Increasing number of pharmacy graduates

[konkan]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I've noticed that almost every pharmacy school is increasing number of spots. Also there are a couple of new pharmacy schools to be opened. What do you, guys, think about it? Is it bad or good? You can say that with more pharmacists it will be harder to find a job. On the other hand when a profession is experiencing an extreme shortage of specialists other professions tend to take over some of its functions. Also with the increasing number of Americans it kind of makes sense to have more pharmacists.
BTW, does anybody know are other professions like medicine, dentistry, PA, nursing increasing their numbers of graduates? Some of them have even worse shortage than pharmacy (like nursing or PA).

 

[twester]

I think it's a good thing that schools are increasing their class sizes. The pharmacist shortage is likely to continue for the forseeable future. It's true that the nursing shortage is much more acute and, for that reason, University of Colorado SON (for example), is graduating two classes per year in Fall and Spring. Pharmacy isn't doing that - we're only at one class per year.

Not only are there more Americans, but Americans are getting older and relying more on pharmaceuticals to manage or cure disease. It's those factors that are going to drive the continued need for pharmacists.

 

[genesis09]

Nursing has the absolute worse shortage. Doctors are making their own shortage of primary care doctors.

 

[honeykrown]

Nursing has the absolute worse shortage. Doctors are making their own shortage of primary care doctors.

yeah u got the nursing part right. my school graduates about 120 students a year and thats not to say for other schools in the area and what with LPN's but still it seems Nurses are never enough to do the jobs.

and with the baby boomers and all the migrating, i dont think anyone in the health care field would ever be looking for a job for long.

 

[qwopty99]

in Ontario, Canada, the Univ of Toronto has increased enrollment to 240 students/year (from 120 a few years back). further, a 2nd pharm school is opening at the Univ of Waterloo in 2008.

 

[pharmboy30]

there will always be a shortage until Walgreens stops building stores

seems like there is one every 3 blocks. hard to imagine they are all adequately staffed. I heard Phoenix area there are 40+ openings for Walgreens alone.

 

[Pharmguy07]

Some areas are more saturated than others. In Houston for example (with 2 pharmacy schools) really the only places hiring are Walgreens and CVS for float positions, and only in select districts -- several districts aren't hiring at all. Of course if you're willing to move you can have a guaranteed job.

 

[dr of rx]

there will always be a shortage until Walgreens stops building stores

seems like there is one every 3 blocks. hard to imagine they are all adequately staffed. I heard Phoenix area there are 40+ openings for Walgreens alone.

they want to have 7000 stores by 2010. that is almost 500/year for the next 3 years. can you say job security?

once they come to my area, I'd bet many CVStress and Fright Aid employees will jump ship with hopes of working for a better company.

demand = dollars.

 

[qwopty99]

job security is when a malpracticing pathologist working in a hospital isn't fired by the hospital because they are afraid they won't be able to find another pathologist to replace him (google for Dr. Charles Smith)

i don't see how having 7000 more walgreens is something for pharmacists to look forward to. if anything, it suggests the field of pharmacy right now is vastly undersupplied, and the implication is that 7000 walgreens are being opened to meet an UNMET NEED. that implies pharms NOW have the best choice of jobs and hence salary, since they are in short supply. obviously - walgreens plans to have 7000 pharmacists available to fill those stores.

the point is - u don't need walgreens now to get a job ==> having a walgreen on every street corner will lead to declining pharm salaries. seriously.

 

[Mentis]

job security is when a malpracticing pathologist working in a hospital isn't fired by the hospital because they are afraid they won't be able to find another pathologist to replace him (google for Dr. Charles Smith)

i don't see how having 7000 more walgreens is something for pharmacists to look forward to. if anything, it suggests the field of pharmacy right now is vastly undersupplied, and the implication is that 7000 walgreens are being opened to meet an UNMET NEED. that implies pharms NOW have the best choice of jobs and hence salary, since they are in short supply. obviously - walgreens plans to have 7000 pharmacists available to fill those stores.

the point is - u don't need walgreens now to get a job ==> having a walgreen on every street corner will lead to declining pharm salaries. seriously.

You are assuming two things. That the need for pharmacists will continue to decrease as time goes on, and that thousands of walgreens will actually meet these needs. In any case, most predictions I've seen show that a pharmacist's salary will continue to increase faster than inflation for at least a decade, so you seem to be underestimating the shortage, neh?

 

[dr of rx]

they are opening 1500 new stores, not 7000.

the act of building a store and hanging a sign out front does not automatically generate a full pharmacist staff.

"build it and ....well....they might come....that is if the offer is right.."


my employer keeps building stores without regard to who will work there. so what happens? they keep throwing money at us to keep us happy. their stores have increased, while the rph staff has not.


I bet wag hopes that their repuation of being the 'perfect' chain to work for will draw rphs from other employers. all the while, the competition must pay their staff to keep them on board.

to be fully staffed, those 1500 stores would need at least 3000 rphs. where are they gonna come from? to the dismay of district managers everywhere, we don't grow on trees.

 

[letjin]

their repuation of being the 'perfect' chain to work for

Do you mind explaining why you think they are the best chain? I'm working at WAG now as an intern but I'm not really seeing that point.

 

[dr of rx]

Do you mind explaining why you think they are the best chain? I'm working at WAG now as an intern but I'm not really seeing that point.

I never said I personally think they are the best.

In PA (where wag is fairly new) many rphs view them as being the best chain to work for. I have spoken to a few rphs that vow once wag comes to town they are moving over to them. maybe they are the least evil of the chains....I dunno.

don't ask me why...I've only stepped foot inside one wag (and that was in Vegas).

