Physician Assistant is better than Rph

[Seriously Serious]

The American Medical association is pushing for pharmacists in every doctor's office? Or just some? I haven't heard anything about this

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I think they are just promoting the MD + ambcare pharmacist practice model. It wouldn't be practical for a small practice to have its own pharmacy imo.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pharmd = Phake Doctor]

It's easier in the fact that PA and NP schools are a lot shorter than pharmacy school. Therefore it is technically easier to become a PA and NP then a pharmacist. Comparing PA and NP, it's a lot easier to become a NP then it is a PA by what you just described. As for getting into pharmacy school, I agree it's a joke because of the newer schools accepting anyone who applies. I even heard that a school accepted a student that didn't even have all the pre-reqs but I don't remember where I heard that.

Pharmacist's will eventually get provider status. I know people here will probably argue me with that point, but it will happen. Until then, I know the AMA is pushing a new practice model that requires pharmacists and pharmacies to be in doctor offices. As well, there will be a point that PA and NP cannot simply treat a complex patient the same as a pharmacist will be able to. It would be against the patient's best interest to have someone without the education or expertise taking care of the patient. Which is the exact same argument physicians make about PA's and NP's

To hit your other point about NP's topping out above pharmacist's salary, most NP's will never hit that high of pay. There will always be outliers, just like in pharmacy.

Saying that Pharmacy school is harder because it's longer is the equivalent to saying that all undergraduate degrees are equal in difficulty because they're all the same length. It doesn't work that way. Even if pharmacy school is harder, it doesn't matter if the education is irrelevant to what is required in the real world (Med Chem has to be the biggest waste of time).

Only a simple-minded idiot would think that longer schooling (& higher tuition) is equal to being more qualified.

I tried to google this so-called AMA position on forcing their physicians to partner up with pharmacists. I couldn't find it, so I have to wonder if it's a puff piece with little meaningful impact. I mean, this is the AMA we're talking about. The same group that went out and destroyed the OTC+ paradigm and independent pharmacist prescribing. Pharmacists must have some kind of battered wife syndrome if they think the AMA gives a s@%& about them.

No, ambulatory care is not going to save the profession. There is not going to be 16,000 new ambulatory care jobs in the coming years. And the jokers who at an FQHC who think ambulatory care is great because they get to spend a half-hour teaching their patients how to take their meds (@Abby Atwood) are going to be sorry when their provider-status model is implemented and they are forced to do the same job in less time (let's say 7-10 minutes) just to be financially sound. PCPs only get to spend 7-15 minutes with each patient; what makes you think insurance will pay you to blabber on for 30 minutes with a patient on how to take their meds?

I got a laugh at the 'pharmacists will be needed to treat complex patients' argument you made. I have no idea why physicians would allow a mid-level provider lacking an education in graduate-level physiology, pathology, medicine, etc to treat their complicated patients. Ambulatory care pharmacists mostly treat chronic conditions under a protocol (dosing warfarin, adjusting diabetes meds). That's a far cry from the scenario you cooked up in your mind. Sure, pharmacists are more educated than NPs or PAs when it comes to pharmacology and pharmacotherapy. But you could claim the reverse in respect to physical exam skills, interpreting lab/EKG/auscultation readings, and making a (a relatively simple) differential diagnosis for NPs and PAs.

 

[Pharmd = Phake Doctor]

I didn't realize I was a troll. Just wanted to get a conversation on the movement of talent from pharmacy to PA. Recently the new grads I see are all willing to take any jobs which makes me worry. When I was applying to pharmacy school the numbers were flipped around, more pharm.D applicants and higher gpa.

You're not. And you make a good point. I just think everyone her is getting fatigued by PAtoComputerDenizen's constant rants.

You're right about the matriculation-to-applicant ratio of PA schools.

A good example I would like to point out is Oregan State University. This is a public university with a strong background in the health fields. The PA school boasts a matriculant-to-applicant ratio of 38-to-1; you have a 2.6% chance of getting into PA school here. Contrast that with the pharmacy school, which boasts a less impressive matriculant-to-applicant ratio of 6.5-to-1; that's a %15 chance.

Of course, this is a public university we're talking about, the stats will be (relatively) competitive. When we compare the entire pharmacy field, we have nearly 16,000-17,000 applicants (page 6 of the AACP Annual Report 2015) competing for ~14,000 to 15,000 seats (total PharmD graduates in 2015). That's a 82%-93% chance of getting into a pharmacy school somewhere. Given that those are old stats (meaning more seats being offered and less people applying with each passing year), then the success rate of applying is nearing 100%. As @stoichiometrist has said over and over again, if you can sign away 200K, then you can get into pharmacy school.

Compare that to the 20,000 applicants for 6,000 seats for PA programs (page 5 of the CASPA report). That's a 30% percent chance for getting into a PA school.

PA schools have the convenience of sifting out the trash. Too bad for us in the pharmacy profession; pharmacy schools are left with bottom-of-the-barrel garbage, many of which lack an understanding of the practice of pharmacy but feel "passionate" about it because of the promised six-figure salary.

