Is everyone worried for no reason?

[PharmD RPh]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Just a thought about the job market. I know things are tough out there and the atmosphere is not like they have been in the past, but are things really going to get that bad?

Change is inevitable in any profession. Did the advent of enhanced computer technology and internet put a scare into pharmacists in the 90s and was there a lot of doom and gloom then?

Is the profession just catching up and making the lazy pharmacists have to develop themselves more professional to keep themselves marketable to employers?

Everyone thinks pharmacy can be done without pharmacists, which by the way, I think is a joke. Where would the 10,000 phone calls my store receives a month go? And what about the 6,000 prescriptions? And what about that bogus pharmaceutical advice the patient receives from perhaps another healthcare provider which was incorrect.... what would happen to our patients?

I've just been thinking long and hard about the future of pharmacy and I think that everyone is just scared of CHANGE. The most recent reference everyone has of the profession is no longer the scenario and because of this, I just think everyone is freaking out.

Thoughts?

 

[moissanite69]

You have to step back and look at the big picture, then you would see how fast things have changed in such a short amount of time. I graduated in 1999, the job market for pharmacists was balanced (demand =supply). A lot of students in college were pursuing IT/computer technology fields because it was a very hot field. Some guy from ITT-tech with 18 months training could earn 40-45 dollars/hour, and pharmacists were still making barely 40 dollars/hour after spending 6+ years in pharmacy schools. Next, in 2003-2004, with CVS and Walgreens expansion, pharmacy became one of the hottest field. Graduates from pharmacy schools can earn up to 100K/year easily with sign on bonus + relocation. At the same time, the dot-com bubble bursted. Most IT workers were out of the jobs due to jobs being shipped to India, China for cheaper labor. What happened to these guys? They went back to school and tried to get into healthcare field (pharmacy, dentistry, medicine, nursing, and so on.). Now in 2011, economy sucks... Walgreens, CVS halts the chain expansion. Graduates from pharmacy schools grows bigger and bigger annually. So what happens next? Competition!.

What I don't understand is why more and more schools keep popping out annually. However, I soon realize that as long as there's a demand, there's always a supply. Students demand to go to pharmacy schools, so why not opening one to make money. A class size of 100 students x40,000 tuition/year = 4 millions/year. Pharmacy schools are usually 3 to 4 years...so a school would have 3x4 millions = 12 millions annual income. Subtract all the money for the professors, facility cost ,etc...the owner(s) of the new schools still pocket quite handsomely. So why not opening a new school??? Who cares about degrading the profession? Who cares about whether the students will find a job after? We don't force anyone to enroll in the first place.

I wrote several letters to ACPE telling them to be stricter on requirements of accrediting pharmacy schools, but no response so far. None. I don't even know if they even read them. I still don't understand why. But I am sure money is involved here. Pretty much.

In the meantime, we just have to work harder and be more positive, Hopefully when economy picks up, everyone will have a job.

 

[Momus]

We can be obsolete just like a milkman, typist, elevator operator... if a big enough change happens (law or technological advances) the job prospect could be cut to 1/2 or 3/4... so the worry is real!

 

[PharmD RPh]

Good points so far. While I do believe the threat is real, I think we, as pharmacists, sometimes have a muggy view of reality when it comes to looking at our profession because we can't view it from the outside without a bias.

We are the most educated health care professionals in pharmacotherapy. Think about how many times a day we yield "dumb" questions, but had we not been there to yield the "dumb" question, what could have happened to the patient? I think what we've viewed as traditional job duties of a pharmacist may start to be phased out by technological advances or they may become more efficient. If we really want to go down the technological road, then any profession could be phased out by robots or the like, if we take the sci-fi viewpoint. I see our role evolving and becoming more integrated in the healthcare system. See following link of announcement between Walgreen and Johns Hopkins: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Johns-Hopkins-Medicine-and-bw-617873111.html?x=0&.v=1

What about the baby boomers increase in consumption of RX products and new therapies that increase demand in RX products and what happens if national healthcare opens insurance to 30 million uninsured patients? What about the millions of undiagnosed diabetics and hypertensive patients that may be reached by pharmacists through health screenings we're beginning to do?

We are cost efficient. We'll always have threats to the profession, but tell me one profession that doesn't have a threat to it? PAs and NPs are encroaching on family practice and even specialty practices. There is an emerging role of dental therapists which is the equivalent of a NP/PA to medicine. They are now legal in about 5 states. Optometrists are lobbying to try to expand their role to do lasik surgery. You get the point. There will always be threats.