 

[qwopty99]

You are assuming two things. That the need for pharmacists will continue to decrease as time goes on, and that thousands of walgreens will actually meet these needs.

what i am assuming is this:

if u need a walgreens to open up to get a job, that is not a good business model for a prospective pharmacist.

i replied to the post that said by 2010 there will be 7000 new walgreens opening up. another poster said 1500. for arguments sake, let's say 15 000 by year 2014. for the point i'm making, the numbers themselves don't specifically matter (we can't agree on them anyways).

at some point, those 15 000 walgreens will be filled. let's say in the next 10 years, from 2007-2017, pharmacy schools produce enough graduates to fill those stores. it will happen, its just a matter of time. (i don't want to go into the reasoning here). at some point, supply and demand equilibrates. for the beginning, pharmacist supply will be lacking, so demand goes up, and salaries go up.

but the problem is, after 2017, when all those 2007-2017 grads have jobs and are happy, in 2018, there will be new grads. in fact, for the same period, from 2018-2028, there will be another 15 000 grads coming out, with no personal walgreens waiting for them.

as such, supply will become plentiful. a 2018 grad who is unable to find work elsewhere, will be happy to work for half the salary that walgreens is paying u. in 2019, yet another grad is willing to work, at a third of the salary. walgreens will be in a position to pick and choose.

anyways - the point here, isn't even about walgreens. if schools are producing enough grads to fill a rapid private commercial expansion, unless they concomitantly reduce the number of grads they produce when that commercial expansion stops, there will be an over-abundance of grads at some point. over-supply will lead to decreased demand, and decreasing salaries.

 

[Mentis]

The limiting reagent here is the Pharmacist. It wouldn't make an inkling of difference if there were a million stores being built. The demand for pharmacists will continue to exist as long as there are enough people who need prescription medication. When pharmacy schools churn out enough new pharmacists to fill such a deficit, then it will no longer exist. The amount of pharmacies being built is irrelevant.

 

[qwopty99]

The limiting reagent here is the Pharmacist. It wouldn't make an inkling of difference if there were a million stores being built. The demand for pharmacists will continue to exist as long as there are enough people who need prescription medication. When pharmacy schools churn out enough new pharmacists to fill such a deficit, then it will no longer exist. The amount of pharmacies being built is irrelevant.

it would seem therefore, that the limiting reagent is the need for pharmacists.


(why would the pharmacist be a limiting reagent? in this example the pharmacist is the commodity that can be purchased. if they are in short supply, all u do is pay them more until demand and supply equilibrate. Econ101.)


if the need is exceeded by the supply, then salaries go down.

 

[ZpackSux]

Pharmacy Labor supply and demand is little more complicated than increasing grads and Wags.

14 of Spades, just because Wags are on every corner doesn't mean the salary will go down nor the supply will outgrow the demand because schools are producing more students.

Here are some of the factors driving the demand:

1. Increase in # of prescriptions - baby boomers, preference of pharmacological intervention over other medicatl treatments, advancement of pharmaceuticals etc.
2. Shift in the male:female ratio in the pharmacist pool - female pharmacist not entering the full time work force.
3. Increase in complexity of drug therapy requiring pharmacist interventions
4. Awareness of need for Safe Medical Practice requiring pharmacist to prevent ADRs..
5. Increasing # of pharmacist leaving the profession...retirement

Here is what's driving the supply.

1. Schools putting out more pharmacists.


As 14 of Spades puts it, one day the equilibrium will be reached. But the # of Wags opening is not the cause of any of this but rather an effect.

And the statement of when the supply exceeds the demand, the salary will go down is not accurate. If the supply exceeds the demand, it will actually drive the demand down not because the salary goes down, rather because there will not be many available jobs resulting in decreased enrollment in schools.

Besides the 8track & VCR repair man, what profession has experienced a decrease in salary?

Technology field with its rapid ups and downs with supply and demand for the past 20 years saw many lose jobs but did the salary decrease? No..

When and if pharmacist supply exceeds the demand, then it will further allow the advancement of pharmacy because more qualified pharmacists will remain while others will be forced to leave.

 

[qwopty99]

Here are some of the factors driving the demand:

my feeling is that these factors are already in the system, and the schools have already begun to address those issues by increasing enrollment. further, some of the factors (e.g. male/female ratio) do not manifest as the problems they are predicted to be.

As 14 of Spades puts it, one day the equilibrium will be reached. But the # of Wags opening is not the cause of any of this but rather an effect.

as written above, anyways - the point here, isn't even about walgreens.

And the statement of when the supply exceeds the demand, the salary will go down is not accurate. If the supply exceeds the demand, it will actually drive the demand down not because the salary goes down,

this logic is so flawed, i almost don't know if u are trying to be intentionally funny.

ur telling me that if there are too many pharmacists (supply), then that will drive the demand for pharmacists down. doesn't that make things WORSE for pharmacists??? whose point r u trying to prove? mines or yours???

rather because there will not be many available jobs resulting in decreased enrollment in schools. Besides the 8track & VCR repair man, what profession has experienced a decrease in salary?

besides 8track-U and VCR Repairman College, what profession has experienced a decrease in enrollment?

Please cite any evidence stating pharmacy schools plan to decrease enrollment for ANY given reason.

Technology field with its rapid ups and downs with supply and demand for the past 20 years saw many lose jobs but did the salary decrease? No..

umm.... ur telling me that people can "lose jobs", but that its inconceivable for people to have a decrease in salary? i can't believe u made this argument. ur kidding right?

