Whats your tech to script volume ratio?

[ClearEyes]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Just curious as to whether the grass is greener elsewhere. At Walgreens we average 2000-2100 rx's a week and we are given 140-150 tech hours per week (and continuing to going down 😡)

Is this in line with what others are dealing with?

 

[PharMed2016]

Just curious as to whether the grass is greener elsewhere. At Walgreens we average 2000-2100 rx's a week and we are given 140-150 tech hours per week (and continuing to going down 😡)

Is this in line with what others are dealing with?

That sounds about right, 1 tech hour for approximately 13 scripts.

 

[BrandonUK03]

Just curious as to whether the grass is greener elsewhere. At Walgreens we average 2000-2100 rx's a week and we are given 140-150 tech hours per week (and continuing to going down 😡)

Is this in line with what others are dealing with?

That seems like enough tech hours to me assuming your techs are efficient and the pharmacy is ran well. Are your techs certified? That will make a huge difference. Lets do some math. I'm assuming you can get by with 1 tech on the weekends, so if we subtract out 150-16 (weekend tech hours) = 134 tech hours for M-F. 134/5 days per week = 27 hours per day which equals 3 tech shifts per day average for probably 340 rx/day weekly average. That's very doable with a good staff. Throw in a new staff though and you'll struggle. This seems pretty much in line though.

 

[ClearEyes]

Yeah we struggle mightily .....unfortunately 3 of the 4 are untrained and with no previous experience. And there just isn't time during the day to train them. It's been 3-4 months and they still can't really do anything

Thanks for the replies.

 

[BrandonUK03]

Yeah we struggle mightily .....unfortunately 3 of the 4 are untrained and with no previous experience. And there just isn't time during the day to train them. It's been 3-4 months and they still can't really do anything

Thanks for the replies.

Do you guys do any training classes for them? If so send them in for class and get them fast tracked for the PTCB exam. You need some experienced technicians helping to teach the new ones so they can develop. Talk to your DM or training coordinator to see they have any suggestions that can help you train. Its kinda alarming that 3 or 4 are untrained. Are there other factors in the pharmacy that are making for a bad work environment so that your retention rates are low? If so, this needs to be addressed ASAP too. Techs need to somewhat like their job and keep it low stress to retain them.

 

[owlegrad]

Yeah we struggle mightily .....unfortunately 3 of the 4 are untrained and with no previous experience. And there just isn't time during the day to train them. It's been 3-4 months and they still can't really do anything

Thanks for the replies.

Completely unacceptable. I am not directing this at you personally, but basically your store is setting up these associates to fail. Hiring people without giving them the proper training is not fair to you, your employer, or the employees. It is a personal pet-peeve of mine when I see new people who are not being trained properly to do there job. It is just a waste of time and money to even have them without training them correctly and it is just so incredibly unfair to the associate to expect them to be any good without giving them any tools with which to succeed.

You need to get your district trainer and/or DM involved with this, imo. They are never going to be any help like this and eventually they will quit or be fired.

 

[Sparda29]

Yeah we struggle mightily .....unfortunately 3 of the 4 are untrained and with no previous experience. And there just isn't time during the day to train them. It's been 3-4 months and they still can't really do anything

Thanks for the replies.

This is how I think you approach untrained staff. You put the newest or least capable person on the cash register for pick-up. The next person, you put them in production (if everything is in alphabetical order regardless of brand/generic name, it is pretty easy for them to navigate the pharmacy. Meaning if the script is for Sertraline, you would have the item located under S and not under Z).

Finally, the most capable person or if you have the luck of having an intern, place them at drop-off/insurance/compounding/doctor calls. When I learned how to use the computer system, I did not know how to use it. You let the patients know the person is new and stuff is gonna take longer than usual to fill.

As for the phone, anyone can pick up the phone, if they know how to help the person on the phone, then fine, if they don't, just put the person on hold until a trained person can get to them.