To the other post regarding supply and demand. There was a high demand for us at one point. We all witnessed that. At this point in the game, I would have to question anyone looking to go to pharmacy school and shell out the outrageous tuition for an unknown/insecure job prospectus. While I don't have any statistics, I'm sure schools have to being see some sort of effect in the applications from all of this. I'm sure that stat will come out in due time.

The whole point of this post, is that I really do believe if we take a macro viewpoint of the profession, it's really not as bad as some make it seem. Sure its tough, but the whole economy is tough on everyone right now and we've found ourselves not immune to the times anymore. I know physicians and dentists in my city that have had to relocate to find jobs, so it's not unique to pharmacy. One physician I know that practices in a non-private practice said he is expected to see more patients than before and has less medical assistant help etc. He is feeling the crunch.

 

[museabuse]

Do you think CVS and walgreens will use the supply to their advantage by the following:

1. Be very selective with their hires, only hire pharmacist you already know can preform. Not some fresh new grad with no retail experience. stop spending extra money that it costs to sponsor visas.

2. Start hiring at 40 dollars an hour in high supply markets and eventually everywhere once supply is there. Stop giving raises and only give bonuses for highly performing stores. Eventually they can stop bonuses and the bonus for performing well is you get to keep your job.

3. Have an agreement with new schools that if you want your student to have a job here(ie not default on their loan payments), pay us 50k and we will sign 3 year contract with that student. Or they could ask for more depending on supply. This might cause students at public school not to find jobs at first but then the public schools would have to increase tuition to match private schools to compete.

4. Start finding stupid reasons to fire older pharmacists making over 50 dollars an hour. All you have to do is slip up one time, give gift card to Medicare pt, Forget to log a c2, lAte by 2 minutes, bogus customer complaint.

I am not saying these can be done right away but eventually and slowly as supply increases, i think this can happen. Especially since we are not unionized. It is not right or ethical, but since when do the chains care about that. The bottom line is how much profit can they can make. Oh and I don't think hospitals are immune to something like this happening.

 

[Its Z]

Do you think CVS and walgreens will use the supply to their advantage by the following:

1. Be very selective with their hires, only hire pharmacist you already know can preform. Not some fresh new grad with no retail experience. stop spending extra money that it costs to sponsor visas.

2. Start hiring at 40 dollars an hour in high supply markets and eventually everywhere once supply is there. Stop giving raises and only give bonuses for highly performing stores. Eventually they can stop bonuses and the bonus for performing well is you get to keep your job.

3. Have an agreement with new schools that if you want your student to have a job here(ie not default on their loan payments), pay us 50k and we will sign 3 year contract with that student. Or they could ask for more depending on supply. This might cause students at public school not to find jobs at first but then the public schools would have to increase tuition to match private schools to compete.

4. Start finding stupid reasons to fire older pharmacists making over 50 dollars an hour. All you have to do is slip up one time, give gift card to Medicare pt, Forget to log a c2, lAte by 2 minutes, bogus customer complaint.

I am not saying these can be done right away but eventually and slowly as supply increases, i think this can happen. Especially since we are not unionized. It is not right or ethical, but since when do the chains care about that. The bottom line is how much profit can they can make. Oh and I don't think hospitals are immune to something like this happening.

Employers can and they will if not already. I doubt they'll use the termination method to lower the salary as this risks age discrimination suits. They will simply cut hours to 32 hour work week etc first. And if they decide to simply lower the salary, they can.

Union or not if pharmacists decide to strike, do you think the public will sympathize? Hello no... some will be shocked at first pharmacists make $50 per hour... and the rest will just say pharmacists should make $25 per hour.

I'm just not sure there will be 12,000 to 14,000 pharmacist vacancies every year to meet the supply of new grads. Math just doesn't add up.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

Employers can and they will if not already. I doubt they'll use the termination method to lower the salary as this risks age discrimination suits. They will simply cut hours to 32 hour work week etc first. And if they decide to simply lower the salary, they can.

Union or not if pharmacists decide to strike, do you think the public will sympathize? Hello no... some will be shocked at first pharmacists make $50 per hour... and the rest will just say pharmacists should make $25 per hour.

I'm just not sure there will be 12,000 to 14,000 pharmacist vacancies every year to meet the supply of new grads. Math just doesn't add up.