When and if pharmacist supply exceeds the demand, then it will further allow the advancement of pharmacy because more qualified pharmacists will remain while others will be forced to leave.

exactly. When and if pharmacist supply exceeds the demand, things will get competitive for the few available positions. perhaps the "quality" of pharmacists will improve, but their salaries will not. they will go down.



Zpack : given your limited reasoning skills, please be the first to "volunteer" as one of the first qualified pharmacists who is "forced to leave".

by leaving, u will help "allow the advancement of pharmacy".

 

[ZpackSux]

Originally Posted by ZpackSux
And the statement of when the supply exceeds the demand, the salary will go down is not accurate. If the supply exceeds the demand, it will actually drive the demand down not because the salary goes down,

I meant supply.

Your simplistic approach to over supply decreases salary isn't that simple. Apply Economics 101 and sure..it sounds logical.

Let me give you an example. We have an oversupply of lawyers... yet their income keep rising. Sure..there are lawyers who's starving...but they're evenutally weeded out.

Looking at the allied health..I can't think of too many fields where there is an oversupply. Looking at it regionally, in 1994 and 1995, there was an oversupply of pharmacists in Southern California...and there were lay offs of pharmacists in Orange County.. Didn't result in a salary decrease.

In fact..I can't really think of any health related profession with decrease in salary regardless of oversupply. There are many hospital administrator wannabes with MBA and MHA... I would say there are more applicants than available jobs...yet the average salary of hospital administration goes up every year..

Yet, for us to think that .."there are way too many pharmacists....so the salary will start to go down" is a very simple way of looking at the profession.

Assume the salary goes down because of oversupply. Then this will also correct itself. Less jobs..more pharmacists leave the profession seeking higher salary... eventually leading to a higher demand... right?


I don't know..my limited reasoning and all...I've hired a chit load of pharmacists..but never had to lay anyone off due to oversupply nor did I ever have to institute a pay cut. What do I know with my limited experience.

 

[sdn1977]

14 of spades - I don't know how long you've been in pharmacy, but I've lived thru lots of cycles of the profession & altho your Econ 101 class might have told you one thing - it, at least in my professional lifetime, has not been borne out.

As Zpak said (& I can't believe you'd actually be so short-sighted as to refer to his "limited reasoning skills" since he's had years of hiring, firing & decision making with how & how many employees he will have...), the whole demand of our profession & complex.

You state the influence of females has not had any effect - you're not only wrong, but the influence of part-time work has had an effect on both males & females within the industry. Many of both genders just do not want to work 40 hrs/wk. Thats why we are currently one of the few professions in which 20-24 hrs/wk is considered full-time for benefits.

At some point, in the not so distant future, the supply of the "ordinary" nonclinically skilled pharmacist will indeed exceed the demand - both in institutitonal & retail settings. This will drive the demand for these limited pharmacists down, but it will not drive down their salaries. No one - NO ONE takes a pay cut - they just hire fewer of you to do those routine, lesser judgmental jobs (so - it reduces the payroll for the employer, but doesn't affect the remaining employees).

The jobs which will require you to use your clinical skills - & Wags is indeed one of the leaders on the retail side of this in some parts of the country (not mine) - will require pharmacists to be very, very clinically skilled. If they'll check an rx or two - fine. But - these are the jobs which will be in demand & will command a higher pay. Those jobs that just fill 100 rxs/shift, day after day will be in less demand since they're already being outsourced to central fill areas (Kaiser does this). Likewise, in CA - pyxis checks are no longer done by pharmacists - techs do them all (thankfully!!!). All of the large chains are looking into centralizing fills to reduce costs.

You think its crazy that people could lose jobs but the salaries don't go down? Not so much - I've lived thru two of those cycles - 1978-80 & 1985-87. My income never went down, but during those years we lost the pharmacists who were either the newest hires or who had the fewest skills.

Academia is one of the last groups which stays in touch with changes in the profession. I hate to keep referring people back to journal articles - but go read the Jan issue of ASHP. Academics has their own agenda & it is not tied to the marketplace.

 

[ZpackSux]

14 of spades - I don't know how long you've been in pharmacy, but I've lived thru lots of cycles of the profession & altho your Econ 101 class might have told you one thing - it, at least in my professional lifetime, has not been borne out.

As Zpak said (& I can't believe you'd actually be so short-sighted as to refer to his "limited reasoning skills" since he's had years of hiring, firing & decision making with how & how many employees he will have...), the whole demand of our profession & complex.

You state the influence of females has not had any effect - you're not only wrong, but the influence of part-time work has had an effect on both males & females within the industry. Many of both genders just do not want to work 40 hrs/wk. Thats why we are currently one of the few professions in which 20-24 hrs/wk is considered full-time for benefits.

At some point, in the not so distant future, the supply of the "ordinary" nonclinically skilled pharmacist will indeed exceed the demand - both in institutitonal & retail settings. This will drive the demand for these limited pharmacists down, but it will not drive down their salaries. No one - NO ONE takes a pay cut - they just hire fewer of you to do those routine, lesser judgmental jobs (so - it reduces the payroll for the employer, but doesn't affect the remaining employees).

The jobs which will require you to use your clinical skills - & Wags is indeed one of the leaders on the retail side of this in some parts of the country (not mine) - will require pharmacists to be very, very clinically skilled. If they'll check an rx or two - fine. But - these are the jobs which will be in demand & will command a higher pay. Those jobs that just fill 100 rxs/shift, day after day will be in less demand since they're already being outsourced to central fill areas (Kaiser does this). Likewise, in CA - pyxis checks are no longer done by pharmacists - techs do them all (thankfully!!!). All of the large chains are looking into centralizing fills to reduce costs.

