What happens when the high demand for pharmacist drops?

[soul21]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

From what I've learned pharmacist are in high demand. But what direction is the feild going to take when the supply of pharmacist meets the demand?Right now pharmacist have good purchasing power but I cant help but wonder if pharmacist will be in the same position when the supply meets the demand. Also considering that a part of the reason there is such a high demand for pharmacist is because of the baby boomers retiring, what will happen to the feild when the baby boomers unfortunatly pass away? Basically what Im tryin to ask is if pharmicist will always command a high paying salary or will the purchasing power eventually drop when the demand drops.

 

[dgroulx]

The first of the baby boomers have just turned 60. It's not like people stopped having babies after 1960, either. I think the demand will still be there even when the baby boomers have died 20-30 years from now.

 

[soul21]

The first of the baby boomers have just turned 60. It's not like people stopped having babies after 1960, either. I think the demand will still be there even when the baby boomers have died 20-30 years from now.

I know that people dont stop having babys after 1960, statisticly speaking, just considerly less baby's. But that is just one factor to consider. Do you all think that we are going to command all these wonderful benefits such as sign up bonuses, high purchasing power, life and health benefits, and flexibilty in hours which is attracting a lot of people to this career, when the supply of pharmacist meets the demand.

 

[Abilify]

As with anything in life, the crazed pharmacy shortage will be in fact cyclical and there will be a surpluss. Currently, pharmacy schools all across the country are raising their enrollment and new schools are popping up which is pumping out many more pharmacists than years past. This is very similar to what happened in the 1960's-70's and then in the late 70's early 80's we saw a bunch of pharmacy schools close their doors. Just give it time...

 

[Requiem]

As with anything in life, the crazed pharmacy shortage will be in fact cyclical and there will be a surpluss. Currently, pharmacy schools all across the country are raising their enrollment and new schools are popping up which is pumping out many more pharmacists than years past. This is very similar to what happened in the 1960's-70's and then in the late 70's early 80's we saw a bunch of pharmacy schools close their doors. Just give it time...

Well you didn't really answer his question, even though 'the cyclic nature' of demand/surplus is correct.

I'm in Canada, where in fact there are only 9 schools of pharmacy, and two of those are located in Quebec. The high demand for pharmacists is going to continue for quite, quite some time in the future. Basically, I graduate in 3 more years and I'll nothing to worry about. Don't forget that when you sign on with a company, you sign a contract for set wages, your wages will not decrease if the demand decreases. New pharmacists who sign will get lower wages, but yours will hold constant if you sign a decent contract.

 

[TheChemist]

I was talking about this with my optometrist and he was saying that Optometry is having this problem right now where the schools are graduating too many students, which has created a surplus of optometrists. He says for this reason he attempts to talk people out of getting into the field. He also told me that dentists were having the same problem untill they started closing schools and decreased the supply of dentists. I would assume this is what would happen with pharmacy. Once the supply gets to the point where it meets demand schools will begin to close. I don't believe salaries will drop for pharmacists, since I believe the medical community is trying to evolve pharmacy into a more integral part of medicine. Why else would you change the educational requirement of becoming a pharmacist to require a PharmD, especially when supply is so much lower then demand? I'm sure there are people out there that know a lot more about this issue then I do, but thats my opinion.

 

[b*rizzle]

I feel like this is kinda like the Y2K thing. Everyone makes a big whoopty-doo about it, but then when we actually get there, everyone looks around like "WTF?!? I thought something was supposed to happen!!"


FYI, I think it will be a while before supply for pharmacists = demand, at least no one currently reading these forums will have much to worry about. Getting in is the hard part.

 

[soul21]

I feel like this is kinda like the Y2K thing. Everyone makes a big whoopty-doo about it, but then when we actually get there, everyone looks around like "WTF?!? I thought something was supposed to happen!!"

 

[DocIn2012]

drastically decrease the price of pharmaceutical-grade drugs.
Then when the demand for pharmaceutical-grade drugs increases (let's face it - pill poppers are forever), the demand for pharmacists will increase.

problem solved.

 

[toscogo]

Just like Dana said, by the time the last baby boomer dies in at least 30 yrs from now you will be infact ready to retire!