Just to add to Z's point, I am a retail pharmacist who works in the NY/Long Island region. The only new positions opening up are upper management "re-aligning" their teams. That is corporate terminology for firing a bunch of pharmacists who are not meeting metrics. These positions will be filled up by company interns.

I dont think corporate will cut pharmacists hours to 32 hours a week (with the exception of floaters). I can still say that CVS sees its pharmacists as a driver of growth. (Obviously some other chains like Walgreen dont). It doesnt make sense for them to cut a pharmacist's hours to save a few bucks because they will lose money in the long run. It also doesnt make sense for them to cut incentives or raises as raises are tied to performances and there has to be incentives to raise performances.

This means that the best thing to do is to cut down on interns, stop hiring new pharmacists (since benefits are 30-50k per pharmacist), and to add increase workload to current pharmacists. The last one is the key part as this is what corporatse are doing to get more for the same bucks, so to speak.

 

[PharmD RPh]

Do you think CVS and walgreens will use the supply to their advantage by the following:

1. Be very selective with their hires, only hire pharmacist you already know can preform. Not some fresh new grad with no retail experience. stop spending extra money that it costs to sponsor visas.

2. Start hiring at 40 dollars an hour in high supply markets and eventually everywhere once supply is there. Stop giving raises and only give bonuses for highly performing stores. Eventually they can stop bonuses and the bonus for performing well is you get to keep your job.

3. Have an agreement with new schools that if you want your student to have a job here(ie not default on their loan payments), pay us 50k and we will sign 3 year contract with that student. Or they could ask for more depending on supply. This might cause students at public school not to find jobs at first but then the public schools would have to increase tuition to match private schools to compete.

4. Start finding stupid reasons to fire older pharmacists making over 50 dollars an hour. All you have to do is slip up one time, give gift card to Medicare pt, Forget to log a c2, lAte by 2 minutes, bogus customer complaint.

I am not saying these can be done right away but eventually and slowly as supply increases, i think this can happen. Especially since we are not unionized. It is not right or ethical, but since when do the chains care about that. The bottom line is how much profit can they can make. Oh and I don't think hospitals are immune to something like this happening.

But will supply actually increase if things are as bad as you say they will be? I don't think so. There will be some tipping point where the profession is no longer attractive for students. The image you paint, is not attractive to me.

Pharmacists are the money drivers for CVS and WAG. If they want to play like you describe, look for employee moral to tank. A happy employee is a productive, results oriented employee. Bonuses have been around for ages, and will still be around because they drive performance based incentives. Without them, there is little reason to drive results.

Most large companies have equal pay policies, so I don't think they'll just all of a sudden drop salary by $15/hr for new grads, but will probably go to performance based raises instead of uniform raises across the board. If you do your job well, you should be compensated better than someone that "needs improvement."

Your rationale is extreme and you make unprecedented assumptions based on no facts.

 

[PharmD RPh]

Employers can and they will if not already. I doubt they'll use the termination method to lower the salary as this risks age discrimination suits. They will simply cut hours to 32 hour work week etc first. And if they decide to simply lower the salary, they can.

Union or not if pharmacists decide to strike, do you think the public will sympathize? Hello no... some will be shocked at first pharmacists make $50 per hour... and the rest will just say pharmacists should make $25 per hour.

I'm just not sure there will be 12,000 to 14,000 pharmacist vacancies every year to meet the supply of new grads. Math just doesn't add up.

The only people that will be at 32 hours will be the relief pharmacists. It doesn't make sense to cut 40 hour pharmacists down to 32 when they can work those 8 hours collectively as a group and eliminate the need to hire new pharmacists (which would get benefits).

I actually got a raise this year. It was much as compared to the past, but it was enough to offset cost of living increases IMO. We're still able to pick up OT shifts in my area as well.

Let's assume 13,000 new grads a year. I do agree, that is too many for the market to absorb, but under the law of supply and demand, shouldn't the market naturally bring itself back into equilibrium? Anyway, to assume 13,000 - 2500 into residency = 10,500 - 4000 retiring = 6,500 - 2000 (new store openings. WAG and CVS still opening ~200/year + other chains/new hospitals etc.) = 4,500. Take into account women working part-time/on maternity leave and I'd say we're left with a small surplus. This equation also doesn't take into account for an increase demand for pharmacist duties such as immunizations, expanding scope of practice, health screening expansion that is being pushed at the moment, national healthcare increase in demand, baby boomers aging, new drug therapies being approved that will can increased RX consumption etc.