 

[uncfarmasea]

That sounds right. I know at CVS we used to get 1 tech hour for every 10 scripts filled. They're cutting hours now though and we are right in the same range as you.

Good responses about the non-trained staff. CVS offers many training classes for the techs and majority of them are required. Talk to someone higher up about getting them trained correctly; your techs will make or break you!

 

[PharmD RPh]

It's going to be interesting what comes in the next few years. Obamacare could be good or bad for the profession. Third party reimbursements rates are getting lower by the year. The next question is where are we going to be squeezed next?

 

[J ROD]

The next question is where are we going to be squeezed next?

Probably lower salaries....

as the demand becomes lower and the supply becomes greater.....the pay will fall; just as it rose when the reverse was true.

I dont expect them to go down considerably but some.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

It's going to be interesting what comes in the next few years. Obamacare could be good or bad for the profession. Third party reimbursements rates are getting lower by the year. The next question is where are we going to be squeezed next?

Would you mind providing some direct sources for that? I'm not attacking or saying you are wrong but from what I was understanding there was supposed to be a few things happening to help increase reimbursement. Increase on medicaid reimbursement (Medicaid Generic Drug Pharmacy Reimbursement), payment for brand name meds who are on part D, etc. as well for people in the donut hole, and 340B drugs increasing in numbers. Should I be thinking that more people can get their drugs but the payments for each are dwindling? Maybe you could help correct this for me.

most of my sources came from a few CEs, particularly from here: http://www.powerpak.com/index.asp?show=lesson&page=courses/106764/lesson.htm&lsn_id=106764

Now this is specifically for pharmacy where it could affect us, I can believe reimbursements being cut in other areas.

 

[Doctor M]

we fill about 900-1000 rxs per week, we use about 158 tech hours and have a staff rph from 8 to 4 and myself from 11 to 7...i have a pretty sweet deal going on...i cant complain 🙂

 

[ronkoshy]

...

 

[PharmD RPh]

Probably lower salaries....

as the demand becomes lower and the supply becomes greater.....the pay will fall; just as it rose when the reverse was true.

I dont expect them to go down considerably but some.

I think it would be bad for companies to decrease salary as it would make pharmacists angry. In the business world we all know that having happy employees translates into better bottom line profits for the company. This year, I don't see us getting a raise. Or even getting a raise next year. I think what will be tried first is more pressure on the pharmacists to perform and achieve certain goals that a hospital or retail chain puts on you. If you're not performing, see ya later. I think the market will also be fluid meaning that if companies start getting squeezed again on reimbursement, they'll get creative, but I think decreasing our salary should be a last step measure.

The law of supply and demand always tries to be in an equilibrium too. If supply really does exceed demand, an economist would predict lower salaries, but with this comes less people wanting to do our job and application rates fall or schools lower class size to try to put things back into perspective.

 

[PharmD RPh]

Would you mind providing some direct sources for that? I'm not attacking or saying you are wrong but from what I was understanding there was supposed to be a few things happening to help increase reimbursement. Increase on medicaid reimbursement (Medicaid Generic Drug Pharmacy Reimbursement), payment for brand name meds who are on part D, etc. as well for people in the donut hole, and 340B drugs increasing in numbers. Should I be thinking that more people can get their drugs but the payments for each are dwindling? Maybe you could help correct this for me.

most of my sources came from a few CEs, particularly from here: http://www.powerpak.com/index.asp?show=lesson&page=courses/106764/lesson.htm&lsn_id=106764

Now this is specifically for pharmacy where it could affect us, I can believe reimbursements being cut in other areas.

Occasionally we get numbers on average gross profit per insurance company. For example lets just use Tricare as an example. These numbers are arbitrary to illustrate a point. 3 years ago average gross profit per script from Tricare was $20. 2 years ago, average gross profit was $16 per RX. This year average gross profit is $13 per RX. We've generally seen this across a lot of insurance companies and this has led a lot of chains to cut technician hours to try to offset decreased gross profit margins. In our district, script volume is up, but gross profit is down and 3rd party reimbursement rates are to blame which is out of our control. That's a negotiation between a companies corporate offices and the insurance company.

