Pharmacy Manpower report just released - thoughts?

[Silvermist]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I guess the 2009 survey from the Pharmacy Manpower Project was just released:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180830.php

What I found interesting:
* 25% of pharmacists are working part-time, ostensibly due to downsizing
* 37% (!!!) of practicing pharmacists are older than 55. That number seems really high to me.

Thoughts/pontifications?

 

[J ROD]

I think it is what I expected. But, overall the market is getting tighter for new grads.

 

[Ackj]

Well, I suppose the 37% >55 is a good opportunity for new openings. I mean, once over a third of the profession retires within 10-15 years there should be some bigtime hiring.

 

[IrishHammer]

Also, the percentage of pharmacists who felt their workload was high or excessively high jumped to 68%, 14 percentage points higher than the last survey in 2004. If that's not a big red flag to somebody to do something about working conditions...

You know what, never mind. Forget I said that, because it should be a big red flag, but APhA will again sit on their ass and talk about how not enough MTM is being done and we're not bending over far enough backwards for the patient. The resolutions for this year's national APhA-ASP meeting again fit the mold of "The only way to improve patient care is to make pharmacists do more". Went on a tangent there.

It will be interesting to see how everything pans out if the economy recovers right around the same time that a third of the profession reaches retirement age.

 

[bacillus1]

Also, the percentage of pharmacists who felt their workload was high or excessively high jumped to 68%, 14 percentage points higher than the last survey in 2004. If that's not a big red flag to somebody to do something about working conditions...

You know what, never mind. Forget I said that, because it should be a big red flag, but APhA will again sit on their ass and talk about how not enough MTM is being done and we're not bending over far enough backwards for the patient. The resolutions for this year's national APhA-ASP meeting again fit the mold of "The only way to improve patient care is to make pharmacists do more". Went on a tangent there.

It will be interesting to see how everything pans out if the economy recovers right around the same time that a third of the profession reaches retirement age.

How could APhA, a national group, focus on changing individual state regulations? It would become too segmented with pharmacists in each state arguing over what could be done there. States don't want to interfere in business, thinking "if this pharmacist doesn't like the job, he or she could work somewhere else", which isn't true at times.

So, did you propose policies this year to reduce the workload for pharmacists? If the answer is no, you have no right to complain.

And there are people who actually do care about MTM, even in a chain, believe it or not. I met a pharmacist from Rite Aid who basically spent half her time on clinical duties.

 

[type b pharmD]

Well, I suppose the 37% >55 is a good opportunity for new openings. I mean, once over a third of the profession retires within 10-15 years there should be some bigtime hiring.

Actually this is already being represented in the approximately 5000-6000 pharmacists who retire every year. Although the number should go up in the next decade or two , for sure. I think around 5000 are retiring yearly at the moment, coupled with a 2% annual increase in the need for pharmacists .. equals around 10k positions a year.

 

[IrishHammer]

How could APhA, a national group, focus on changing individual state regulations? It would become too segmented with pharmacists in each state arguing over what could be done there. States don't want to interfere in business, thinking "if this pharmacist doesn't like the job, he or she could work somewhere else", which isn't true at times.

How does the US government get all 50 states to agree on something? They use whatever leverage they can get and lobby the **** out of it. Isn't APhA a political organization? Start greasing palms, start lobbying, start doing something other than sitting around talking about pharmacy in the ideal world.

So, did you propose policies this year to reduce the workload for pharmacists? If the answer is no, you have no right to complain.

This argument doesn't hold so much ground considering someone proposed a resolution to make sure all pharmacies had a counseling and verification pharmacist on staff at all times and all but two schools in our region voted against it. The logic? "It'll pigeonhole pharmacists into either only verifying or only counseling and won't allow them to apply everything they've learned in school." Mother****ing Kool-Aid drinkers. Yes, because it's entirely impossible to swap which pharmacist performs which duty on any given day.

And there are people who actually do care about MTM, even in a chain, believe it or not. I met a pharmacist from Rite Aid who basically spent half her time on clinical duties.

I'm not against MTM. The problem is, APhA is all about "improving patient care", so sayeth their leader. Well, it's all well and good to want to do more for the patient, but at some point you need to consider the working conditions of the pharmacist. If a pharmacist has been given a high or excessively high workload (and 68% say they have), the way to improve patient care isn't to heap more work on top of him. All that's going to do is increase the chances of a mistake that will harm the patient. Rather, they should focus on finding ways to reduce the pharmacist workload slightly so that they have time to properly verify and counsel on prescriptions.

Right now, what I'd like to see APhA do more than anything is lobby for that regulation that NC passed to become commonplace across the country. Retail chains are damn sure going to not be so frugal in hiring help if they know it's their ass on the line once the script count goes above 150.

 

[bacillus1]

But who contributes to PACs? Chains do, as well as sponsoring much of APhA programs.
So, we'd have to alienate them, and find other sponsors and donors. Would be nice...