Overall, I think a student looking to go into the profession should consider looking at other options for the time being, but for those of us already practicing, I don't think its the end of the world as we know it.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

But will supply actually increase if things are as bad as you say they will be? I don't think so. There will be some tipping point where the profession is no longer attractive for students. The image you paint, is not attractive to me.

Pharmacists are the money drivers for CVS and WAG. If they want to play like you describe, look for employee moral to tank. A happy employee is a productive, results oriented employee. Bonuses have been around for ages, and will still be around because they drive performance based incentives. Without them, there is little reason to drive results.

Most large companies have equal pay policies, so I don't think they'll just all of a sudden drop salary by $15/hr for new grads, but will probably go to performance based raises instead of uniform raises across the board. If you do your job well, you should be compensated better than someone that "needs improvement."

Your rationale is extreme and you make unprecedented assumptions based on no facts.

This is assuming that students are rationale. They are not. Look at law schools, the law profession as a whole is over saturated 10 years ago. Yet students continue to apply to law schools. Your typical pharmacy school candidate is either 18 year old applying to whatever their parents tell them to or your bachelor who knows nothing about pharmacy and see brouchers promising them 100k jobs once they graduate.

 

[Ackj]

This is assuming that students are rationale. They are not. Look at law schools, the law profession as a whole is over saturated 10 years ago. Yet students continue to apply to law schools. Your typical pharmacy school candidate is either 18 year old applying to whatever their parents tell them to or your bachelor who knows nothing about pharmacy and see brouchers promising them 100k jobs once they graduate.

👍

I didn't know about any doom and gloom when I was finding out about the field. I worked in a pharmacy during high school and enjoyed it, heard that pharmacy was a good field to get into, went ahead and did it. That was all in the past 5-6 years. It's still a big secret that there aren't many jobs and a huge boom of students.

 

[pharmschooler]

It's still a big secret that there aren't many jobs and a huge boom of students.

😕
You think it's some big secret? Heck, everybody on here has read about it, and I'd imagine that's close to half the entering pharmacy classes.

 

[owlegrad]

#3 is ridiculously far-fetched. I don't think anything like that has ever happened in any field. Why would a school pay for their students to get a job anywhere? That just doesn't happen.

 

[Allure]

We'll all be dead by December 21, 2012...Who cares if there's a surplus

 

[museabuse]

#3 is ridiculously far-fetched. I don't think anything like that has ever happened in any field. Why would a school pay for their students to get a job anywhere? That just doesn't happen.

If it gets bad to where 50 percent of grads are having hard time to finding jobs and defaulting on the 1500 per month loan payment, then won't these schools face the possiblity ofnot being able to provide loans for their students?

They already pay for rotation sites why wouldn't they make a paid agreement with cvs and walgreens to hire only their students. It would be an extra thing they can use to lure higher rated students and they can advertise we have 90 percent job placement rating. Its not like they cant afford it... The board members will just have to wait a little longer to become billionaires.

 

[TonyRx]

Let's assume 13,000 new grads a year. I do agree, that is too many for the market to absorb, but under the law of supply and demand, shouldn't the market naturally bring itself back into equilibrium? Anyway, to assume 13,000 - 2500 into residency = 10,500 - 4000 retiring = 6,500 - 2000 (new store openings. WAG and CVS still opening ~200/year + other chains/new hospitals etc.) = 4,500. Take into account women working part-time/on maternity leave and I'd say we're left with a small surplus. This equation also doesn't take into account for an increase demand for pharmacist duties such as immunizations, expanding scope of practice, health screening expansion that is being pushed at the moment, national healthcare increase in demand, baby boomers aging, new drug therapies being approved that will can increased RX consumption etc.

This was kinda my point in a previous thread a few months back, just not as detailed. I do think things are changing, mostly in the wrong direction, but am still optimistic about our job market moving forward. I was pretty surprised to find out that out of our current Pharmacist workforce (~300k), about ~37% of that workforce is of age 55yr/old or older. That makes for ~110k Pharmacists that are nearing that retirement zone from now into the next 10-15 years. This alone will help alleviate some of the pressure from influx of schools opening, not to mention all the statements that were articulated above by PharmD RPh. But, this is not going to stop me from looking into ways to better myself, like Masters degree or what not.

