long-term outlook for pharmacists is still good; however in the short-term...things are going to hurt a bit. I'll be thankful to be drawing a paycheck as a pharmacist when I graduate...but I have a feeling I'm going to need to be both creative and flexible.

 

[OptimistPrime]

I think the opposite. The MD and PharmD as doctorate level degrees is laughable. "Doctorate" is supposed to indicate a level of education that makes one a master of a subject to the highest degree possible. New pharmacists and new physicians are useless out of school. They certainly aren't masters of their trade. A 4 year pharmacy or medicine program should be a bachelors degree. Give them a doctorate after residency, maybe.

Now a doctorate in nursing...sure...4 years is enough...

In Canada, the only University which provides the Doctorate is UBC. And it is an additional 2 years on top of the BSc Pharm. The 2 years include 12 months of rotations. And I completely agree that MD's should not consider themselves as all knowing royalty of healthcare. In the city I live in (and probably other cities), we have doctors that come from other countries such as India or Ireland and the medschools there are quite corrupt (India ones atleast). I have friends that are in medschool there and they got in without a BSc degree so they will be out of school in 4 years. Those doctors come to Canada and write an exam on which they only need a specific percentage. Lets say it is 50%, and your doctor received the bare minimum, would you really trust someone that knows so little? A typical pharmD from UBC would have 1-2 year of undergrad (I have 2), then 4 years for the BScPharm, and then 2 years for the PharmD (there are certain requirements to get in such as a minimum of 74% average and atleast 80% in 12 credits). That is 7-8 years and more than what some of the doctors in my city have. Again I believe pharmacists should not diagnose (this brings in liability and insurance issues) but prescribe for something that the doctor has diagnosed. My support of schooling time is just to show that.

 

[jinga]

but prescribe for something that the doctor has diagnosed.

I've never heard of this approach. Does anyone think this is plausible or practical?

 

[CanPharm]

The problem is medical conditions aren't neatly packaged and present classically. Often times there are confounding factors that only serve to confuse the picture. And patients don't present with multiple choices for you to pick. More education might be helpful, but so is clinical experience. There is a reason why doctors do residency - it's not because they spent all of medical schools doing nothing or learning nothing. It's to learn how to take all those book knowledge and apply it to real life. And remember, if you want to be the one doing the diagnosis along with management, you better be prepared to live with the consequences of delayed/mis-diagnosis.

65 year old patient presents to you with increase shortness of breath and tachycardia. Do you really want to work this complaint up in a retail pharmacy setting? What about a 5 year old kid with a one week history of fever? What about a one week old infant with fever? Or a 17 year old male with chief complaint of fatigue.

I agree that diagnosing can be difficult and retail pharmacies are not the best place to make a difficult diagnosis. What I don't understand is why people always link prescribing with diagnosing. I think a pharmacist can prescribe for a medical condition after a diagnosis is made by a MD/NP. Prescribing of this nature that can be done now would be prescribing a different commercially available dose, prescribing a medication refill, prescribing a formulary alternative. That being said, hopefully this is done with adequate patient information and with communication to the family MD. Many provinces in Canada have already allowed for pharmacists to provide these services.
In collaboration with a MD, pharmacists should be able to prescribe a new prescription for a diagnosed condition. In Alberta, certain pharmacists are allowed to initiate new therapy for a patient. I know pharmacists who assess the progression of disease and prescribe accordingly.
Hopefully in the future, with extra training, community pharmacists can prescribe medications for a determined set of minor ailments. I think this is feasible with the appropriate safety checks in place. This is already being done by pharmacists in the UK.
What I'm not sure of is if there will ever be training for pharmacists, such as what NP's/PA's have, to allow for full out prescribing. It may be possible to create a "diagnosis residency" for pharmacists to create a "pharmacist practitioner." That being said, you might have well gone into medicine to start off.

 

[Sparda29]

 

[jinga]

I'm actually thinking pretty hard about moving to North Dakota after graduation. For real. Not a bad place!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I thought Toronto had a PharmD postgraduate course as well.

 

[CanPharm]

I thought Toronto had a PharmD postgraduate course as well.

Yes they do, but once the entry-level pharmD starts, the post-grad pharmD program will be axed. From what I've heard, this will be happening in the near future.