You think its crazy that people could lose jobs but the salaries don't go down? Not so much - I've lived thru two of those cycles - 1978-80 & 1985-87. My income never went down, but during those years we lost the pharmacists who were either the newest hires or who had the fewest skills.

Academia is one of the last groups which stays in touch with changes in the profession. I hate to keep referring people back to journal articles - but go read the Jan issue of ASHP. Academics has their own agenda & it is not tied to the marketplace.

Your salary never went down cuz you gots nice legs!!😍

 

[sdn1977]

Your salary never went down cuz you gots nice legs!!😍

well..you gotta use the assets you have😀 !

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

Furthermore 14 of spades, pharmacy schools dont need any reason to decrease their enrollment. Their enrollment is more or less keep in check by the accrediation of pharmacy board.

 

[Mentis]

At this point it looks like we'll continue seeing large increases, followed by a leveling off. The question really becomes, how fast or intense will the leveling off be? I remember at one point, computer science was a huge field, but because of its popularity, the market saturated very quickly and it was damn near impossible to find a job. My mother actually experienced the full effect of this. She was in school at the time the jobs were in demand, but by the time she was finished, she couldn't get hired. So, she just moved into the medical field and had no problems. 😀

 

[dr of rx]

since sdn and z-pak said everything on my mind, i'll just add a 👍

 

[qwopty99]

ok - it became clear to me yesterday that we are in fact talking about different things. aren't we talking about new graduates? should i remind u of the title of this thread, "Increasing number of pharmacy graduates". so let me rephrase my thesis, with your new understanding of the thread:

IF THERE IS AN OVER-SUPPLY, IT WILL DECREASE SALARIES. IT WILL DECREASE THE STARTING SALARY OF NEW PHARMACISTS IN PARTICULAR.

in fact, you seem to agree here:

My income never went down, but during those years we lost the pharmacists who were either the newest hires or who had the fewest skills.

between having lower salary, and not being hired at all, i'd say the difference lies in position on the same continuum. but really, the reality isn't what u show.

if walgreens can hire one pharmacist at 45 000, but finds another (who is unemployed and unable to find work) who is willing to work for 35 000, who do u think the manager will choose? what if the pharmacy across the street is only paying their pharmacist 30 000? who will have the competitive advantage then? if supply becomes too plentiful, salaries go down, and supply and demand re-equilibrate.

i don't know why u folks think Adam Smith's economic theory doesn't apply to the field of pharmacy. live in your little bubble, at your own peril.

and as for total average salary increases (which is what u folks are arguing, which only has a tangential relation with the topic of this thread). there is something called inflation. have u heard of this thing before? a pharmacist might make 45 000 this year, and 45 001 in the year 2035. i do not truly consider that an increase.

personally, i'd be afraid of an economic environment in which walgreens can open up 1500 or 7000 or 15 000 new stores (or whatever number) and expect them to be filled. cause that does suggest somewhat that pharmacy schools are producing enough grads to fill those stores. it also suggests that perhaps the schools would be producing too many grads in an environment where walgreens ISN'T replicating like mushrooms. and that day will come.

 

[qwopty99]

At this point it looks like we'll continue seeing large increases, followed by a leveling off. The question really becomes, how fast or intense will the leveling off be? I remember at one point, computer science was a huge field, but because of its popularity, the market saturated very quickly and it was damn near impossible to find a job. My mother actually experienced the full effect of this. She was in school at the time the jobs were in demand, but by the time she was finished, she couldn't get hired. So, she just moved into the medical field and had no problems. 😀

good post. 👍

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

At this point it looks like we'll continue seeing large increases, followed by a leveling off. The question really becomes, how fast or intense will the leveling off be? I remember at one point, computer science was a huge field, but because of its popularity, the market saturated very quickly and it was damn near impossible to find a job. My mother actually experienced the full effect of this. She was in school at the time the jobs were in demand, but by the time she was finished, she couldn't get hired. So, she just moved into the medical field and had no problems. 😀

You cannot compare computer science to pharmacy. First of all, a pharmacist is a licensed professional. We also have an accreditation board. That means that if they feel the need to decrease graduates because of an oversupply, they can simply stop renewing accrediations (This is what they did with medical schools. There was a report that there would be a surplus of physcians leading to less accreditation and renewal of accrediation, and hence leading to a critical shortage of physcians today). Computer science on the other hand dont have this protection. Furthermore, the nature of pharmacy is different in that your prescription cannot be filled overseas (due to counterfeit issues and other problems).

 

[Mentis]

You cannot compare computer science to pharmacy. First of all, a pharmacist is a licensed professional. We also have an accreditation board. That means that if they feel the need to decrease graduates because of an oversupply, they can simply stop renewing accrediations (This is what they did with medical schools. There was a report that there would be a surplus of physcians leading to less accreditation and renewal of accrediation, and hence leading to a critical shortage of physcians today). Computer science on the other hand dont have this protection. Furthermore, the nature of pharmacy is different in that your prescription cannot be filled overseas (due to counterfeit issues and other problems).

I was simply pointing out an alternative scenario...Like I said, the medical field won't likely have problems like this due to the very nature of the job.

 

[qwopty99]

You cannot compare computer science to pharmacy. We also have an accreditation board. That means that if they feel the need to decrease graduates because of an oversupply, they can simply stop renewing accrediations

Academia is one of the last groups which stays in touch with changes in the profession. I hate to keep referring people back to journal articles - but go read the Jan issue of ASHP. Academics has their own agenda & it is not tied to the marketplace.

