U.S. Senate proposes dual DNP/Pharm.D. degree

Started by Praziquantel86
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Sort of like the Pharm.D./PA dual degree some schools offer, it doesn't sound terribly practical. You can practice as one or the other, but not both. There may be a niche out there to be filled by an individual holding both degrees, but I'm not aware of any. Well, I suppose someone holding both degrees would be uniquely suited to teach advanced nursing pharmacology, but I'm not sure if this would be preferable to a PhD.

That said, I think having both sets of knowledge would be kind of cool. Probably a poor investment when you look at it in a strictly financial sense, but looking at it as a future pharmacist, I think having a better understanding of diagnosis, non-pharmcological treatments, etc. could come in handy from time to time.
 
Praziquantel86 said:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s53is/pdf/BILLS-112s53is.pdf

Thoughts and discussion. I'd like to see the other opinions before I voice my own...
Click to expand...

I think this is a horrible idea. Yes there are dual degrees, but they don't combine separate areas of healthcare..all of them focus on healthcare, and the second degree is used to further specialize in the area of individual interest. Why dont we optimize both degrees before we start combining them!! The fact that it is even mentioned means that there is no need for PharmD school to be 4 years, DNP to be 3 years, or both.
 
Oh I will bite.

This is the dumbest idea in Pharmacy since mail order. Why would anyone pursue this? Why not just become an MD? It seems like it would be more didactic schooling then an MD with pay that doesn't even compete. Plus the fact that to be in a clinical setting in pharmacy you need a residency to complete that package.

So you get payed 100K after what, 9-10 years of schooling?

You know what could effectively replace this clusterf$%# of an idea? Its this brand new idea of collaborative practice. You should google it.

I also wonder if people who graduate from a program such as this would have the uncanny ability to loose medications on the floor only to find it on the med cart where it belongs.
 
No thanks, not interested. So is the goal of this so that Walgreens can start requiring both degrees? Their pharmacists will have to fill prescriptions and diagnose pts at the Take Care Clinic at the same time.
 
Praziquantel86 said:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s53is/pdf/BILLS-112s53is.pdf

Thoughts and discussion. I'd like to see the other opinions before I voice my own...
Click to expand...

I don't really see what getting your DNP/PharmD would offer you. No matter how you spin it, a DNP is still a mid-level provider and don't have any benefits over that of an NP. As someone pointed out, you can't really practice both at the same time. If you really wanted to go this route, become a NP/PharmD or PA/PharmD.
 
The best we can hope for is that will cut down on the ******ed prescribing habits of mid-levels. I also hope they expand it to dentists and they stop trying to load amox with that 2 stat then 1 tid junk. Though I deal with a DO/rph and he seems cluess to good prescribing so I'm probably asking too much.
 
It's a meaningless bill. Sponsored by a single senator (maybe two) and referred to committee where it will probably die. Even if it were to make it to the Senate floor, and passed, it would be binding on no one.

Even if it doesn't pass or never comes to a vote (mostly likely outcome), colleges could still offer this degree (or a PharmD/MDiv or PharmD/DC or anything). Government approval isn't required.
 
Let's not talk about the impact of the bill being passed. I'll however ask the following:

Since when was the senate's approval needed to start a dual degree program?
I just don't understand why this bill would be needed, even if there was such a need for such practitioners.

Senator Inouye (or however it is spelled) sponsored the NHSC bill, which is a great idea, but now this? What's the point?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So nurses are just going to do everything! Why not! They can be the doctor, the pharmacist, the social worker, and everything in between!!!! What.the.eff? Let's make an online program, too. Then we can pump out thousands of them to fill that provider shortage everyone is talking about.
 
bacillus1 said:
Let's not talk about the impact of the bill being passed. I'll however ask the following:

Since when was the senate's approval needed to start a dual degree program?
I just don't understand why this bill would be needed, even if there was such a need for such practitioners.

Senator Inouye (or however it is spelled) sponsored the NHSC bill, which is a great idea, but now this? What's the point?
Click to expand...

Like I said above, it's meaningless.

Senate approval is not required for new degree programs. The approval for degree programs comes from the Trustees/Overseers of the institution(s) granting the degree and any relevant accrediting bodies.

If this passed it would be a non binding, "feel good" kind of thing. Like "Oh this would be a good idea." Sort of like you can get declarations and other stuff from government agencies but they aren't binding on anyone. I could get my governer to declare "All4MyDaughter Week" but that doesn't force anyone else to celebrate it.

In short, there is no point to this. Someone asked the Senator to do it and he did it. It means nothing.
 