 

[Hibiclens]

The only people that will be at 32 hours will be the relief pharmacists. It doesn't make sense to cut 40 hour pharmacists down to 32 when they can work those 8 hours collectively as a group and eliminate the need to hire new pharmacists (which would get benefits).

I actually got a raise this year. It was much as compared to the past, but it was enough to offset cost of living increases IMO. We're still able to pick up OT shifts in my area as well.

Let's assume 13,000 new grads a year. I do agree, that is too many for the market to absorb, but under the law of supply and demand, shouldn't the market naturally bring itself back into equilibrium? Anyway, to assume 13,000 - 2500 into residency = 10,500 - 4000 retiring = 6,500 - 2000 (new store openings. WAG and CVS still opening ~200/year + other chains/new hospitals etc.) = 4,500. Take into account women working part-time/on maternity leave and I'd say we're left with a small surplus. This equation also doesn't take into account for an increase demand for pharmacist duties such as immunizations, expanding scope of practice, health screening expansion that is being pushed at the moment, national healthcare increase in demand, baby boomers aging, new drug therapies being approved that will can increased RX consumption etc.

Overall, I think a student looking to go into the profession should consider looking at other options for the time being, but for those of us already practicing, I don't think its the end of the world as we know it.

The math on this does not include the 2500 coming out of residency a year. Or are you assuming there are 2500 clincial openings a year? Just wanted to be sure they are not forgotten.

 

[owlegrad]

The math on this does not include the 2500 coming out of residency a year. Or are you assuming there are 2500 clincial openings a year? Just wanted to be sure they are not forgotten.

For every one coming out, won't at least one more be going in to residency? In fact, aren't residencies expanding, thus taking more out of the equation rather than adding?

 

[owlegrad]

If it gets bad to where 50 percent of grads are having hard time to finding jobs and defaulting on the 1500 per month loan payment, then won't these schools face the possiblity ofnot being able to provide loans for their students?

They already pay for rotation sites why wouldn't they make a paid agreement with cvs and walgreens to hire only their students. It would be an extra thing they can use to lure higher rated students and they can advertise we have 90 percent job placement rating. Its not like they cant afford it... The board members will just have to wait a little longer to become billionaires.

Maybe someone else will feel like commenting on this. All I can say is no - this is not going to happen. No school is going to buy their students a job and no company would be willing to sign an exclusivity contract like that anyway. Higher only one school's graduates? Not likely.

 

[Its Z]

Some of y'all talk as if Floaters' hours getting cut to 32 is no big deal, rather expected. They're the ones who probably really need to work 40+ hours a week to begin with.

Quite a few hospitals have cut staffing back to 32 hours..under the "flex" staffing policy when the volume drops.

 

[Hibiclens]

For every one coming out, won't at least one more be going in to residency? In fact, aren't residencies expanding, thus taking more out of the equation rather than adding?

Before I get lost in the numbers here, the author considers those lost going into residency with the numbers, but does not consider those gained post-residency. That was my point/question.

 

[owlegrad]

Before I get lost in the numbers here, the author considers those lost going into residency with the numbers, but does not consider those gained post-residency. That was my point/question.

Gotcha, yes you need to consider both (or maybe neither), but certainly not just one or the other. Good catch, I missed that.

 

[museabuse]

Maybe someone else will feel like commenting on this. All I can say is no - this is not going to happen. No school is going to buy their students a job and no company would be willing to sign an exclusivity contract like that anyway. Higher only one school's graduates? Not likely.

It does seem far fetch, I'll agree but after working in retail, I see all the stupid things they do. Like getting written up because a tech got 0.1 hour of over time. Have to go to mandatory meetings upaid on days off for training because when you call patients asking them to fill their maintainance meds you didn't fill 30% of their meds.
When chains care that much about making and saving money it makes you think what else they wouldnt do for money and increase profit. Also I think diploma mills will do anything to remain in business, not lose their ability to supply federal loans and remain competitive if employers are hiring their students due to some tier system that has formed.

 

[blueclassring]

I work with several floaters with over 200K in student loans(they are stretching them out to 30 years, what?) and their hours vary from 24-32 per week. It's time to get worried folks. To make things worse, we may be on the edge of a strike.

 

[crazybob]

I work with several floaters with over 200K in student loans(they are stretching them out to 30 years, what?) and their hours vary from 24-32 per week. It's time to get worried folks. To make things worse, we may be on the edge of a strike.

And students are supposed to go through school and be continuously worried? That makes school even more difficult.