I don't get why people would rather annoy currently practicing pharmacists here than join me in the pre-pharm forum telling others to study computer science or PA.

I would love to post this rant on the pre-pharm forum as @stoichiometrist has called upon us to do. But, I've been busy and will be until the middle of December as classes wrap up. I'll try to pop up there when I can make the time. Keep on the good fight.

 

[Abby Atwood]

Saying that Pharmacy school is harder because it's longer is the equivalent to saying that all undergraduate degrees are equal in difficulty because they're all the same length. It doesn't work that way. Even if pharmacy school is harder, it doesn't matter if the education is irrelevant to what is required in the real world (Med Chem has to be the biggest waste of time).

Only a simple-minded idiot would think that longer schooling (& higher tuition) is equal to being more qualified.

I tried to google this so-called AMA position on forcing their physicians to partner up with pharmacists. I couldn't find it, so I have to wonder if it's a puff piece with little meaningful impact. I mean, this is the AMA we're talking about. The same group that went out and destroyed the OTC+ paradigm and independent pharmacist prescribing. Pharmacists must have some kind of battered wife syndrome if they think the AMA gives a s@%& about them.

No, ambulatory care is not going to save the profession. There is not going to be 16,000 new ambulatory care jobs in the coming years. And the jokers who at an FQHC who think ambulatory care is great because they get to spend a half-hour teaching their patients how to take their meds (@Abby Atwood) are going to be sorry when their provider-status model is implemented and they are forced to do the same job in less time (let's say 7-10 minutes) just to be financially sound. PCPs only get to spend 7-15 minutes with each patient; what makes you think insurance will pay you to blabber on for 30 minutes with a patient on how to take their meds?

I got a laugh at the 'pharmacists will be needed to treat complex patients' argument you made. I have no idea why physicians would allow a mid-level provider lacking an education in graduate-level physiology, pathology, medicine, etc to treat their complicated patients. Ambulatory care pharmacists mostly treat chronic conditions under a protocol (dosing warfarin, adjusting diabetes meds). That's a far cry from the scenario you cooked up in your mind. Sure, pharmacists are more educated than NPs or PAs when it comes to pharmacology and pharmacotherapy. But you could claim the reverse in respect to physical exam skills, interpreting lab/EKG/auscultation readings, and making a (a relatively simple) differential diagnosis for NPs and PAs.

The service I provide is part of accreditation for the clinic, and it addresses several liability issues. At the moment I am doing it for free. I think the clinic would be pleased with any compensation. The clinic doesn’t need me to see 16+ patients per day. We don’t have that volume. Decreasing the time I spend with patients would reduce quality of care without providing obvious benefits. Honestly, I think you are imagining me in a different role than I actually hold. Also, the physicians/NP’s at my clinic actually do have 30+ minute appointments with patients.

I don’t think anyone is pushing for pharmacists to manage acute illness. I have only seen pharmacists managing chronic conditions. The initial diagnosis is always made by a provider who is trained to diagnose. I also don’t think provider status is the only change that is needed, but it’s a good start.

This is kind of off topic, but you said earlier that most pharmacists won’t hold jobs involving direct patient care. I checked the numbers and, actually, most pharmacists are practicing in community pharmacies. Community pharmacy practice is almost exclusively direct patient care. Therefore, it appears that the vast majority of pharmacists are already practicing in roles involving direct patient care.

 

[DrVader]

I didn't realize I was a troll. Just wanted to get a conversation on the movement of talent from pharmacy to PA. Recently the new grads I see are all willing to take any jobs which makes me worry. When I was applying to pharmacy school the numbers were flipped around, more pharm.D applicants and higher gpa.

Most of the people on this forum are pharmacist who are well established. They won't or can't change carrers. I know that many of us on this forum who have chosen different careers of we could do it again. This post would have been better served in the pre pharm

 

[BidingMyTime]

It's easier in the fact that PA and NP schools are a lot shorter than pharmacy school. Therefore it is technically easier to become a PA and NP then a pharmacist.

Both PA's & NP's must have a bachelor's, so while their programs may only be 2 years's, it really takes a minimum of 6 years to become (which is equal to the minimum of 6 years to become a pharmacist.)

I even heard that a school accepted a student that didn't even have all the pre-reqs but I don't remember where I heard that.

This is not uncommon, not just in pharmacy schools, but even in medical and other professional schools. However, teh person must have finished the pre-reqs before they start the professional school (otherwise they can't start.) It's along the same lines of a 4-yr college accepting a Senior high school who is currently taking, but hasn't finished the minimum requirements for the college.

Pharmacist's will eventually get provider status.

I agree this will happen, but I also think extremely few new jobs will open up by having provider status.

I mean, this is the AMA we're talking about. The same group that went out and destroyed the OTC+ paradigm and independent pharmacist prescribing. Pharmacists must have some kind of battered wife syndrome if they think the AMA gives a s@%& about them.

I agree. Only about 25% of doctor's belong to the AMA, because many doctors feel the AMA does not represent them. If the AMA doesn't even represent their target membership, they certainly aren't going to be doing anything for ancillary groups.[/QUOTE][/quote]