With Obamacare, it opens up about 30 million uninsured people to RX coverage. This would seem good for business, but the major concern is that the government will try to control spending so much with this program that reimbursement rates will be so low that we're really not making much money on these RXs, but doing more work.

I don't have any proof other than what I've seen from my company and our gross profit margins as given by respective insurance plans.

Make sense?

 

[SkiPharmer]

9 hours for every 100 rxs

 

[Ackj]

When I learned how to use the computer system, I did not know how to use it.

Nice one, Yogi.

The law of supply and demand always tries to be in an equilibrium too. If supply really does exceed demand, an economist would predict lower salaries, but with this comes less people wanting to do our job and application rates fall or schools lower class size to try to put things back into perspective.

I like the theory, but I have the feeling that the notion of a good salary would dwell for a long time, especially among admissions/recruitment folks. You still hear "there is a huge national shortage of pharmacists" when that's not true anymore, so I'd imagine "you get paid a ton" would still be told to hopeful high school kids. Unless there is some huge nbc story about "pharmacists among lowest paid professionals" which is unlikely as well.

 

[MountainPharmD]

Just curious as to whether the grass is greener elsewhere. At Walgreens we average 2000-2100 rx's a week and we are given 140-150 tech hours per week (and continuing to going down 😡)

Is this in line with what others are dealing with?

That is terrible and dangerous. Plus I am sure you have zero Pharmacist overlap.

 

[MountainPharmD]

8 tech hours per 100 scripts plus 2 full time Rph's and a 24 hour part timer. A minimum of 4 hours Rph overlap and 7 hours overlap on busy days.

150 tech hours for 2100 scripts is madness especially at Walgreens with four cash registers and two drive through lanes. It is dangerous and I would never put myself in that position. Walgreens has really gone down hill in the last few years. I call it the CVS effect. Everyone gravitating toward the lowest common denominator which is CVS.

 

[PharmD RPh]

8 tech hours per 100 scripts plus 2 full time Rph's and a 24 hour part timer. A minimum of 4 hours Rph overlap and 7 hours overlap on busy days.

150 tech hours for 2100 scripts is madness especially at Walgreens with four cash registers and two drive through lanes. It is dangerous and I would never put myself in that position. Walgreens has really gone down hill in the last few years. I call it the CVS effect. Everyone gravitating toward the lowest common denominator which is CVS.

I only expect the climate in the pharmacy to get tougher now that we have a surplus and chains can be more demanding which is a good and bad thing. Their ratio is about 13-14 rx per tech hour. I'm currently running 12-13 per tech hour without any problems but my techs are great and certified. It all falls back on how good your pharmacy manager is. A good manager within a few months should be able to easily flip that store and have it running no problem.

 

[MountainPharmD]

I only expect the climate in the pharmacy to get tougher now that we have a surplus and chains can be more demanding which is a good and bad thing. Their ratio is about 13-14 rx per tech hour. I'm currently running 12-13 per tech hour without any problems but my techs are great and certified. It all falls back on how good your pharmacy manager is. A good manager within a few months should be able to easily flip that store and have it running no problem.

A good pharmacy manager would run away from this as fast as he could.

Pharmacy should not be about running on the ragged edge barely able to push the button fast enough to get the scrips out the door. I feel sorry for you if this is all you have ever known and you think things are running great.

 

[PharmD RPh]

A good pharmacy manager would run away from this as fast as he could.

Pharmacy should not be about running on the ragged edge barely able to push the button fast enough to get the scrips out the door. I feel sorry for you if this is all you have ever known and you think things are running great.

Actually things are quite relaxed in my store. Just because you don't run your pharmacy efficiently, things in your pharmacy are probably drastically different. Debbie downer is seems to fit you quite well.

