New "Remote Pharmacy" in Vermont, No RPh in store just a Tech...

[TonyRx]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/30/corp...ushing-out-independent-pharmacies-in-vermont/


Not trying to start a fire-storm of anger and bickering but I stumbled upon this article via my Twitter account with @EricRPh and figured I'd share here.

Basically, here is the first paragraph quoted directly from the article:

"Another Vermont independent drug store will bite the dust next month. The Barton Pharmacy has been sold to Kinney Drugs, which will operate it as a “remote” pharmacy. No actual pharmacist will be on site. Instead, a pharmaceutical technician will fill prescriptions via a computer link with a pharmacist. And if the customer wants to talk directly to the pharmacist?
There will be an 800 number."

You can read the entire piece for yourself. It is what it is. I hate "doom and gloomers" but this "remote pharmacy" business model is scary. I just hope and pray that this kind of business model will meet heavy backlash from not only consumers/patients but our professional pharmacist lobbying organizations. Regardless, I don't like where this is going.

 

[Sparda29]

How the **** is this legal? Doesn't the law require that a pharmacy can only be open when there is a pharmacist present in person?

 

[TonyRx]

How the **** is this legal? Doesn't the law require that a pharmacy can only be open when there is a pharmacist present in person?

Personally, I'm not sure. I was gonna look into it, maybe do some googling on Vermont's pharmacy laws or whatnot. Unfortunately laws can be modified, abolished or rewritten. Those with with power and an agenda have the ability to influence lawmakers, it's up to us(consumers, pharmacists, organizations) to fight back. Although this particular article is referring to a small pharmacy chain up north, this could very well be a model that the larger chains adopt in the near future. Scary.

 

[StevePerry]

http://vtdigger.org/2011/05/30/corp...ushing-out-independent-pharmacies-in-vermont/


Not trying to start a fire-storm of anger and bickering but I stumbled upon this article via my Twitter account with @EricRPh and figured I'd share here.

Basically, here is the first paragraph quoted directly from the article:

"Another Vermont independent drug store will bite the dust next month. The Barton Pharmacy has been sold to Kinney Drugs, which will operate it as a “remote” pharmacy. No actual pharmacist will be on site. Instead, a pharmaceutical technician will fill prescriptions via a computer link with a pharmacist. And if the customer wants to talk directly to the pharmacist?
There will be an 800 number."

You can read the entire piece for yourself. It is what it is. I hate "doom and gloomers" but this "remote pharmacy" business model is scary. I just hope and pray that this kind of business model will meet heavy backlash from not only consumers/patients but our professional pharmacist lobbying organizations. Regardless, I don't like where this is going.

This is exactly what Walgreen's "Project One" will culminate in if they get their way... except it will be in Chicago and other urban/suburban areas.

If you don't think s--- like this being allowed isn't proof that our boards of pharmacy sold us out, you are f---ing nuts.

 

[crazybob]

I don't know if I would feel comfortable going to a pharmacy like that. What if you lose connection or have technical difficulties in the middle of counseling?

 

[TonyRx]

http://www.sec.state.vt.us/secdesk/pressreleases/2004/december04.html

Although 7 years old, 3rd paragraph states a pharmacy cannot operate without a "designated" Pharmacist that is in good standing with the Vermont Board of Pharmacy.....etc.

This language is kinda vague and doesn't directly say that the "designated" Pharmacist has to physically be in the pharmacy. I'm still googling for more/other information, but I came across this upon initial search. Interesting.

 

[crazybob]

http://www.sec.state.vt.us/secdesk/pressreleases/2004/december04.html

Although 7 years old, 3rd paragraph states a pharmacy cannot operate without a "designated" Pharmacist that is in good standing with the Vermont Board of Pharmacy.....etc.

This language is kinda vague and doesn't directly say that the "designated" Pharmacist has to physically be in the pharmacy. I'm still googling for more/other information, but I came across this upon initial search. Interesting.

So if the direct link is lost, then the pharmacy has to be closed until the direct link is established again, right?

Who knows how long that could take..

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I've heard of this in other rural states too. At least I think I have.

 

[spacecowgirl]

We have telepharmacies here and I do think they have a role, but only when the only other alternative is no pharmacy at all. I have seen how they work and it's pretty spiffy, but it's a last resort scenario, IMO.

 

[Praziquantel86]

Well, all the more reason to do everything in your power to differentiate yourself from the pack.

 

[Hibiclens]

http://www.vtprofessionals.org/opr1/pharmacists/minutes_agenda/Pharmacy Minutes 2010 1201.pdf

 

[Ackj]

Makes perfect sense. If you go to Albany COP Vermont campus, it's distance learning, so it's just training you to be a distance pharmacist.