 

[konkan]

I don't think we are gonna see a surplus of pharmacists soon (maybe in 30 - 40 years) and "baby boomers" is not even the most important reason. The most important reason, in fact, is that medicine is shifting toward drug therapy more and more. In other words, more people are using more drugs. Also drug companies are creating more and more new drugs, and by that I mean, for example, more drugs will be discovered in upcoming 5 years than it was discovered during past 5 years.

 

[soul21]

I don't think we are gonna see a surplus of pharmacists soon (maybe in 30 - 40 years) and "baby boomers" is not even the most important reason. The most important reason, in fact, is that medicine is shifting toward drug therapy more and more. In other words, more people are using more drugs. Also drug companies are creating more and more new drugs, and by that I mean, for example, more drugs will be discovered in upcoming 5 years than it was discovered during past 5 years.

Thats a pretty good point. I can see how medicine shifting towards drug therapy can increase the already existing demand created by the aging baby boomers. I'm sure the people who are in charge of opening new pharmacy schools have already taken that into consideration. I don't think that the high demand will last for 30-40 years. Im thinking more along the line of 10 years or so considering all the grads being pumped out by the new pharmacy schools.

 

[BiOGoly]

He also told me that dentists were having the same problem untill they started closing schools and decreased the supply of dentists. I would assume this is what would happen with pharmacy. Once the supply gets to the point where it meets demand schools will begin to close.

This is sort of an urban myth. The dental school closures in the 70s and 80s (many Ivy's) were mainly about the losing economics of running dental schools rather than a concerted effort to constrict the supply of new dentists. Dental schools can be quite expensive to operate.

The stocastic projections for demand in pharmacy show solid growth into the future. Even with new schools pumping out graduates, the supply of pharmacists will still barely keep up with the demands of a rapidly aging population and continual increase in prescription drug use nation wide.

Of course, I'm always a little leerie of career demand projections. I remember my freshman year of college in 97', back then a CS degree was a golden ticket to instant riches and the demand for programmers was predicted to double every 10 years...har har. Oh what a difference a decade can make...

 

[snailman]

I don't think we are gonna see a surplus of pharmacists soon (maybe in 30 - 40 years) and "baby boomers" is not even the most important reason. The most important reason, in fact, is that medicine is shifting toward drug therapy more and more. In other words, more people are using more drugs. Also drug companies are creating more and more new drugs, and by that I mean, for example, more drugs will be discovered in upcoming 5 years than it was discovered during past 5 years.

Not true. Although people do seem to be more interested in medicating themselves these days (and this is just a personal feeling; I have no hard evidence backing up that statement), since its peak in 1996, the number of new drug approvals has decreased every year. Over the same period, R&D expenditures by the pharma industry have doubled. Bringing drugs to market in a cost-effective manner is actually a big problem right now, and one that is not easily soluble. However, this doesn't necessarily translate into less demand for pharmacists, rather it calls for pharmacists to shift into less traditional roles--for example, pharmacoeconomics, where they can figure out how to develop more drugs for less money, or pharmacogenomics, where they can figure out how to develop drugs with fewer off-target effects.

 

[americanpierg]

what do you guys feel about the field being taken over by robots...

 

[TheChemist]

what do you guys feel about the field being taken over by robots...

As we learned from many movies (Terminator, Matrix, AI, etc.) artificial intelligence is the path to the destruction of the human race. 🙂 On a serious note I think robots or automated pill dispensers will decrease the need for pharmacy techs and not pharmacists.

 

[DownonthePharm]

The key is too keep yourself educated, informed, creative, flexible and always moving forward. Even if the general demand for pharmacists goes down, the demand for GOOD pharmacists will still exist, even if you have to change your job title slightly (management, consulting, etc.).

 

[ProZackMI]

From what I've learned pharmacist are in high demand. But what direction is the feild going to take when the supply of pharmacist meets the demand?Right now pharmacist have good purchasing power but I cant help but wonder if pharmacist will be in the same position when the supply meets the demand. Also considering that a part of the reason there is such a high demand for pharmacist is because of the baby boomers retiring, what will happen to the feild when the baby boomers unfortunatly pass away? Basically what Im tryin to ask is if pharmicist will always command a high paying salary or will the purchasing power eventually drop when the demand drops.

Wow...you may find some benefit in taking a remedial English class. Pharmacist is singular; pharmacists is plural. Perhaps English isn't your primary language?