This is what they did with medical schools. There was a report that there would be a surplus of physcians leading to less accreditation and renewal of accrediation, and hence leading to a critical shortage of physcians today.

1. show me the report.
2. which medical schools have had their renewal for accreditation denied?
3. so ur telling me there was going to be a surplus of MDs, but they fixed the problem, and now there's a critical shortage?
4. who's making stuff up?

 

[sdn1977]

1. show me the report.
2. which medical schools have had their renewal for accreditation denied?
3. so ur telling me there was going to be a surplus of MDs, but they fixed the problem, and now there's a critical shortage?
4. who's making stuff up?

Well, the quote you took from me you can easily access from the journal article I cited - Jan ASHP 2007 - go find it.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

http://www.studentdoctor.net/?p=9#more-9

the link above is an article that briefly describes how the AMA say that there would be an oversupply of graduates. If you want the report, you can contact AMA for it.

What I am telling you is that back then, AMA estimated that there is going to be a surplus of physicians, which led to a decrease in graduates. Nobody is making any stuff up.

 

[qwopty99]

Well, the quote you took from me you can easily access from the journal article I cited - Jan ASHP 2007 - go find it.

not that one. re-read the post - i BOLDED the word report, the one i was referring to. anyways - u brought up the ASHP report cause u were lambasting it. why would i want to refer to that one?

so medicine stalled their enrollment. not opening new schools and denial of accreditation are two different things. again, has any medical school had their renewal for accreditation denied?

anyways - is there any reason to believe pharmacy would be willing to freeze or cut back its enrollment? this thread seems to suggest otherwise. read the very two sentences of the very first post in this thread.

 

[qwopty99]

just to let u know, a group of pharmacists cannot unilaterally decide that there is too much competition in their field, then cut their own supply.

there's something called anti-trust.

any collective efforts to reduce their own competition will easily be brought before the courts.

so any claims that over-saturation of pharmacists can easily be cured by "ceasing to accredit schools" is pure fantasy. if ur the president of a pharmacy school, will u be the one to volunteer that ur program is no longer accredited? and on what grounds?

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

14 of spades, i am not sure how far you are into a pharmacy program. However it is common knowledge for even a pharmacy applicant to know that they have to apply to an accredited pharmacy school in order to take their license exam. A pharmacy school once accredited, will be granted accrediation for x amount of years. It is not up to the dean to volunteer his school for accreditation. Once the x amount of years (anywhere from being accredited from 2-6 years), the school is up for evaluation again. From your logic, a pharmacy school can be accredited and then not teach, or do anything to save money degrading itself to the level of a clown school and still be consider a pharmacy school.

About the anti-trust issue, when have I ever even said that there is a group of pharmacists can come together and uni-laterally decide that there is too much competition in the field? What I did say was that politically, the government, and the board of pharmacy in your state can do a lot to prevent an oversupply, not that they need to.

Furthermore, I have to politely remind you that this forum is for information purposes. If you are here strictly to troll, i am going to end our conversation right here. If the information that I provided to you from what I know is not what you like, you do not have to listen to it. However, calling what I said as "fantasy" or asking who is making stuff up, is not needed and unprofessional.

Lastly, I just want to comment that besides the fact your basic economics 101 does not apply to pharmacy, accreditation has nothing to do with what the original poster asked.

 

[twester]

There are no sure things in life. There's risk everywhere. Students assume a substantial risk no matter what discipline they choose to study. I think students in professional programs take on more financial risk, but (for the time being) assume less professional risk. The financial risk is related solely to the possibility of life interfering in academic success (if I were to flunk out at this point, I'd be financially ruined). Any professional risk relates to the possibility that hordes of pharmacists will suddenly appear on the market and salaries will plummet or that there will be some breakthrough in artificial intelligence and we'll all be replaced by androids. Just because something is possible doesn't make it likely. Personally, I'm comfortable with the level of risk that I'm taking - all things considered.

 

[FungManX]

Hey guys, I'm in an RN-BSN program right now after having been rejected post interview from Pharm school last year. I'm thinking of re-applying to Pharm but this specific aspect of pharm has really turned me off about it.. I'm not sure about job stability at all anymore.

Another thing that I thought was disturbing was the fact that robots are coming out to do some of the pharmacists job:

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/01/22/biz/news02.txt

http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/40745/Robots_Replacing_Human_Pharmacists.html

http://info.umc.edu/news/?n=mcnews&id=3029

The last link is an article from the university of Mississippi here is a direct quote:

"We were able to shave a pharmacist position out of this area because we didn’t need the manpower anymore,” said Michael Todaro, director of pharmacy services at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.

What do you guys all think? is pharmacy the right place to be ?

 

[qwopty99]

14 of spades, i am not sure how far you are into a pharmacy program. However it is common knowledge for even a pharmacy applicant to know that they have to apply to an accredited pharmacy school in order to take their license exam. A pharmacy school once accredited, will be granted accrediation for x amount of years. It is not up to the dean to volunteer his school for accreditation. Once the x amount of years (anywhere from being accredited from 2-6 years), the school is up for evaluation again. From your logic, a pharmacy school can be accredited and then not teach, or do anything to save money degrading itself to the level of a clown school and still be consider a pharmacy school.

About the anti-trust issue, when have I ever even said that there is a group of pharmacists can come together and uni-laterally decide that there is too much competition in the field? What I did say was that politically, the government, and the board of pharmacy in your state can do a lot to prevent an oversupply, not that they need to.