 

[MountainPharmD]

Actually things are quite relaxed in my store. Just because you don't run your pharmacy efficiently, things in your pharmacy are probably drastically different. Debbie downer is seems to fit you quite well.

I do not work for Walgreens anymore. If you read my previous post I have almost double the tech hours you do at nearly the same volume. I am quite happy right now. I feel sorry for pharmacist like you who think the pinnacle of retail pharmacy is pushing the buttons as fast as you can with as little help as possible. Pharmacists like you are the very reason are profession is in trouble. Walgreens and CVS have turned retail pharmacy into nothing more than the delivery of a product as quickly and cheaply as possible. I hate to break this to you but a 100k a year pharmacist behind every counter is not a cheap way to deliver prescriptions. Both Walgreens and CVS have made no secret of their attempts to reduce or eliminate pharmacists from the equation. So you keep your face glued to the computer screen and keep pressing that button as fast as you can. When they fire you because you have been replaced by a super tech that can press the button as fast as you try not and slip on the puddle of tears gushing out of your eyes as they push you out the door.

 

[R2pharmD2]

Actually things are quite relaxed in my store. Just because you don't run your pharmacy efficiently, things in your pharmacy are probably drastically different. Debbie downer is seems to fit you quite well.

You can have the most efficient pharmacy in the world, but if you don't have enough help there are going to be times when things get dangerously busy. When problems arise (insurance issues, irate customers, having to call the doc, etc.) they can break your back if you're already working with a bare minimum of staffing, and these things aren't predictable. Just because we can survive with a certain level of staffing doesn't mean that we should, and I agree with Mountain that it's dangerous to do so.

 

[PharmD RPh]

]I do not work for Walgreens anymore. If you read my previous post I have almost double the tech hours you do at nearly the same volume. I am quite happy right now. I feel sorry for pharmacist like you who think the pinnacle of retail pharmacy is pushing the buttons as fast as you can with as little help as possible.

1st of all I never stated that I sit around and push buttons as fast as I can, you're assuming that because my store is efficient and can operate without stress at such a tech ratio that I must be glued to a screen pressing buttons as fast as I can. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Pharmacists like you are the very reason are profession is in trouble. Walgreens and CVS have turned retail pharmacy into nothing more than the delivery of a product as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Why? because I'm efficient and when they see someone doing a good thing it makes other non-performers look bad? I hate to break it you, but that's the way it is in any profession. I have no affliation with Walgreens or CVS. Delivery of a product as quick as possible has stemmed from our society not from retail chains. With the advent of technology we expect everything now, with no wait. Its been societies expectations that have led some retail stores to try to adapt to expectations.

I hate to break this to you but a 100k a year pharmacist behind every counter is not a cheap way to deliver prescriptions. Both Walgreens and CVS have made no secret of their attempts to reduce or eliminate pharmacists from the equation.

Any successful company will always try to find more ways to make money. Sometimes that involves strategic operation adjustments to staffing reductions. This isn't unique to retail pharmacy. Maybe you don't see the value of someone that is educated for 6 to 7 years of their life, pays lots of money and opportunity cost to get the education and finally works in a position where people can be killed by their mistakes as not being worth 100k per year, but I do.

So you keep your face glued to the computer screen and keep pressing that button as fast as you can. When they fire you because you have been replaced by a super tech that can press the button as fast as you try not and slip on the puddle of tears gushing out of your eyes as they push you out the door.

There will never be a tech that replaces a pharmacist. If you truly feel that way, look for a new profession. We all know technicians aren't educated enough for any government or board of pharmacy to allow them to eliminate a pharmacist's duties. No matter how good a tech is that I've worked with, they make substantial mistakes all the time. Seems to me that you have your own issues to deal with and may be a little bitter for being fired or forced out the door of a retail chain yourself because of lack of performance. I would love to have 10 techs to help me do 2100 scripts a week, but its really not necessary. If that was your business, you'd soon look at your profit and loss statement and understand how that isn't possible anymore. Doesn't mean I think its okay or an ideal situation to be in. I truly do think everyone needs to be more patient when they go to the pharmacy and that pharmacists need to spend more time with the patient counseling and educating, but we all know that isn't the case.

