New Position PA - Pharmacist Assistant - Problems for Pharmacists?

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

Chemist

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I've heard that a significant change to the profession of pharmacy is on its way, which could be a potentially bad thing for pharmacists. A new position, called a pharmacist assistant which is between a technician and a pharmacist is being pushed into effect. This position would allow the PA to dispense prescriptions in the absense of a pharmacist and perhaps counsel patients as well. This will likely reduce the need for pharmacists and lower pharmacists salary. This position will likely take over the retail sector, since retail really isn't very difficult compared to other areas of practice. A retail pharmacist may be non existant in the future. In the future, pharmacists will be making less money and won't be in as much demand as they are now. Unless somehow this position never becomes a reality!

Members don't see this ad.
 
I closed the other duplicate thread since I think this is a good discussion topic & I didn't want the responses to run all over the forum........

I'm going to have to give your topic more thought....do you have references to what you were reading? I've not seen this position in CA yet. Thanks!
 
I've never heard of this in Illinois.
Anyway, they would have to rewrite the pharmacy practice acts to allow this.

Pharmacist assistant used to be just another term for pharmacy tech.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
imo there can't be a pharmacy assistant position in the pharmacy field. from what i know you cannot counsel a patient unless you're a r.ph. or pharm d. if they haven't had the proper education how could they treat symptoms? how would one get become a pharmacy assistant? how many years of schooling must you take?

i agree with genesis if they do allow this, alot of things would change. there wouldn't be a need for pharmacists or technicians in the future.
 
My friend told me this. he's a retail tech. He said he saw this in a PTCB study guide from Pharmacy Trainer by Mark Greenwald (I think...). It definitely said this position would be in between a technician and a pharmacist. I think he said it is being pushed for in some states but doesn't specify which states... but I've also heard rumors about this from a pharmacist. Apparently it will probably require either a Bachelor's or Master's degree.
 
That's so strange, a pharmacist assistant would require a BS or MS but a pharmacist doesn't??
 
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Yeah, lets let PAs take over with their advanced drug expertise (no offense). They get like 1 semester of therapy? It makes no sense. I would guarentee you ADR and DDI would skyrocket, increasing the already high cost of health care. Also, don't give me the arguement that computer programs take care of all of that for you...b/c in the end, it is the pharmacists knowledge of the interaction that will save lives (not overriding alerts).
 
Out of curiousity, I did a Google search on it. I did not find much, but it appears the educational requirement would be only an associates degree. None of the articles which mentioned this were recent. The most recent one was from 2000.
 
Out of curiousity, I did a Google search on it. I did not find much, but it appears the educational requirement would be only an associates degree. None of the articles which mentioned this were recent. The most recent one was from 2000.

That's not the same thing, because this is much more recent (2006). Yeah, there's very little info on this.
 
sounds like it's just bunch of ideas being thrown around. From my expirience the tech already acts like an assistant.

Unless the tech receive substantial additonal education ( most will not), he will not be able to take on additional responsibilities. and if this individual has the ability to learn pharmacology and other knowledge pertaining to pharmacy, he should just have th PharmD title.
 
I closed the other duplicate thread since I think this is a good discussion topic & I didn't want the responses to run all over the forum........

I'm going to have to give your topic more thought....do you have references to what you were reading? I've not seen this position in CA yet. Thanks!

Yes, please cite your source(s) Chemist. If your friend read it in a PTCB book, that is highly speculative and uncredible.

It would seem odd to me to have a position like this because a lot of questions could come up in a retail environment, and how would a non-pharmacist be qualified to answer some questions without extensive training? When you say "some position between a tech and a pharmacist," I have to say that the difference between a tech and a pharmacist is night and day. Techs don't even have to graduate high school and their level of understanding is very elementary as compared to a pharmacist. I am a Certified Tech now, and I don't want to hear techs defend my previous statement because you all know it is true.
 