R2pharmD2 said:
Sort of like the Pharm.D./PA dual degree some schools offer, it doesn't sound terribly practical. You can practice as one or the other, but not both. There may be a niche out there to be filled by an individual holding both degrees, but I'm not aware of any.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Its not like there are thousands nurse/pharmacist positions open. You either practice as one or the other I see no advantage to being both.
 
Quiksilver said:
Oh I will bite.

This is the dumbest idea in Pharmacy since mail order. Why would anyone pursue this? Why not just become an MD? It seems like it would be more didactic schooling then an MD with pay that doesn't even compete. Plus the fact that to be in a clinical setting in pharmacy you need a residency to complete that package.

So you get payed 100K after what, 9-10 years of schooling?

You know what could effectively replace this clusterf$%# of an idea? Its this brand new idea of collaborative practice. You should google it.

I also wonder if people who graduate from a program such as this would have the uncanny ability to loose medications on the floor only to find it on the med cart where it belongs.
Click to expand...

Good point. Make a Pharmacist Practitioner degree which would have the same duties as a PA or a NP.
 
I just wondering who would spend such time and tons of money to do this so called dual degrees when either one of this degrees( NP/PA) can provide similar services and similar income after graduation ? Unless these dual degrees are free of charge.
 
Quiksilver said:
I also wonder if people who graduate from a program such as this would have the uncanny ability to loose medications on the floor only to find it on the med cart where it belongs.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

They can call themselves to tell themselves their missing drug is already in the Pyxis.
 
Sparda29 said:
Nope. A dual MD/PharmD program would be better. I liked Mike's idea the best (posted a while back) about having one "health care provider" degree, and after you were done, you could differentiate out into what you're interested.
Click to expand...
So either the initial schooling would be longer to make sure you cover all bases. Or the after-training would have to be sufficient to make you as proficient as current providers in the given field.

The benefit would be... we all go to the same school and then decide what to do after that? Sounds like undergrad. Or high school.
 
pharm B said:
So either the initial schooling would be longer to make sure you cover all bases. Or the after-training would have to be sufficient to make you as proficient as current providers in the given field.

The benefit would be... we all go to the same school and then decide what to do after that? Sounds like undergrad. Or high school.
Click to expand...


I don't know b, wouldn't it be nice to know that every healthcare provider is drawing from the same base? I can see some advantage to this.
 
pharm B said:
So either the initial schooling would be longer to make sure you cover all bases. Or the after-training would have to be sufficient to make you as proficient as current providers in the given field.

The benefit would be... we all go to the same school and then decide what to do after that? Sounds like undergrad. Or high school.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you would end up either learning a lot of unnecessary stuff, (ala undergrad, as mentioned) or end up wasting a lot of time learning stuff twice, except in more detail the second time around for whatever your specialization is. I remember when my wife was in her chemistry course for nursing majors, and it was a joke compared to what I had to do for my chemistry pre-reqs. But it SHOULD be a joke. It would be an absolute waste of time for them to take organic.

If anything, I think we should go the other way and increase specialization. The whole point of having different fields in healthcare is to have people who are experts in their areas. I could see the benefit of DNP program with a longer, MD style residency, for instance. Or separate branches of pharmacy where everybody starts with the basics and then specializes for hospital, retail, nuclear, etc.
 
whats the point?

having a pharmd will not make you a better diagnostician. it just makes it so you know a bunch of drugs (90% of which you will not encounter in general practice).

seems like a gigantic waste of time and way to funnel more people towards education that isnt necessary.
 
Not practical.

Just have a new type of post-pharmacy program similar to Clinical Pharmacy Practitioners in New Mexico, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
Click to expand...

So being a pre-pharmer, this isn't an obvious answer to me yet.

But what is the difference between a CPP (found in NC) vs a standard clinical pharmacist.

Link:http://www.ncpharmacists.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=13

I see some of the duties there but what are the duties exclusive to the Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner?

Is it the ability to directly change a therapy? but a physician has to sign off on it, so how is this different than being an advisory position like in other states?

Can anyone help me out with this?
 
I could maybe see this working in situations where the patient is on a very complicated medication regimen. Transplant clinic maybe....
Otherwise, in primary care or wherever; I don't think it would work very well.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Jabberwocky12 said:
So being a pre-pharmer, this isn't an obvious answer to me yet.

But what is the difference between a CPP (found in NC) vs a standard clinical pharmacist.

Link:http://www.ncpharmacists.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=13

I see some of the duties there but what are the duties exclusive to the Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner?

Is it the ability to directly change a therapy? but a physician has to sign off on it, so how is this different than being an advisory position like in other states?

Can anyone help me out with this?
Click to expand...

Most "standard clinical pharmacists" don't practice under a collaborative practice agreement and aren't able to modify drug therapy, but instead suggest changes.