 

[PharmD RPh]

You can have the most efficient pharmacy in the world, but if you don't have enough help there are going to be times when things get dangerously busy. When problems arise (insurance issues, irate customers, having to call the doc, etc.) they can break your back if you're already working with a bare minimum of staffing, and these things aren't predictable. Just because we can survive with a certain level of staffing doesn't mean that we should, and I agree with Mountain that it's dangerous to do so.

I agree, there are times that such situations can arise such as when a technician calls in short notice for their shift. However, its only as dangerous as you make it to be. If you feel flustered and feel the need to "press the button as fast as you can" then yeah, that's dangerous. If you're in a bad staffing situation and short help, you can only do 1 thing at a time and check 1 RX at a time. People will just have to wait longer and if that's not good enough for them, then I'm sorry, they'll have to accept that or take their RX elsewhere. Most chains I know would realize that's okay under abnormal circumstances in the pharmacy. Now if its an everyday thing then that's a different story. I've worked in a store doing 1000/day weekdays that's pretty stress free and worked at stores doing 300/day that isn't ran as efficiently and things are chaotic and dangerous. In the original posts question, their problem stems from lack of training of their techs and I would have to assume that if 3 of 4 of them are new, then there are other problems in the pharmacy as well. You replace those 4 techs with experience or trained techs and I guarantee you with that 150 hours while not excessive is sufficient to operate.

 

[R2pharmD2]

However, its only as dangerous as you make it to be. If you feel flustered and feel the need to "press the button as fast as you can" then yeah, that's dangerous. If you're in a bad staffing situation and short help, you can only do 1 thing at a time and check 1 RX at a time. People will just have to wait longer and if that's not good enough for them, then I'm sorry, they'll have to accept that or take their RX elsewhere.

That sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice, for whatever reason, overworked pharmacies make more mistakes.
http://www.ncbop.org/faqs/Pharmacist/PharmacistWorkload-ErrorsStudy.pdf

I agree that having well trained techs can certainly make a difference, but only to a certain point.

 

[MountainPharmD]

That sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice, for whatever reason, overworked pharmacies make more mistakes.
http://www.ncbop.org/faqs/Pharmacist/PharmacistWorkload-ErrorsStudy.pdf

I agree that having well trained techs can certainly make a difference, but only to a certain point.

That is a great point. Smart well trained techs are getting harder and harder to find. In my opinion being a pharmacy tech is one of the worst jobs in all of retail. Why they put up with the crap they do for the pay they get is beyond me. In my experience the good smart techs are smart enough to find something better. 10 years ago you would have techs with 10 to 15 years with the company. Now I am finding the senior techs at most companies have been there 4 to 5 years and most of the techs have less than a year.

 

[PharmD RPh]

That sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice, for whatever reason, overworked pharmacies make more mistakes.
http://www.ncbop.org/faqs/Pharmacist/PharmacistWorkload-ErrorsStudy.pdf

I agree that having well trained techs can certainly make a difference, but only to a certain point.

Not disputing that over worked pharmacists make more mistakes. But just like anything else, some people are more talented at doing certain things than others. I have went into pharmacies that were deemed "hell" and turned them around by makings changes in the operation and workflow of the pharmacy. These things aren't learned in school. They're acquired from experience and mentorships. I've seen stores that were deemed "hell" be turned around within a month by making changes with the manager of that store. A lot of pharmacists also don't have the mental power to keep their cool when stuff hits the fan and try to ride out the tidal wave the best they can. You gotta tell yourself 1 thing at a time and not worry about all the worry staring a hole in you.