Furthermore, I have to politely remind you that this forum is for information purposes. If you are here strictly to troll, i am going to end our conversation right here. If the information that I provided to you from what I know is not what you like, you do not have to listen to it. However, calling what I said as "fantasy" or asking who is making stuff up, is not needed and unprofessional.

Lastly, I just want to comment that besides the fact your basic economics 101 does not apply to pharmacy, accreditation has nothing to do with what the original poster asked.

"my" logic is that pharmacy schools don't lose accreditation as easily as you make it out to be. what will happen to the graduates of a particular school if their school loses accreditation? you'd think they'd lobby against such an action, don't u? and if u think the "loss of accreditation" of pharmacy schools is going to solve the phamacist over-supply problem in the future, then u really are living in a fantasy world. who on earth would count their professional existence on that?

anyways - i've stated my opinion. my opinion came out very early on in this thread when i didn't think all those new walgreens were necessarily good (a good sign) for pharmacy. i stated my reasons why. i challenged the rebuttals. is this called trolling? maybe i'm missing the point of internet chat forums. if i wanted to be somewhere where everyone agreed with me, then maybe i should just stay at home and play with my transformers.


good day.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

14 of spades, I never said that accrediation alone will solve the problem of oversurpluses. I merely point out that you CANNOT compare pharmacy to computer engineer. There is a difference between challenging someones rebuttal and attacking it. I hope you would know the difference one day. Lastly, once again, how far are you along in the pharmacy program? It allows me to have a better understanding of what you know and dont know, and allow me to communicate to you better. Why? because it seems as if you dont even understand the concept of accrediation from what you are saying.

As for now, yes it is actually quite easy for a board to say hey, we wont accredit new pharmacy schools anymore or that a pharmacy school can lose accrediation. Furthermore, students can lobby, but they cannot change anything. They simply just have to transfer to a school that is accredited. It is up to the student to find out if a school is accredited or not before entering into a pharmacy program. Concerning the graduates, once they get their license, they are good. You said who on earth would count on that? Well i just gave you the example of how in the 1960s-1980s that there was an expected surplus of physcians and look at what happen.

 

[ZpackSux]

ok - it became clear to me yesterday that we are in fact talking about different things. aren't we talking about new graduates? should i remind u of the title of this thread, "Increasing number of pharmacy graduates". so let me rephrase my thesis, with your new understanding of the thread:

IF THERE IS AN OVER-SUPPLY, IT WILL DECREASE SALARIES. IT WILL DECREASE THE STARTING SALARY OF NEW PHARMACISTS IN PARTICULAR.

in fact, you seem to agree here:



between having lower salary, and not being hired at all, i'd say the difference lies in position on the same continuum. but really, the reality isn't what u show.

if walgreens can hire one pharmacist at 45 000, but finds another (who is unemployed and unable to find work) who is willing to work for 35 000, who do u think the manager will choose? what if the pharmacy across the street is only paying their pharmacist 30 000? who will have the competitive advantage then? if supply becomes too plentiful, salaries go down, and supply and demand re-equilibrate.

i don't know why u folks think Adam Smith's economic theory doesn't apply to the field of pharmacy. live in your little bubble, at your own peril.

and as for total average salary increases (which is what u folks are arguing, which only has a tangential relation with the topic of this thread). there is something called inflation. have u heard of this thing before? a pharmacist might make 45 000 this year, and 45 001 in the year 2035. i do not truly consider that an increase.

personally, i'd be afraid of an economic environment in which walgreens can open up 1500 or 7000 or 15 000 new stores (or whatever number) and expect them to be filled. cause that does suggest somewhat that pharmacy schools are producing enough grads to fill those stores. it also suggests that perhaps the schools would be producing too many grads in an environment where walgreens ISN'T replicating like mushrooms. and that day will come.

First, you can't apply your simple logic of supply and demand to salary.. and why don't you show us the Adam Smith's economic theory on how it pertains to the salary of a highly complicated profession? With reference.

There is a reason why Economics doesn't end with 101. Decrease in labor demand is followed by a decrease in # of people entering the profession eventually leading to an undersupply. It follows a cycyle to attain an equilbrium which is not static.

There are many jobs with oversupply of applicants and limited available positions. Yet the salary doesn't decrease...like Fireman, UPS driver, airline pilots, ..

Show me an example of profession with a decrease in slary due to oversupply of labor pool. And I don't mean day labor.

And Wags planned to open stores even before the enrollment increase..not the other way around. Wags intention was more than to just increase business..it had a lot to do with real estate investment of buying up corner gas stations and turning the properties into a pharmacy. And because of the increase in demand, the pharmacy schools increased enrollment.

And when there is an oversupply of pharmacists with few jobs...the enrollment will decrease.

Your logic of someone taking less money to do the same job applies when companies bid for a job. But do you really see a job application process where the company is auctioning off a job to a low bidder? "hello..Joe Blow will do the job for 35K for a year..but if you will do it for 32K per year, you got the job."

There is an oversupply of Pharmacy Technicians.. but the salary keeps going up. hmmm...

Another reason your supply/demand vs Salary doesn't apply is Union...

It's not as simple and clear cut as Econ 101. Go read a little more and experience work force little more before you start a debate with pharmacists with years of experince and expertise in healthcare..

As you suggested,..I will leave pharmacy one day.. not to make it better..but knowing I have made a significant contribution and made it better....

 

[qwopty99]

we'll just agree to disagree.

my position is, if there is an over-supply of pharmacists (and i think it will happen), it will lead to a decrease in (particularly starting) salaries.

hey - it's always safe to bury your head in the sand.