 

[Thoughtfulsinner]

Pharmacists are being phased out. Techs can pretty much do everything a pharmacist can and get paid 4 times less to do it.

Just get your MD and throw your pharmacy degree in the trash. Then you won't have to worry about the destruction of the profession.

 

[The Fargoan]

North Dakota has had telepharmacies for several years. They are in remote sites and are regulated under different rules than a regular pharmacy:
-The tech must have at least 1 year of experience before working in a telepharmacy
-No pharmacist may supervise more than 4 sites at any given time
-The pharmacist must visit/inspect each site at a minimum of once a month

This system is no threat to pharmacists that want to live in more populated areas and provides access to towns that might not otherwise have a pharmacy. The ND BOP has been very active in making this possible as they are concerned about health care access in the rural parts of the state.

http://www.ndsu.edu/telepharmacy/

 

[MountainPharmD]

If you don't think s--- like this being allowed isn't proof that our boards of pharmacy sold us out, you are f---ing nuts.

Look at where the members of your State Board of Pharmacy work. Hell they haven't sold us out they are filled with the very people who benefit the most from **** like this. Most State Boards are filled with corporate stooges from CVS and Walgreens and other corporate chains. When is the last time anyone cared about what the State Board did? If we were smart we would all start to get very involved in the affairs of our State Boards.

 

[fattunesy]

This is exactly what Walgreen's "Project One" will culminate in if they get their way... except it will be in Chicago and other urban/suburban areas.

If you don't think s--- like this being allowed isn't proof that our boards of pharmacy sold us out, you are f---ing nuts.

Illinois has laws that allow this. They were actually passed when I was a student; I remember our teacher talking about the new Practice Act and how it would no longer require the presence of a pharmacist in a pharmacy, only access to them. He then asked for comments. The current president of the student APhA raised her hand and stated something along the lines of "This is great, we will have more time to counsel". Which is probably how it was sold to APhA and the state legislatures: improving access, improving patient care, .etc. What will really happen (look at POWER and remote verificvation for proof) is that fewer pharmacists will be required to do a greater amount of work...it is the chains MO and most of the Boards of Pharmacy and national organizations don't seem to care.

 

[Printo]

This model may become "THE" model in Vermont. They just signed some major health care reform into law in Vermont:

http://news.consumerreports.org/hea...es-road-map-for-single-payer-health-care.html

They just signed a Single Payer health care system into law in Vermont and they will look for all kinds of ways to cut costs in order to make their system solvent. Giving pharmacists the axe and going towards a remote pharmacy model may be the future for pharmacy in Vermont.

 

[MountainPharmD]

This model may become "THE" model in Vermont. They just signed some major health care reform into law in Vermont:

http://news.consumerreports.org/hea...es-road-map-for-single-payer-health-care.html

They just signed a Single Payer health care system into law in Vermont and they will look for all kinds of ways to cut costs in order to make their system solvent. Giving pharmacists the axe and going towards a remote pharmacy model may be the future for pharmacy in Vermont.

Like always the little guy gets screwed first. Forget about things like real healthcare reform or reforming the pharmeceutical industry. Nope, lets just eliminate Pharmacists that will save us all. After all the whole reason prescription meds cost so much is because Pharmacists make so much money. Walgreens and CVS buy Nexium for $2 and sell it for $200 because they have to cover the Pharmacists enormous salary......right.

 

[StevePerry]

This model may become "THE" model in Vermont. They just signed some major health care reform into law in Vermont:

http://news.consumerreports.org/hea...es-road-map-for-single-payer-health-care.html

They just signed a Single Payer health care system into law in Vermont and they will look for all kinds of ways to cut costs in order to make their system solvent. Giving pharmacists the axe and going towards a remote pharmacy model may be the future for pharmacy in Vermont.

Give that socialist scum state to Canada

 

[StevePerry]

Illinois has laws that allow this. They were actually passed when I was a student; I remember our teacher talking about the new Practice Act and how it would no longer require the presence of a pharmacist in a pharmacy, only access to them. He then asked for comments. The current president of the student APhA raised her hand and stated something along the lines of "This is great, we will have more time to counsel". Which is probably how it was sold to APhA and the state legislatures: improving access, improving patient care, .etc. What will really happen (look at POWER and remote verificvation for proof) is that fewer pharmacists will be required to do a greater amount of work...it is the chains MO and most of the Boards of Pharmacy and national organizations don't seem to care.

I did not research Illinois law enough to know that but thank you for sharing! This is absolutely horrid.

More proof that not only state boards but even orgs like APhA will play Eichmann when need be...