 

[R2pharmD2]

Not disputing that over worked pharmacists make more mistakes. But just like anything else, some people are more talented at doing certain things than others. I have went into pharmacies that were deemed "hell" and turned them around by makings changes in the operation and workflow of the pharmacy. These things aren't learned in school. They're acquired from experience and mentorships. I've seen stores that were deemed "hell" be turned around within a month by making changes with the manager of that store. A lot of pharmacists also don't have the mental power to keep their cool when stuff hits the fan and try to ride out the tidal wave the best they can. You gotta tell yourself 1 thing at a time and not worry about all the worry staring a hole in you.

I just don't buy the argument that improving workflow is a cure-all. This sounds suspiciously similar to an argument that a district manager would make

And why should a pharmacist have to ride out a tidal wave, whether they're mentally able to or not, when a little extra help makes the situation more manageable in the first place? To save a few bucks here and there? The money techs make is ****, so is it really worth the risk to cut things so close? As mentioned earlier, having well trained techs can make a big difference too, but how the heck are you supposed find time to train anybody when everybody is pushed to the limit?

 

[PharmD RPh]

I just don't buy the argument that improving workflow is a cure-all. This sounds suspiciously similar to an argument that a district manager would make

And why should a pharmacist have to ride out a tidal wave, whether they're mentally able to or not, when a little extra help makes the situation more manageable in the first place? To save a few bucks here and there? The money techs make is ****, so is it really worth the risk to cut things so close? As mentioned earlier, having well trained techs can make a big difference too, but how the heck are you supposed find time to train anybody when everybody is pushed to the limit?

No doubt things have gotten much tougher to do versus a few years ago. When I hire a tech I make the assumption that its going to take anywhere from 4 to 6 months to get them proficient in doing basic pharmacy tasks. Training isn't just on the manager, but a team effort. From the staff pharmacist to other technicians, everyone has to be on board with a new hire to get them trained.

Workflow isn't a cure all and there is definitely a difference in talent/ability between different pharmacist. A lot of struggling stores do have workflow issues, but probably not the only issue.

If you had the chance to look at a pharmacies operating statement or 3rd reimbursement rates, you'd understand why chains are getting so stingy with tech hours. Reimbursements rates fell so bad that some districts were up in script volume but down substantially in gross profit. Even with payroll cuts it is impossible to make up the difference in loss of that gross profit. This all translates into that chains bottom line report to Wall street which is how CEOs and senior leadership members are judged on their performance.

I enjoy my job, but if I was a new student starting out right now, I'd have to look into different industries. The outlook on healthcare whether it be in pharmacy, medicine or dentistry is looking grim. I read an article the other day where Arizona has cut medicaid funding so bad they're not covering life saving transplants and letting people of that state suffer and die. Dentists are being told that instead of saving a tooth and doing a root canal (a 1000-1500 dollar procedure) pull the tooth (few hundred bucks). Its a mess and I'm just trying to muddle my way through it.

 

[Doctor M]

Im sooooooo glad i dont work for a chain anymore...i can have as much help as i want or as little help as i desire....

 

[PharmDstudent]

I fill roughly 150 prescriptions a day with zero tech hours. Lol! Gotta love the late shift... which I actually do.
I could fill up to 250 a day on my shift, or maybe a little more, but we still have to file hard copies, so sucks for them!
I think they won the lottery whenever I signed on.

 

[Sparda29]

Nice one, Yogi.

You know what I meant.

 

[R2pharmD2]

If you had the chance to look at a pharmacies operating statement or 3rd reimbursement rates, you'd understand why chains are getting so stingy with tech hours. Reimbursements rates fell so bad that some districts were up in script volume but down substantially in gross profit. Even with payroll cuts it is impossible to make up the difference in loss of that gross profit. This all translates into that chains bottom line report to Wall street which is how CEOs and senior leadership members are judged on their performance.

I don't doubt that things are getting tighter from a business standpoint, but cutting tech hours isn't the only option. How about eliminating $25-$50 transfer coupons? Upper management salary cuts? Bonuses? I don't pretend to be an expert on the business side of things, but it seems to me that there are other options to explore besides taking an ax to schedules on a weekly basis.