Your logic of someone taking less money to do the same job applies when companies bid for a job. But do you really see a job application process where the company is auctioning off a job to a low bidder? "hello..Joe Blow will do the job for 35K for a year..but if you will do it for 32K per year, you got the job."

i'm opening a pharmacy. in a saturated market, i post a job offer with salary of 32 000. but i guess no one will work for me since pharmacists are SUPPOSED to make >35 000. if they don't get an offer of >35 000, they just go unemployed. the option to work at a lower salary obviously does not exist.

what new grad needs to pay back loans anyways?

 

[genesis09]

Hey guys, I'm in an RN-BSN program right now after having been rejected post interview from Pharm school last year. I'm thinking of re-applying to Pharm but this specific aspect of pharm has really turned me off about it.. I'm not sure about job stability at all anymore.

Another thing that I thought was disturbing was the fact that robots are coming out to do some of the pharmacists job:

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/01/22/biz/news02.txt

http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/40745/Robots_Replacing_Human_Pharmacists.html

http://info.umc.edu/news/?n=mcnews&id=3029

The last link is an article from the university of Mississippi here is a direct quote:

"We were able to shave a pharmacist position out of this area because we didn’t need the manpower anymore,” said Michael Todaro, director of pharmacy services at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.

What do you guys all think? is pharmacy the right place to be ?

Those machines are more of a threat to pharmacy techs than pharmacists. All the new technology has to do with the speeding up of the actual physical dispensing.

 

[ZpackSux]

we'll just agree to disagree.

my position is, if there is an over-supply of pharmacists (and i think it will happen), it will lead to a decrease in (particularly starting) salaries.

hey - it's always safe to bury your head in the sand.



i'm opening a pharmacy. in a saturated market, i post a job offer with salary of 32 000. but i guess no one will work for me since pharmacists are SUPPOSED to make >35 000. if they don't get an offer of >35 000, they just go unemployed. the option to work at a lower salary obviously does not exist.

what new grad needs to pay back loans anyways?

And what pharmacy applicant will apply to pharmacy school and invest 4 hard years and risk a large student loan if there is an oversupply, no jobs, and decrease in salary?

 

[qwopty99]

And what pharmacy applicant will apply to pharmacy school and invest 4 hard years and risk a large student loan if there is an oversupply, no jobs, and decrease in salary?

1. they don't have the grades for any other program.
2. they don't know any better.
3. if they keep hearing from pharmacy school academicians who say pharmacy is alive and well. and why wouldn't they - their own bread and butter is at stake.

Academia is one of the last groups which stays in touch with changes in the profession. I hate to keep referring people back to journal articles - but go read the Jan issue of ASHP. Academics has their own agenda & it is not tied to the marketplace.

however, if we accept your argument, then pharmacy will stop getting applicants, the schools will be less selective, then outcoming pharmacists will all be idi@ts.

the issue isn't number of applicants. the greater the number of applicants to any program, the better off that program is. they can be selective. look at medicine.

we're talking about too many graduates, not too many applicants.

as for medicine, there are fewer of them (relative to demand) compared to pharmacists. who makes more money?

 

[sdn1977]

14 - I can't really decide which side of this debate you're on - and actually, I don't care. It is an interesting debate though & altho you might now be aware, you've now touched on what is becoming a concern within the profession.

Since you highlighted my statement about academicians & you also referenced academics not wanting to rock the boat...I'd say, in many, many circumstances you could be right - about demand only - not salary.

I will still say, if you offer less than the going wage for a pharmacist, you won't get a pharmacist. But....what might indeed happen, is that the actual jobs will change. We have seen that already in institutional pharmacy - it requires a skilled clinician. Oh yeah - we can & do have those pharmacists who enter orders, field calls, etc....but, that marketplace is changing dramatically.

Likewise...for those who want to flee to the apparent high income life of retail - that more & more will be limited as well. We'll have less of a demand for that person who just takes new rxs over the phone & checks the rxs - again, it will take years, perhaps decades, but this field will change.

The ones who is suffer will be those who do not keep up or who do not choose their school wisely. (I'm disheartened to say that I previously said differently on this forum - but, unless you're imbued with that sense of independence, responsibility, integrity & desire for change while you're in school, you'll not likely get it later). So, yes, in that sense, I agree - we may someday have too many of the wrong kind of graduates who won't fit the marketplace.

So....I still don't feel the salaries will go down - they've not gone down in the 30 years of my being in the field. But, the jobs will change & go away. Some indeed may suffer for that.

 

[OHMAN0125]

1. they don't have the grades for any other program.
2. they don't know any better.
3. if they keep hearing from pharmacy school academicians who say pharmacy is alive and well. and why wouldn't they - their own bread and butter is at stake.



however, if we accept your argument, then pharmacy will stop getting applicants, the schools will be less selective, then outcoming pharmacists will all be idi@ts.

the issue isn't number of applicants. the greater the number of applicants to any program, the better off that program is. they can be selective. look at medicine.

we're talking about too many graduates, not too many applicants.

as for medicine, there are fewer of them (relative to demand) compared to pharmacists. who makes more money?

Wow man, you need to do more research. For medicine it depends on the field. For instance, no way in hell is there a higher demand of CT surgeons compared to the demand that is seen in pharmacy. I can leave med school now and find any pharm job for 100K. But if I became a CT surgeon I'd have to wait for one of those old guys to retire first. Further, the expansion of med schools (DOs in general) is out of control, far more out of control than pharmacy. There won't be an oversupply of pharmacists at this rate, but there is already an oversupply of certain medical fields. Even primary care is being eaten alive by NPs and they were the highest in demand. Yes, most docs make a good deal more money but they are noway as in demand as pharmacists in general.
SO basically, pharmacy has nothing to worry abou. Lol, furthermore in my opinion they are the most shielded group from government cuts. Unfortunately doctors and hospitals are the ones that are affected the most. I sure don't hear any pharmacists complaining about these things. Why? Because a big corporation such as Wal-mart can take the smaller reimbursements and still post large profits (ie. stocks, advertisements, contract deals).

