Thank you...I was waiting the enitre thread for someone to make a post like this.
Did anyone ever consider the fact that people think pharmacy can be automated because they genuinely don't understand what the profession has to offer? How about, instead of sitting in your pillboxes and shooting down the OP and anyone who agrees with him, you actually manage to explain what the profession does without insulting others? Yes, the thought of automation replacing 90% of community pharmacists is insulting, but don't you think you should be correcting misconceptions rather than adding fuel to the fire?
To reply to the OP, and to agree with most of the posts already made, automation could never totally replace community pharmacists. Human contact is critical (several examples have already been made) to all healthcare professions. However, I do think that a reasonable level of automation is inevitable (and in some cases already implemented), but the idea is to free up the pharmacist to perform other clinical duties, not to replace the pharmacist.
There are other things, such as "tech-check-tech," which threaten jobs, but again the thought is to free up pharmacists from the insurance companies/pill trays/"How long are you open?" phone calls so they can improve patient care. Medication Therapy Management and Disease State Management are becoming huge right now, and all of these things would actually help pharmacists be able to participate in these clinical functions. Now we just have to find a way to make it profitable on a large scale...
I hope I made my point without irking too many people, but I really think this should have been an opportunity to educate, not to flame. Believe me, if we can't prove why we should be earning ~$100k per year, we won't for long.
First I apologize for the lengthy post, but I felt there were a few key points that I could offer my opinions on, in hopes of offering clarity.
To tack onto what dumediat said, the traditional role of lick-n-stick could probably be replaced. Some of the duties have already been taken, by machines and techs alike. As mentioned in this thread, pharmacy is moving towards offering more services to the patient, such as Medication Therapy Management. Clinics are also possible with pharmacists that can help manage your conditions. It's not to say that they will be doing what doctors do, but definitely they are moving away from simply filling and dispensing prescriptions.
History already reflects this, as the 1952 APhA Code of Ethics stated "
The pharmacist does not discuss the therapeutic effects or composition with a patient. When such questions are asked he suggests that the qualified practitioner is the proper person..." Fast forward to the 1969 APhA Code of Ethics, and it reads "
A pharmacist should ... render to each patient the full measure of his ability as an essential health practitioner." Additionally, Melvin R. Gibson wrote in 1970 "
The pharmacist is the only expert on drugs..." So to answer your question, traditional lick-n-stick could probably be replaced with automated machines, but pharmacists themselves most likely will not be because of the many other services that they offer.
And one key reason for the $100k payroll is the fact that no pharmacy can legally run without a pharmacist present. Before I get flamed, it is not the only reason but it is definitely a component. Currently there is a pharmacist shortage overall, but give it time and with a surplus of pharmacists you cannot expect to be banking the same type of money. Additionally, computer systems are getting so much more sophisticated that many key responsibilities of pharmacists are made easier. For example, it is nigh impossible for a pharmacist to remember every possible interaction that could happen between two drugs, but the computer system can keep massive tables of all that. Retail pharmacies minimize human error by having the system as a check, but extend it to its natural evolution and you could in theory have a well-trained tech manage even more responsibilities of the pharmacist in conjunction with the computer system. Thus further diminishing the role of the pharmacist. I'm sure if you could find a way to do this, retail chains would pay you through the nose because of how much in salaries it would save them.
Of course, pharmacy as a whole will not remain simply lick-n-stick. As mentioned in this thread, one easily overlooked service pharmacists offer is counseling. Possibly because they do not charge, but they are working on ways to be re-reimbursed for that as well. Other services are immunizations, diabetes clinics, lipid clinics, weight loss management, smoking cessation clinics, pain management, Alzheimer's clinics, specialty compounding, education and representation, etc. They are also looking into pharmacist prescribing, but that's another discussion on its own.
In short, yes many responsibilities of the pharmacist could be automated and "replaced" but I doubt that the pharmacist himself/herself will be replaced due to the wide variety of other services offered. Pharmacists will have to (and are) shifting away from a goods-oriented profession into a more service-oriented one.
EDIT: and the way I look at it, the more insurance hassles there are, the more reason for pharmacists to have a job... *joke*