 

[bananaface]

Employers would be able to hire more selectively. That would be pretty awesome. There is an overage in Seattle at the moment. There will always be pockets of undersaturation, places that people don't want to work or move to. Maybe some people will have to move to get a job if they aren't competitive or there are few jobs in an area. I don't feel being able to walk in off the street and be hired is a good thing on all fronts. It currently takes alot to get some crappy (as in scary crappy) pharmacists out of the profession. They tend to just move on to a new store at present.

 

[soul21]

Wow...you may find some benefit in taking a remedial English class. Pharmacist is singular; pharmacists is plural. Perhaps English isn't your primary language?

A psychiatrist who likes to belittle people who make grammer errors. What is wrong with this picture?

 

[rxlynn]

From what I've learned pharmacist are in high demand. But what direction is the feild going to take when the supply of pharmacist meets the demand?

I recently read a paper (might have been in the APhA journal - not sure where) that stated that part of the issue with pharmacy staffing is due to the fact that there are a lot of women entering the field, and that (on average) women tend to work fewer hours over the lifetime of their career. Therefore, the total number of hours worked helps drive the scarcity of pharmacists. I myself am not sure if I believe this or not.

 

[BiOGoly]

I recently read a paper (might have been in the APhA journal - not sure where) that stated that part of the issue with pharmacy staffing is due to the fact that there are a lot of women entering the field, and that (on average) women tend to work fewer hours over the lifetime of their career. Therefore, the total number of hours worked helps drive the scarcity of pharmacists. I myself am not sure if I believe this or not.

I've read about this situation in the context of medical GP's and some medical specialists...women entering the field in increasing numbers (some schools at nearly 70% XX in the future) and working signifcantly less lifetime hours than males have traditionally. But this is a rediculous assertion. The question shouldn't be "why are women professionals spending too much time actually having a family life?", but rather "what the heck is up with the Dudes in this country?".

The male of the species is in danger of becoming the uneducated underclass...

 

[ButlerPharm.D.]

Requiem, do you ever offer anything to a discussion?

 

[Requiem]

Why does Pharmacy always keep discussing its own demise!?!?! Pharmacy as a profession has existed for many centuries and will continue to exist as a profession until the end of time. I guess it is our nature as scientists to ask "what if" type question. My advice, STOP!! Pharmacy and the role of Pharmacists has evolved in order to keep up to date with the evolution of medicine and will therefore never cease to exist!

First of all, the thread was NOTHING near discussing "pharmacy's own demise", it was discussing the possiblity of wages decreasing. Good try though.

Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by "many", but pharmacy has not existed for "many centuries" as a profession. I'm not going to count tribal witch doctors as pharmacists.

Finally, stating that something will "never cease to exist" is hugely erroneous. Mainly because you don't see the future.

My advice, STOP!!

 

[ButlerPharm.D.]

Actually you need to read up...The first apothecary/pharmacy existed in Baghdad in the 8th century!

 

[soul21]

Employers would be able to hire more selectively. That would be pretty awesome. There is an overage in Seattle at the moment. There will always be pockets of undersaturation, places that people don't want to work or move to. Maybe some people will have to move to get a job if they aren't competitive or there are few jobs in an area. I don't feel being able to walk in off the street and be hired is a good thing on all fronts. It currently takes alot to get some crappy (as in scary crappy) pharmacists out of the profession. They tend to just move on to a new store at present.

I think you are absolutly right, employers would become more selective. Hmmmm... I wonder if when that happens if the school rank of what school we attend will start to matter since jobs would be more competitive. I'm also thinking that maybe an MBA will give people an edge in retail when the work force is saturated.

 

[KUMoose]

Living through the decline in IT, has made me realize, that the question shouldn't be "What happens when the required number of pharmacists decline?" but one of "What happens when technology and law makes having a pharmacist in every corner store a luxury and not a requirement?" This is far more important, because it allows the use of cheaper pharmacists. For example, what happens when stores install tele-pharmacy dispensing? The dispensing is done by PharmTechs, the pharmacist remotely checks the script and counsels the patient through (essentially a) webcam? That means rolling three or four pharmacy stores into a two person crew is very easy to do.