This seems like they're trying to push for a position similar to Physicians Assistant, midlevels between a physician and a medical assistant. Physician Assistants, requiring only an associates (or BS or MS) to obtain licensure to practice, can do many things such as counsel and prescribe meds (in most states). They have a pretty wide scope of practice for relatively little education too, so I feel there could be a good chance for a push for pharmacist assistants to help reduce costs. Who knows though :confused:
 
The idea of a Pharmacist Assistant position comes from the Pharmacy Tech White paper of 1996 or so. Back in the day, the recommendation was never accepted by the NABP. Also, the APhA and ASHP came out very much against it.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
OK.....so a 10 year old idea that never got off the ground.

So...a moot point. A tech is just that - technical help. A pharmacist provides a different function altogether.

There is no such position in my state & none I'm aware of being discussed.
 
Is this position like a nurse practitioner?
 
OK.....so a 10 year old idea that never got off the ground.

So...a moot point. A tech is just that - technical help. A pharmacist provides a different function altogether.

There is no such position in my state & none I'm aware of being discussed.


Will you stop raining on my parade young lady? I was about to gear down my Payroll Budget by 50% for next year hiring a bunch of Pharmacy Assistants.
 
Will you stop raining on my parade young lady? I was about to gear down my Payroll Budget by 50% for next year hiring a bunch of Pharmacy Assistants.

:thumbup: and gear up your stress quota by about that much (hmmm are those pharmacy assistants by any chance....women??????):laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
Reading something from the U.S. Departmet of Labor, a pharmacy assistant is considered having less respinsibility than a pharm tech, mainly working as cashiers or clerks, or delivering meds in the hospital (sounds like my volunteer work). Check it out:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/1999/Spring/art04.pdf

I don't believe this is a problem at all, and I don't believe a position "between a tech and a pharmacist" will exist or be necessary. It actually sounds pretty ridiculous.
 
Spend 4 to 6 years (depending if it's a BS or master's degree) for a pharmacy assistant degree...or spend 5 to 6 (assuming you go 2+3 or 2+4) for a Pharm D. Pharmacy Assistant doesn't make much sense to me.
 
My pharmacology teacher (Doctor of Public Health [DPH?]) said they've been trying for years to allow pharm tech's to do more than just give specific advice regarding only the drugs a patient is picking up. Things like telling patients to avoid certain dietary supplements while taking prescription meds rather than referring such questions/situations to a pharmacist. He also mentioned they've been trying to make an AS degree required for PT licensing (pretty much trying to move students from places like UEI/Bryman College into a community college.) (FYI this is in SoCal)
 
I've heard that a significant change to the profession of pharmacy is on its way, which could be a potentially bad thing for pharmacists. A new position, called a pharmacist assistant which is between a technician and a pharmacist is being pushed into effect. This position would allow the PA to dispense prescriptions in the absense of a pharmacist and perhaps counsel patients as well. This will likely reduce the need for pharmacists and lower pharmacists salary. This position will likely take over the retail sector, since retail really isn't very difficult compared to other areas of practice. A retail pharmacist may be non existant in the future. In the future, pharmacists will be making less money and won't be in as much demand as they are now. Unless somehow this position never becomes a reality!

Will the PA be licensed? and if so will the license still require a supervisory authority? In my admitedly uneducated opinion, (not a pharmacy employee) wouldn't you still need a pharmacist to cover any pharmacy even if they are essentially there just to "sign off" on things? I know there is a pharmacist shortage, but that is no reason to compromise the safety of the public. Also as a future nurse, when I have a drug question that I can't find in my book or I want to know about compatibility of drugs in the same line etc... I wonder if it will be legal for me to take direction from an unlicensed person if I need to. Also we frequently see the nurses call down to the pharmacy to change the form of some of the pharmacy ordered minerals/vitamins etc... (liquid to tablet, IV to oral etc...) I am sure we would need the actual pharmacist for that. As it stands, at my clinical site, we have enough pharmacists that you usually don't have to wait long to get a phone consult, maybe 2 minutes of holding. I'm spoiled :laugh: and would hate to see that go away because management thought they could get away with cutting pharmacists and adding assistants...
 
There's been no real movement on this potential position for years. It got killed, and will probably get killed again, if brought up again.
I don't think this is something to get all worried about.
 
Top