 

[womp]

Mostly because Americans love lawsuits. If their pills are incorrectly checked they can't really sue an underpaid tech (doubt they would make 6 figs if they were allowed to check and did go thru some additional training). If the "Drug Expert (Pharmacist)" checks it and it is wrong, then they will be able to sue.

Silly, they'll just sue the pharmacy.

 

[womp]

I think the opposite. The MD and PharmD as doctorate level degrees is laughable. "Doctorate" is supposed to indicate a level of education that makes one a master of a subject to the highest degree possible. New pharmacists and new physicians are useless out of school. They certainly aren't masters of their trade. A 4 year pharmacy or medicine program should be a bachelors degree. Give them a doctorate after residency, maybe.

Now a doctorate in nursing...sure...4 years is enough...

Except the nursing doctorates (DNPs) still can't pass a board that medical students can easily pass. It would be one thing if DNPs are focused on mastering nursing, but they essentially want to be a primary care physician lite. They want to practice medicine. And they can't even pass something that medical students can pass 97% of the time. Now that's laughable.

 

[pharmwannebe2]

Silly, they'll just sue the pharmacy.

Disagree. You can't just sue rite aid when it was specifically the gross negligence of a pharmacist who filled a prescription because they didn't pay attention. Totally wouldn't hold in any court.

 

[rxlea]

 

[womp]

Disagree. You can't just sue rite aid when it was specifically the gross negligence of a pharmacist who filled a prescription because they didn't pay attention. Totally wouldn't hold in any court.

You sure about that?

LAS VEGAS, June 24 (UPI) -- A nurse-anesthetist has pleaded innocent in Nevada to charges involving a hepatitis C outbreak linked to an endoscopy clinic.

Ronald Lakeman, 63, appeared in court Wednesday, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. On the advice of his lawyer, he said little during the hearing and nothing afterward.

Dr. Dipak Desai, 60, who owned the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, and another nurse anesthetist, Keith Mathahs, 74, appeared in court this month and also entered not guilty pleas. Desai posted $1 million bail and the two nurses were released on $500,000 bond each.

All three are named in a 28-count indictment involving a hepatitis C outbreak in 2007. Investigators say at least seven people were infected at the clinic when nurses reused syringes to draw medication for patients undergoing colonoscopies.

Lakeman's lawyer, Frederick Santacroce, said his client has been unable to find work since 2008, when the outbreak became public. Lakeman, now living in Columbus, Ga., is supporting himself with Social Security.

The trial is scheduled for March

 

[willrocks]

http://www.jimplagakis.com/

Today's blog post gives good insight to this topic. Plagakis gives excellent opinions based on over three decades of experience. Enough with the doom and gloom.

 

[Old Timer]

Disagree. You can't just sue rite aid when it was specifically the gross negligence of a pharmacist who filled a prescription because they didn't pay attention. Totally wouldn't hold in any court.

The person got the prescription from Rite -Aid They are responsible for anything their employees do. They hired them and they kept them in the position. They would definitely be sued and they would bear the brunt. When a pharmacist buys liability insurance, it only comes into play after the employers insurance pays out. That's why it's so cheap.

 

[Its Z]

http://www.jimplagakis.com/

Today's blog post gives good insight to this topic. Plagakis gives excellent opinions based on over three decades of experience. Enough with the doom and gloom.

Laughable at best. Because Pharmacy survived the "technician" scare in the 70's and because more people take more drugs today, gloom and doomsayers are wrong? How is that an excellent opinion?

Technician doesn't replace a pharmacist. Adding more technicians does not take away pharmacist labor. However in the 70's.... it's hard to believe...but they actually had to type out labels on a type writer.. no computers or no internet. But today, technology and technicians have added efficiency to churn out more prescriptions. As a result the demand of rising prescription volume will be met with current level of pharmacist labor force.

Here's what's different today. It's the shear number of new pharmacy schools that opened past 10 years which will provide influx of probably 30% more pharmacists than we need.

Here's an analogy. There's a tub filled with water with a drain hole. The volume of water is in a steady state as the volume of water draining = water filled.