 

[owlegrad]

I work with several floaters with over 200K in student loans(they are stretching them out to 30 years, what?) and their hours vary from 24-32 per week. It's time to get worried folks. To make things worse, we may be on the edge of a strike.

Details, please. What part of the country? Why? Etc.

 

[Redheadedpharm]

I think there are some legitimate concerns for the profession of pharmacy going forward but I would temper those concerns with some positive factors that will also impact the profession going forward. To me there will be three main factors going forward that will drive demand up for pharmacy services:

1. Economic improvement. The reality is that the U.S. economy is still struggling to recover from the recent recession. Once that does finally happen expect companies to grow and hire new workers including pharmacy chains. How long this will take and what will be the impetus behind the improvement is your guess as much as it is mine. But I expect the economy to improve at least marginally over the next few years. When that happens expect the chains to restart their "expansion wars" in the U.S. and watch them build stores like crazy.

2. Baby boomers. If there is one positive driving force for pharmacy going forward in the next decade it is the baby boomers reaching retirement age. They want to stay active and relatively healthy in their golden years and it will take prescriptions for many of them to achieve that desired lifestyle. And these are not small numbers either. Baby boomers will drive up demand for pharmacists. It will just be a matter of how much and how soon.

3. Attrition. Pharmacists will quit, change professions, retire, start families, or whatever else drives them away from active practice. This may not be a small factor either. There are many pharmacists that are reaching that age where retirement is imminent and some will simply hang up their white coats and hit the golf course. When that happens new pharmacists will be needed to replace those leaving the profession for whatever reason. And many more pharmacists will cut back their hours to accommodate starting or expanding their families. That can impact demand as well.

Sure there are negative impacts on the demand for pharmacists that could impact the overall supply/demand equation in the near future but I think the doom and gloom talk I am hearing more and more recently is a little overblown. To me though the economy is the key and if that can improve we will be in a situation where there is plenty of work for anyone willing to put in the hours going forward. Don't get too caught up in the tight job market right now. These things tend to cycle back and forth and things will swing back the other way soon!

 

[psychoandy]

Is the profession just catching up and making the lazy pharmacists have to develop themselves more professional to keep themselves marketable to employers?

I think this point is probably the most important. As a recent graduate, everyone is like "Cs get degrees". But from my class, most of the C people are unemployed and almost all of the A people have residency or retail with their own store or preferred region. And as someone who worked instead of studied, I also saw the "lifers" who just stay under the radar and do as little as possible and are "not my problem" types.

Now that the market is pretty terrible for new grads, I think (well, maybe hope) that there will be much more emphasis on hiring only the best and brightest (or niche specialists like pharmd/mba or pharmD/CS background), as opposed to warm bodies that can just enter and check rx. Sucks for the individual, but good for the profession.

 

[cjhrph]

Things are getting real ugly. In NYS we now have 7 pharmacy schools. In 2004 we had about 500 new licenses issued/year, in 2010 it was almost 1200.


There's currently only 5000 registered pharmacies in NY, including NYC. At this rate, what will happen 5 years from now? Where will all these people find employment?

We're destroying our own profession..

 

[rxlea]

Yall are scaring me. I am going to cling to my intern position throughout school. I don't care how many sleepless nights I have. If I get into 4th year with a gpa >3.5, a couple of publications, and some leadership experience, I won't be as freaked as I am now. Why all the doom/gloom ALL.THE.TIME- over and over and over again... Crap, people. Don't yall got something else to talk about?

 

[cjhrph]

I wasn't trying to scare you. I was simply relaying objective public information from the NYS board of pharmacy.....these are the facts, at least here in NY.

It is what is it is...

 

[Its Z]

Crap, people. Don't yall got something else to talk about?

yes we do... In-N-Out... Photography... Cars..

 

[rxlea]

yes we do... In-N-Out... Photography... Cars..

So what's on the animal fries? I'll try them.

 

[Its Z]

So what's on the animal fries? I'll try them.

I have no idea. I just get the #1 and end up throwing away the fries. I'm not big on fried food nor fried starchy food.

 

[crazybob]

I have no idea. I just get the #1 and end up throwing away the fries. I'm not big on fried food nor fried starchy food.

Throw away the fries?? 😱

 

[rxlea]

I have no idea. I just get the #1 and end up throwing away the fries. I'm not big on fried food nor fried starchy food.