 

[qwopty99]

14 - I can't really decide which side of this debate you're on - and actually, I don't care. It is an interesting debate though & altho you might now be aware, you've now touched on what is becoming a concern within the profession.

Since you highlighted my statement about academicians & you also referenced academics not wanting to rock the boat...I'd say, in many, many circumstances you could be right - about demand only - not salary.

I will still say, if you offer less than the going wage for a pharmacist, you won't get a pharmacist. But....what might indeed happen, is that the actual jobs will change. We have seen that already in institutional pharmacy - it requires a skilled clinician. Oh yeah - we can & do have those pharmacists who enter orders, field calls, etc....but, that marketplace is changing dramatically.

Likewise...for those who want to flee to the apparent high income life of retail - that more & more will be limited as well. We'll have less of a demand for that person who just takes new rxs over the phone & checks the rxs - again, it will take years, perhaps decades, but this field will change.

The ones who is suffer will be those who do not keep up or who do not choose their school wisely. (I'm disheartened to say that I previously said differently on this forum - but, unless you're imbued with that sense of independence, responsibility, integrity & desire for change while you're in school, you'll not likely get it later). So, yes, in that sense, I agree - we may someday have too many of the wrong kind of graduates who won't fit the marketplace.

So....I still don't feel the salaries will go down - they've not gone down in the 30 years of my being in the field. But, the jobs will change & go away. Some indeed may suffer for that.

this thread was indeed getting somewhat tiring. good reply.

i think any "over-saturation" will affect new graduates the most. that's my position. new graduates may end up stepping into an economic marketplace that wasn't as lucrative as they thought it would be when they first began pharm school. in a saturated market, they will likely be offered a starting pay quite lower than the "average" pharmacist wage across the nation - and this will be somewhat disappointing at first, until they realize the reality. firstly, they are a new grad, and it takes time to ramp up salary. secondly, the market has enough supply that they don't get offered 70K for their first job.

i'm quite sure the average wage of a pharmacist working in a small city (where they're the only show in town) is higher than in the big cities. again - it does come down to supply and demand. if that lone-pharmacist-city gets a second pharmacist the following year, we can reasonably expect that the first pharmacist's salary is at risk of going down, because his monopoly has now changed into competitive environment.

so anyways - getting back to the thread. its important that the educators/decision makers be apprised of the economic environment. currently, its healthy - but if they over-build new schools/new enrollment just to meet the commercial market TODAY, there is a risk there will be an over-supply at some point in the future.

my argument is that this "over-supply" WON'T cause new pharmacists to go unemployed, their starting salaries will simply be lower than in previous years.

 

[dr of rx]

Hey guys, I'm in an RN-BSN program right now after having been rejected post interview from Pharm school last year. I'm thinking of re-applying to Pharm but this specific aspect of pharm has really turned me off about it.. I'm not sure about job stability at all anymore.

Another thing that I thought was disturbing was the fact that robots are coming out to do some of the pharmacists job:

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/01/22/biz/news02.txt

http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/40745/Robots_Replacing_Human_Pharmacists.html

http://info.umc.edu/news/?n=mcnews&id=3029

The last link is an article from the university of Mississippi here is a direct quote:

"We were able to shave a pharmacist position out of this area because we didn’t need the manpower anymore,” said Michael Todaro, director of pharmacy services at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.

What do you guys all think? is pharmacy the right place to be ?

Robots are designed to streamline the dispensing/counting and help the pharmacist. If anything, this will replace a tech not a pharmacist.

We have a RapidScript now, and let me tell you, we could still use an extra pharmacist everyday.


With increasing demand for clinical services and patient education, exploding script volume, aging boomers, and hospital and retail growth, job security couldn't be higher.

 

[pkpd]

this thread was indeed getting somewhat tiring. good reply.

i think any "over-saturation" will affect new graduates the most. that's my position. new graduates may end up stepping into an economic marketplace that wasn't as lucrative as they thought it would be when they first began pharm school. in a saturated market, they will likely be offered a starting pay quite lower than the "average" pharmacist wage across the nation - and this will be somewhat disappointing at first, until they realize the reality. firstly, they are a new grad, and it takes time to ramp up salary. secondly, the market has enough supply that they don't get offered 70K for their first job.

i'm quite sure the average wage of a pharmacist working in a small city (where they're the only show in town) is higher than in the big cities. again - it does come down to supply and demand. if that lone-pharmacist-city gets a second pharmacist the following year, we can reasonably expect that the first pharmacist's salary is at risk of going down, because his monopoly has now changed into competitive environment.

so anyways - getting back to the thread. its important that the educators/decision makers be apprised of the economic environment. currently, its healthy - but if they over-build new schools/new enrollment just to meet the commercial market TODAY, there is a risk there will be an over-supply at some point in the future.

my argument is that this "over-supply" WON'T cause new pharmacists to go unemployed, their starting salaries will simply be lower than in previous years.

ummmm....are u bitter that retail pharmacists make >100k per year? And waiting to see the pay goes down? No offense but that's the aura that you are giving off in every post.

 

[qwopty99]

i'm just shooting off the cuff.