But somehow, the bucket grew larger and the water level became too low... so.. water pressure was increased to fill up the tub again... so for a brief moment...the tub was filled..except..now we can't turn the faucet down to maintain the steady state volume...soon the tub will overflow.

Increase demand for pharmacist labor due to increasing volume will be met with technology, mail order, central fill, and technicians. Unfortunately, we can't turn off the newly minted pharmDs spilling out of schools...

Will pharmacy die? Of course not. Will there be jobs? Of course. But Pharmacy today isn't the same pharmacy it was yesterday. It's changed. And if you don't believe this, you're in a mad denial. Not long ago, pharmDs were escorted with sign on and BMW leases... those days are over and we all know it's not going to get better. We also know many new grads will have a hard time finding a job. You can blame the recession if you'd like...if so, it will be a while before we recover from it.. at least a decade. Meanwhile, there will be 100,000+ new pharmacist coming out next decade. Do you believe there will be 100,000+ new jobs while we dig out of the worst recession since the great depression?

Technicians...technology can't replace pharmacist. But pharmacist can replace another pharmacist. That's why it's different this time. It aint the 70's any more.. dood.

 

[willrocks]

blah blah blah. Don't you ever get sick of spewing the same old crap?

I'll say it again, prepharmers, pay no attention to this thread. Seek legitimate sources for your facts.

 

[Its Z]

blah blah blah. Don't you ever get sick of spewing the same old crap?

Nope. I'm not the one worried about having to find a job. And it may sound like the same old crap to you but the reality is crappy if you're looking for a job and can't find one or stuck at a crappy job but can't go anywhere else.

I'll say it again, prepharmers, pay no attention to this thread. Seek legitimate sources for your facts.

So...how many pharmacists have you hired in your life?

How many have you fired?

How many pharmacists work for you?

How many pharmacists do you work with?

I've been hiring pharmacists for the past decade... I'm not sure how much more legit it needs to be.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

blah blah blah. Don't you ever get sick of spewing the same old crap?

I'll say it again, prepharmers, pay no attention to this thread. Seek legitimate sources for your facts.

Yeah...I mean...Z is only a regional director for one of the largest pharmacy services corporations in the world that directly recruits, interviews, and hires pharmacists, directors, and others.

What the hell does he know?

I can tell its getting tight because he used to PM me a job opening every other week...and every other week I'd tell him I'm stuck in WV for a few more months...until all the jobs dried up...and now that I can leave, he's got nothing and I'm stuck in WV contemplating which pizza delivery job I'll take here in a few weeks.

I dunno. I'm thinking there are no jobs.

****, if its so easy to get a job, why don't you find me one. I've filled out so many applications online that its consuming my life like an actual job. Each one of those ****ers takes a good half hour to fill out. Out of state applicants have no shot as they have stacks of in state, already licensed pharmacists lining up. Why deal with a hilljack you'd have to wait to get licensed? Where I am licensed in PA it is so saturated its pretty much laughable (I have to laugh or else I'd cry). It costs a good $800 to get a license elsewhere. And I can't just go get licensed everywhere being as though I'm unemployed and broke as hell. The VA requires any license from any state...which is good...and every VA hospital in the country has seen my resume float across their desks. And my god its been utterly fruitless...

Oh well.

Maybe this is the universe telling me I should just go get that PhD in Pharmacology.

........

But anyway...Z speaks the truth. The 70s didn't have an influx of new diploma mills to offer the universe an endless supply of cheap pharmacists.

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

Yeah...I mean...Z is only a regional director for one of the largest pharmacy services corporations in the world that directly recruits, interviews, and hires pharmacists, directors, and others.

What the hell does he know?

I can tell its getting tight because he used to PM me a job opening every other week...and every other week I'd tell him I'm stuck in WV for a few more months...until all the jobs dried up...and now that I can leave, he's got nothing and I'm stuck in WV contemplating which pizza delivery job I'll take here in a few weeks.

I dunno. I'm thinking there are no jobs.