 

[PharmD RPh]

I don't doubt that things are getting tighter from a business standpoint, but cutting tech hours isn't the only option. How about eliminating $25-$50 transfer coupons? Upper management salary cuts? Bonuses? I don't pretend to be an expert on the business side of things, but it seems to me that there are other options to explore besides taking an ax to schedules on a weekly basis.

A lot of companies are in the midst of restructuring and from what friends have told me a lot of retail chains have finally given the ax to the coupons except rite aid from what I hear and that's a whole different story with them. Bonuses need to be in place for the whole encouragement/reward psychological thing. Employees without incentive wouldn't perform as well without it. I like how apple has positioned it's business model. Steve jobs takes $0 salary but is instead rewarded with shares of stock. If the company does well, stock goes up and he can cash those puppies in for a pretty penny. There is no easy answer to the problem. Wal-mart essentially devalued our profession with the introduction of $4 rxs. It's a catch 22. If you leave current staffing levels in place with lower reimbursement then you would have to raise your cost of goods, in this case cost of drugs which isn't a good solution either. In this economic climate a lot of companies are reevaluating hoe things are done within the company across the board and looking for ways to save money and cutting payroll is 1 cut amongst a ton of cuts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about it, but I try to see things on both sides of the fence.

 

[R2pharmD2]

A lot of companies are in the midst of restructuring and from what friends have told me a lot of retail chains have finally given the ax to the coupons except rite aid from what I hear and that's a whole different story with them. Bonuses need to be in place for the whole encouragement/reward psychological thing. Employees without incentive wouldn't perform as well without it. I like how apple has positioned it's business model. Steve jobs takes $0 salary but is instead rewarded with shares of stock. If the company does well, stock goes up and he can cash those puppies in for a pretty penny. There is no easy answer to the problem. Wal-mart essentially devalued our profession with the introduction of $4 rxs. It's a catch 22. If you leave current staffing levels in place with lower reimbursement then you would have to raise your cost of goods, in this case cost of drugs which isn't a good solution either. In this economic climate a lot of companies are reevaluating hoe things are done within the company across the board and looking for ways to save money and cutting payroll is 1 cut amongst a ton of cuts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about it, but I try to see things on both sides of the fence.

All fair points. I agree that, especially in the current economy, there is so much emphasis on low prices that it would be tough to raise prices for consumers. But a middle ground, like moderate increases in price coupled with more restrained payroll cuts, would be more desirable. I think that if one of the chains made a greater effort to compete on quality rather than price that everyone involved could benefit. Speaking strictly as a customer, I would spend a little more to get my meds somewhere that doesn't emphasize price over everything, including safety. You're right that there aren't easy answers here, and more creative solutions are in order, I think.

I don't mean to suggest that bonuses should be cut out entirely, but if everything else is being reduced they probably should too. I realize how tough it must be for the people in charge to take money out of their own pockets, but it would show great leadership if they were willing (and they could certainly afford) to do so. As far as transfer coupons, there are still multiple pharmacies in my area that offer them and customers who bounce back and forth monthly to exploit them. That might just be a problem specific to my area though.

 

[PharmD RPh]

As far as transfer coupons, there are still multiple pharmacies in my area that offer them and customers who bounce back and forth monthly to exploit them. That might just be a problem specific to my area though.

I thought the coupons were a good idea at first especially for slow, new or struggling stores to drum up business, but in the end they promoted poly-pharmacy and I think the board should step in.

 

[Ackj]

Speaking strictly as a customer, I would spend a little more to get my meds somewhere that doesn't emphasize price over everything, including safety.

Unfortunately, you are probably in the minority here, although I am with you on this. People freak out when their copay goes from $10 to $11, and if it's not ready in 10 minutes they're even more upset. Quality is just taken for granted it seems. A pharmacist I work with once told me, "forget everything you've been told about anatomy, the money nerve is the most sensitive one in the body."