The number of required pharmacists will decrease in our lifetime. And for most of the people on this board, that will impact them, because 30 years will likely be 10 or possibly 20 years from retirement in 2036. This means that pharmacists that serve highly specialized roles or those that serve multiple areas will be kept and Joe (or Jane) Doe, that only counts, counsels and takes cash is SOL.

High senority (or rather high salary) will be the first to be RIF'd (Reduction in Force) or my favorite Reduction En Masse (REM), unless they fit into minority status. The number of part timers will increase, because the cost of two part time pharmacists with no benefits is better then one pharmacist with full benefits. This means pharmacists who are in it to stay at home are primed to get spots, those that want to work full time, better find multiple stores or hone teaching skills.

In short, learn as much now and keep abreast on as many skills as possible. Branch out to all areas of pharmacy or work at becoming the top 2 or 3 in a particular area.

It's also interesting that the spending of capital on R&D can be attributed to several key factors. Of note, a number of bills passed in the 90s that made R&D more profitable in terms of tax reduction or tax credit. In essence, business lobbied to make it more profitable to spend money in R&D across a wide range of fields. Ultimately there is some benefit to society, but not nearly as much as to 'the man'. Another valuable note is that money has largely deflated in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, I made around 40k a year, last year my AGI was around 88k. That's more then doubled my taxable income, however my buying power only raised about 10% and while that doesn't include funds going to retirement, it's still a poor ROI for 10 years of service, training and growth.

 

[soul21]

Living through the decline in IT, has made me realize, that the question shouldn't be "What happens when the required number of pharmacists decline?" but one of "What happens when technology and law makes having a pharmacist in every corner store a luxury and not a requirement?" This is far more important, because it allows the use of cheaper pharmacists. For example, what happens when stores install tele-pharmacy dispensing? The dispensing is done by PharmTechs, the pharmacist remotely checks the script and counsels the patient through (essentially a) webcam? That means rolling three or four pharmacy stores into a two person crew is very easy to do.

The number of required pharmacists will decrease in our lifetime. And for most of the people on this board, that will impact them, because 30 years will likely be 10 or possibly 20 years from retirement in 2036. This means that pharmacists that serve highly specialized roles or those that serve multiple areas will be kept and Joe (or Jane) Doe, that only counts, counsels and takes cash is SOL.

High senority (or rather high salary) will be the first to be RIF'd (Reduction in Force) or my favorite Reduction En Masse (REM), unless they fit into minority status. The number of part timers will increase, because the cost of two part time pharmacists with no benefits is better then one pharmacist with full benefits. This means pharmacists who are in it to stay at home are primed to get spots, those that want to work full time, better find multiple stores or hone teaching skills.

In short, learn as much now and keep abreast on as many skills as possible. Branch out to all areas of pharmacy or work at becoming the top 2 or 3 in a particular area.

It's also interesting that the spending of capital on R&D can be attributed to several key factors. Of note, a number of bills passed in the 90s that made R&D more profitable in terms of tax reduction or tax credit. In essence, business lobbied to make it more profitable to spend money in R&D across a wide range of fields. Ultimately there is some benefit to society, but not nearly as much as to 'the man'. Another valuable note is that money has largely deflated in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, I made around 40k a year, last year my AGI was around 88k. That's more then doubled my taxable income, however my buying power only raised about 10% and while that doesn't include funds going to retirement, it's still a poor ROI for 10 years of service, training and growth.

I would have to disagree with the idea of technology and law reducing the amount of pharmacist needed. From what I've seen the main reason for the demand is aging population consuming more medication. The medication dipensing machines can only help distribute the medication more effiecently but not replace the pharmacist. If politicians really want atm like machines replacing phamacist they wouldnt wait 10 years from now, they would start right now. Politicians would push for the technology to be implented right now since the demand is there. It would be bad economics to increase the number of schools graduating pharmacist and then replace a large portion of them with machines 10 years from now.

 

[dgroulx]

Having worked with a robot, I can tell you that until technology improves they are not replacing anybody. They can grab a drug and fill faster than a tech, but you need someone to put drugs into the robot, vials into the robot and labels into the robot. All 200 cells need to be cleaned of dust. You have to take take it off of filling while you do maintenance. In the meantime, the computer system has sent everything to the robot to fill and nothing is getting filled. When it starts to catch up when you turn it back on, it will stop filling if you haven't scanned the filled vials out. So someone will just go and scan the vials out and stack them up to be grabbed. This defeats the purpose of checking the label against the filled vial. But, if you don't do that, you'll fall behind.