****, if its so easy to get a job, why don't you find me one. I've filled out so many applications online that its consuming my life like an actual job. Each one of those ****ers takes a good half hour to fill out. Out of state applicants have no shot as they have stacks of in state, already licensed pharmacists lining up. Why deal with a hilljack you'd have to wait to get licensed? Where I am licensed in PA it is so saturated its pretty much laughable (I have to laugh or else I'd cry). It costs a good $800 to get a license elsewhere. And I can't just go get licensed everywhere being as though I'm unemployed and broke as hell. The VA requires any license from any state...which is good...and every VA hospital in the country has seen my resume float across their desks. And my god its been utterly fruitless...

Oh well.

Maybe this is the universe telling me I should just go get that PhD in Pharmacology.

........

But anyway...Z speaks the truth. The 70s didn't have an influx of new diploma mills to offer the universe an endless supply of cheap pharmacists.

Find a way to get your MD license. There are openings out there....2 of my guys just put in apps for inpatient side-gig stuff and started a week or two later. Both of their DOP's asked'em to ask me if I was interested in part time, and I said no. Got my hands full already. But they get as many hours as they want on their comp week and weekends.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Find a way to get your MD license. There are openings out there....2 of my guys just put in apps for inpatient side-gig stuff and started a week or two later. Both of their DOP's asked'em to ask me if I was interested in part time, and I said no. Got my hands full already. But they get as many hours as they want on their comp week and weekends.

For who?

I'll call them tomorrow.

Oh, wait...it's Friday. I don't even know what day it is.

 

[njac]

WVU - my hospital has a couple staff spots open. I think the other hospital in town has one spot and I heard something about the VA. We have 3 clinical spots, but they won't look at anyone w/out a residency.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

WVU - my hospital has a couple staff spots open. I think the other hospital in town has one spot and I heard something about the VA. We have 3 clinical spots, but they won't look at anyone w/out a residency.

Which hospital/town?

Vicodin Heaven or 2nd CITY...?

I like nicknames.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You know what makes me really mad...they require you to put down the most inane crap. Do you really need the address of my high school, Johns Hopkins? So I have to bust out google...

 

[tongiecc]

Z knows what he's talkin about, so listen to him kids.

BTW, Z can you go ahead and fulfill your destiny of becoming the dominant force in pharmacy management/leadership so that you can take the reins of this sinking ship and start righting the wrongs that so many idiots have disgraced our profession with?

 

[Its Z]

BTW, Z can you go ahead and fulfill your destiny of becoming the dominant force in pharmacy management/leadership so that you can take the reins of this sinking ship and start righting the wrongs that so many idiots have disgraced our profession with?

Dude..I can only control what I do... and the diploma mill thing is getting out of hand. But nothing lasts forever in our world except death.

Who'd thought K-Mart would give away to Wal-Mart? Strip Malls gave away to shopping malls only to give it back to modified strip malls. People migrated to suburbs only to go back and rebuild old towns and call it "hip."

I used to see life as a linear x=y slope. Now I see it as a circle with peaks and valleys. It cycles and recycles.

There will always be opportunities in Pharmacy. I see oversupply of pharmacists as an opportunity to actually get into retail pharmacy business. Innovation is the key. Prescription business is competitive yet I believe some of us will find a niche that can turn into a business fad with a lifespan of several decades until it gives away to something better.

WAG and CVS can't rule forever.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

How about this Z...

I get into really, really good shape. Get them abs I used to have before pharmacy school.

I open up an erotic for women/gay pharmacy in a progressive area like...I dunno...San Fran.

I prance around shirtless while filling scripts. Hire technicians from the local male review.

Why go to CVS when you can go check out the manwhore pharmacists.

That's a niche. And I have no ethical standards.
....

Actually...is that legal?

I could make millions...

 

[njac]

Vicodin Heaven.

 

[Its Z]

How about this Z...

I get into really, really good shape. Get them abs I used to have before pharmacy school.

I open up an erotic for women/gay pharmacy in a progressive area like...I dunno...San Fran.

I prance around shirtless while filling scripts. Hire technicians from the local male review.

Why go to CVS when you can go check out the manwhore pharmacists.

That's a niche. And I have no ethical standards.
....

Actually...is that legal?

I could make millions...

Unfortunately your audience is probably healthy people not needing drugs. You'd be better off providing delivery and escort services to lonely old widows with 25 chronic meds at a retirement village.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Vicodin Heaven.

Ah. I looked on the website and nothing was listed.