That said, the NC arrangement doesn't seem that different from the collaborative practice agreements that are allowed in other states (including mine) or that are used by *some* pharmacists in the VA. The main difference (I think) is that NC seems to require board certification and several years of experience but in my state (KY) and the VA there are no hard and fast requirements for either.
 
Seems like a waste. It would be a lot of training and responsibility for not much more salary. Better off keeping the two fields seperate.
 
Jabberwocky12 said:
So being a pre-pharmer, this isn't an obvious answer to me yet.

But what is the difference between a CPP (found in NC) vs a standard clinical pharmacist.

Link:http://www.ncpharmacists.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=13

I see some of the duties there but what are the duties exclusive to the Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner?

Is it the ability to directly change a therapy? but a physician has to sign off on it, so how is this different than being an advisory position like in other states?

Can anyone help me out with this?
Click to expand...

". . . pharmacists are taking on an increasing number of prescriptive and diagnostic responsibilities. Many states have expanded prescriptive authority for pharmacists under certain criteria. For example, Florida pharmacists have the ability to order and dispense prescription antihistamines and prescription topical anti-infectives without a prescription.24 Recent federal regulations also have suggested a need for greater access to medications given only through the discretion of a pharmacist. FDA's decision to place the emergency contraceptive levonorgestrel (Plan B-Duramed)25 in a dual-status category that will require behind-the-counter placement of the product and to withdraw pseudoephedrine as an open-access OTC product represent two salient examples. Discussion has taken place about allowing pharmacists to provide low-dose, behind-the-counter statin therapies to patients without a prescription.26-28

Some states have taken an even more aggressive stance in allowing pharmacists to prescribe medications and perform physical assessments. For example, "pharmacist clinicians" in New Mexico are given equivalent prescribing authority to physician assistants after having undergone 60 hours of physical assessment training and a defined period of physician-supervised physical assessment experience.29 Similarly, North Carolina allows pharmacists to become certified as "clinical pharmacist practitioners."30 Under the supervision of a licensed physician, clinical pharmacist practitioners are allowed to provide drug therapy management; order, change, and substitute medication therapies; and order diagnostic tests. Given their prescriptive authority, clinical pharmacists such as those in New Mexico and North Carolina would be uniquely positioned to provide care in pharmacy-based medical clinics."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/557158_4
 
Great. So now instead of scrambling for "now docusate", which they just might interpret as "Stat docusate", they could sprint for it themselves! 👍 I am all for it, where do I sign? Writing to my Senator in support 👍
 
Sparda29 said:
Nope. A dual MD/PharmD program would be better. I liked Mike's idea the best (posted a while back) about having one "health care provider" degree, and after you were done, you could differentiate out into what you're interested.
Click to expand...

uh, wasn't that what an MD was supposed be? You know, before nurses and pharmacists and PAs and Respiratory therapists and dietitians and physical therapists all become "clinical health care providers"...
 
p-rog said:
uh, wasn't that what an MD was supposed be? You know, before nurses and pharmacists and PAs and Respiratory therapists and dietitians and physical therapists all become "clinical health care providers"...
Click to expand...

Yeah, until American physicians and the medical community in general decided to keep down the number of doctors so much that care had to be provided by others.
 
This idea is ******ed. Instead of wasting time with 2 degrees in separate fields there should be a post-graduate certificate program for pharmacists developed by physicians and pharmacists that teach diagnostic skills similar to PAs and NPs. If someone were to do a DNP/PharmD why not just go to med school? This makes absolutely no sense. I don't see anything wrong with PharmDs being a similar provider to a PA-C as long as there is a supervising physician and the PharmD has adequate diagnostic training. The problem is there is no standard diagnostic training for pharmacists. It's going to vary from school to school. I had a clinical assessment course where I had to listen to chests with a stethoscope and I was like WTF I'm not in med school. Whatever. I guess since this economy is **** and there are no jobs everyone is flooding health care and everyone wants as many credentials as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
pivot from pharmacy. which degree?
Replies
4
Views
3K
clarkbar
C
G
Nurse Practitioner with DNP Fined 20k for Referring to Herself as "Doctor"
Replies
38
Views
4K
confettiflyer
confettiflyer
WVUPharm2007
FDA approves first daily over-the-counter birth control pill in U.S.
Replies
15
Views
3K
rph3664
R
K
  • Locked
Double degree : Chem. engineering VS Marketing
Replies
20
Views
2K
chilly_md
chilly_md
A
Walgreens could shut U.S. stores over the coming years as it invests in VillageMD and other healthcare strategies
Replies
9
Views
2K
deleted462159
D