Overall, robots make less filling errors. They always choose the right drug, if the tech chose the right drug from the computer screen. If the tech makes an error, and the pharmacist doesn't catch it on the initial verification screen, the robot fills the wrong drug, the pharmacist will catch the error on the second verification and send it back to the tech. Now, you have to do a return to stock, but you can't just pour it back into the cell. You have to take over the robot and do inventory maintenance. You need the scanner to do this, so techs can't scan out the filled vials and you'll get backlogged again.

I'm sorry, but I don't see robots taking over pharmacy. They could replace the need for one or two techs but that's about it.

 

[KUMoose]

Soul, the fact of the matter is that it's not profitable now to handle things via remote pharmacists. When it is, you can bet that money will flow from various lobbies to ensure that the laws get changed. Since most of the pharmacists I've talked to do not actively participate in APhA which lobby is stronger?

DGroulX--
The arguement you list against robots (by the way, Robots replacing Pharmacists wasn't an arguement) were the exact same arguments against the big tape silos backup robots when they came out. The fact of the matter they got better, inside of five years, the capacity vastly increased and the rate of tape miscues is down under 2 per 10k tape changes.

There is already a movement to make pharmacy techs more responsible, look at California. And having two or three techs versus a tech and pharmacist is cheaper. When the technology makes verification and counseling from a remote site more efficient then having a pharmacist in the store, the financially prudent step is to remove the pharmacist. Heck pills by mail has already laid the groundwork for remote counseling, for there to be a pod-filled room full of pharmacists counseling isn't that crazy these days.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

I found it interesting that nobody replied to the original question. He never ask if the demand of pharmacist will be gone in a few years but what will happen when it does.

Honestly, I can see the idea of surplus of pharmacist happening soon. Independents and Chains has lost a lot of money when Medco and other insurance companies decided to switch to mail order. In a few states, the shortage of pharacists has already been corrected by an increase in pharmacy schools.

I am not so worried about the ATM machines as the pharmacist main job is to check the prescriptions. Somewhere in between inputing the prescription, there will be humans involved and hence error. A robot is no different than what techs do in the pharmacy.

 

[sdn1977]

I graduated in 1977 and work in CA so I can give you some real life insight into what occurs when the job market "shrinks". There were more phamacists available than there were jobs when I graduated. What that meant to me was I had to commute further and had less flexibility in the hours I worked than I had in later years. Jobs were still available and my pay was the same as other pharmacists. However, in the last 28 years, the market has loosened up for lots of reasons: there are many more maintenance medications, much better prescription drug benefits (in spite of what you may have heard!) and much more need for clinical judgements, which will continue, IMO, the need for pharmacists. In the last 5 years, the number of prescriptions filled at the local retail level has declined because of mail order and reduction of "lifestyle" drug benefits (Viagra, Duac, Retin A, etc.) However, the number of pharmacists have not declined - just shifted. Over my 28 year career, the need has shifted from retail, to hospital, to retail to mail order, etc...I have worked both full time and part time...although I am a woman and reduced my hours for children, I have worked with men who have reduced their hours for exactly the same reason - that is the beauty of pharmacy!!! As long as you are able to keep up professionally - you can go from full time to part time and back again! You can shift from hospital to retail to managed care and back! The influx of new pharmacists may shrink the market, but I feel you will always work - it just may not be the "best" circumstances during the course of your whole career. Be sure to stay current and flexible - be sure your family knows your job is not 9-5 and have fun! (and...sorry...I agree with a previous poster....spelling and grammar do reflect on your attention to detail - our profession is very detail oriented...so it should be important to you and it will definitely be important if you ever write professionally - even for a monthly hospital formulary! - Just my own opinion!)

 

[baggywrinkle]

From what I've learned pharmacist are in high demand. But what direction is the feild going to take when the supply of pharmacist meets the demand?.

Not going to happen. The profession wears them out faster than it replaces them.

 

[bananaface]

I found it interesting that nobody replied to the original question. He never ask if the demand of pharmacist will be gone in a few years but what will happen when it does.

I see several responses. 🙂