So what do you eat aside from In N Out? Do you like sushi? Indian? Thai? I had thai today... Spicy noodles with shrimp. Burned my mouth. Ina good way

 

[rxlea]

Throw away the fries?? 😱

Guess jhe doesn't love in n out as much asd he let's onm mentiroso

 

[Its Z]

Throw away the fries?? 😱

Scott Arkansas, famous for their Hub Cap Burgers...go try it.

Or Frontier Cafe on I-30 on the other side of the Electric Cowboy does a good hub cap burgers.

 

[Its Z]

Guess jhe doesn't love in n out as much asd he let's onm mentiroso

I don't even know why anyone serves fries..

And I don't go to burger joints to eat fries..

But I love sushi, thai, and cajun and most all seafood.

I do think I can cook Chinese food better than typical chinese restaurant though..since I have an outdoor high output stove and a wok.

No to Indian food.

 

[rxlea]

Next time you come through T town let's grab dinner and a drink- I know a good sushi place. Or you can just cook me some chinese

 

[crazybob]

Scott Arkansas, famous for their Hub Cap Burgers...go try it.

I'll try it the next time I go to England.

 

[Its Z]

Next time you come through T town let's grab dinner and a drink- I know a good sushi place. Or you can just cook me some chinese

But you aint got high output gas stove with a seasoned wok, do you.

 

[rxlea]

But you aint got high output gas stove with a seasoned wok, do you.

Not a high output stove, no. I have a seasone wok.

Whatevs. We could just go down to fourth and grab some good food and a beer.

 

[blueclassring]

No one is trying to scare you. We're documenting the reality as it is. If it gets much worse, we know why. CVS and Walgreens aren't going to open up a store at the rate they did in the past. The baby boomer/retirement thing is a good thing for our profession; an increase in medication use is almost a certainty in the coming years.

 

[jnmnh]

All this Thai talk is making me hungry! Got a couple purple ichiban and a couple green thai eggplants I need to collect from the garden and the gf is gonna make green curry tonight... mmmm.....

On the other hand, the doom & gloom makes me sad. But if 2/3rds of the current graduates have jobs, I don't expect to be in the bottom third. I just need to be able to get one in the same city as my lady (who is in another science/hospital field).

 

[crazybob]

All this Thai talk is making me hungry! Got a couple purple ichiban and a couple green thai eggplants I need to collect from the garden and the gf is gonna make green curry tonight... mmmm.....

On the other hand, the doom & gloom makes me sad. But if 2/3rds of the current graduates have jobs, I don't expect to be in the bottom third. I just need to be able to get one in the same city as my lady (who is in another science/hospital field).

If you know enough people, you'll hear about openings.

What about commuting and still living in the same city?

 

[jnmnh]

If you know enough people, you'll hear about openings.
What about commuting and still living in the same city?

I'm sure we'll work something out. They seem to be grooming her to take over her boss' job here where I'm in school. I plan on making a pretty good impression around here too 🙂

 

[IndustryPharmD]

Yall are scaring me.

Crap, people. Don't yall got something else to talk about?

Fear sells. Mass media figured that one out a looong time ago. 😀

 

[Printo]

This is why politics is so important. Many of pharmacists dont belong to any professional organization, like APhA for example. But the only way to ensure that pharmacists shape the future of the profession is to lobby for it in the local, state and federal legislatures. Those who giveth can taketh. We exist because laws are setup requiring prescriptions be filled and processed by pharmacists. Get involved in politics. We dont have to take hand-outs from Washington or lobby for them, but we can lobby to change laws in order to put greater power in the hands of pharmacists and to expand the scope of the profession.

GET INVOLVED!

 

[fattunesy]

The baby boomer/retirement thing is a good thing for our profession; an increase in medication use is almost a certainty in the coming years.

I have heard this repeated over and over again like it is some talisman that will ward off the dangers looming in the future. However, it just does not fit with retail business. There WILL be more prescriptions. The chains will have the SAME or FEWER pharmacists fill the greater volume. In the face of declining reimbursement from PBMs and a need to return consistently increasing shareholder value they really have no other choice. Pharmacists will have no choice but to comply...or the corporate overlords can just get an eager new grad with 200K in loans to come in and do it. Will it be dangerous for the customer? Hell yes. Will problems happen? Of course. Will pharmacists keep on working faster and faster, pushing more and more volume? Absolutely.

I do think eventually (7-10 years) things will improve again. Between now and then are some very tough years ahead.