 

[Ackj]

I thought the coupons were a good idea at first especially for slow, new or struggling stores to drum up business, but in the end they promoted poly-pharmacy and I think the board should step in.

New York has actually done this, so we no longer accept these coupons. It causes trouble when people bring in the national ad from their sunday paper and happened to miss the "offer not valid in New York" but I'm sure it's much better than the monthly transfers back and forth.

 

[R2pharmD2]

Unfortunately, you are probably in the minority here, although I am with you on this. People freak out when their copay goes from $10 to $11, and if it's not ready in 10 minutes they're even more upset. Quality is just taken for granted it seems. A pharmacist I work with once told me, "forget everything you've been told about anatomy, the money nerve is the most sensitive one in the body."

Yeah, I'm well aware that I'm in the minority. I do see enough people that demand name brand drugs to make me think that there are still those willing to pay more for something they perceive to be of higher quality. Although I hate to lump myself in with those silly enough to demand brand name everything

 

[pandapharmer]

Same with Ohio, starting the 1st of this year. Rxs can only be transferred once (exceptions are b/t stores in a chain as long as they are on real-time data sharing or whatever the proper term is). BoP passed the law late last year to help reduce poly-pharmacy and I have noticed a slight decrease in the number of transfers we've been doing, even with a coupon running in the weekly ad for my chain.

 

[Thoughtfulsinner]

1 tech hour per 20 scripts is standard these days (2022)

 

[alpha12]

why bump a 11 year old thread?

 

[JustFillIt]

why bump a 11 year old thread?

Yea I hate Necro threads also. I especially hate them when someone bumps them when they are asking the result of a situation or responding Directly to the op of 11 years ago. This usually happens when someone is searching google for a question and they do not bother to look at the dates when they post a reply.

However - this one is interesting that we can see our expectations back then, and compare them to now. What a mess it’s become….

I suppose this would depress me if I did not have a reasonable amount of money in savings. If I was a new grad with no savings, I would honestly be terribly depressed. Especially if I was a “non-traditional” student past my prime with nothing but a PharmD and 8 years of wasted time behind me.

 

[alpha12]

Yea I hate Necro threads also. I especially hate them when someone bumps them when they are asking the result of a situation or responding Directly to the op of 11 years ago. This usually happens when someone is searching google for a question and they do not bother to look at the dates when they post a reply.

However - this one is interesting that we can see our expectations back then, and compare them to now. What a mess it’s become….

I suppose this would depress me if I did not have a reasonable amount of money in savings. If I was a new grad with no savings, I would honestly be terribly depressed. Especially if I was a “non-traditional” student past my prime with nothing but a PharmD and 8 years of wasted time behind me.

It reminds of how much healthier I was 11 years ago. Also I wasn’t married so much happier as well.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Last week we got 210 tech hours for around 3500 scripts.

Lol.

I am currently looking at about 350 unfilled prescriptions in my queue.

Thanks, CVS number crunchers.

 

[footfairy]

Last week we got 210 tech hours for around 3500 scripts.

Lol.

I am currently looking at about 350 unfilled prescriptions in my queue.

Thanks, CVS number crunchers.

I wonder how much they cut because of your store being a 24hour. I know when I worked at one (walgreens) we did about 2800-3200 a week and got 220h a week.

For comparison, the 8am to 10pm that did 2100 a week was getting around 170 at the time.

As for now, I am absolutely terrified of my summer workload once the tech hours get cut. I'm working with 5 of 7 techs being total noobs and I'm sure another 1 or 2 will quit soon enough.

 

[npage148]

Just curious as to whether the grass is greener elsewhere. At Walgreens we average 2000-2100 rx's a week and we are given 140-150 tech hours per week (and continuing to going down 😡)

Is this in line with what others are dealing with?

600-800/week and 80 tech hours

 

[JustFillIt]

600-800/week and 80 tech hours

That’s straight up bonk….