why are pharmacists paid so high?
Started by saltmania
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
ZpackSux said:
!
Sorry about the confusion. It was based on $55 an hour and my quick math failed me. He was paid 1.5 for actually working the holiday, plus July 4th is one of 5 paid vacation days. Total was 2.5 times pay or about $140 per hour. Then somehow he also got 4 hours of additional vacation pay (something he had arranged for whatever reason) which brought him up to an average of a little over $170 per hour after all was said and done.
SO, if he had just stayed home, he'd have received a day's pay. For actually coming in and working on the holiday he received 1.5 times pay in addition to that. The other two pharmacists only got a day's pay and stayed home.
SO, if he had just stayed home, he'd have received a day's pay. For actually coming in and working on the holiday he received 1.5 times pay in addition to that. The other two pharmacists only got a day's pay and stayed home.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
starsweet said:So, which state is California-like without having to deal with California prices?
Nevada - they use dually licensed CA pharmacists & if they live or work close to Lake Tahoe - get CA-like pay, no state tax.
Standard holiday pay is 2-1/2 times....but, after awhile, you'll trade your pay for your time....
In asking for California like, are you asking for being near the beach? Then Southern Nevada is definately NOT what you're looking for. I send another vouch for Lake Tahoe, but then again, real estate is just as jacked up there as California. Same goes for Reno now...
Rates for pharmacists in southern Oregon are coming close to those found in California. The pharmacists with dual licenses are making a killing crossing back and forth across the border.
saltmania said:
Pharmacists have a lot of liability on their heads. frankly i think pharmacists should probably get paid more for what they do. it isn't easy when you have a whole lot of orders to fill and making sure everything is correct day in and day out.
The OPs original question should of been more like, WHY ARE CEOs who know jack **** except BSing their way GET PAID SO HIGH. 90-100K is not high as a pharmacist for the education, expenses and time commitment as well as responsibility. It bothers me when people ask why any healthcare field is paid so called High, because they DESERVE IT. TEACHERS, HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, and LAW ENFORCEMENT should be paid HIGHER if you ask me.
pharmwannebe2 said:
There it is in a nutshell.
You are not paid for what you do. You are not paid for what you know.
You are paid to be accountable when it goes wrong.
baggywrinkle said:
Bah! 25 years ago I was paid 35K....now I'm paid 100K+ - I was as accountable then as I am now! The economy & marketplace for pharmacists has made my salary increase.
But....I will agree - I am paid for what I know & mostly - what I know to do or not to do, the advice I know to give or not to give. I am not paid for the tasks I accomplish, which is a difficult thing for techicians to grasp the difference.
sdn1977 said:
My first pharmacist payrate was 11.75 an hour and I was happy to have it.
Back when Martin Grass was CEO at Rite Aid there was gleeful talk among middle managers of pharmacists having to "give some back" to the company because of supply and demand. It didn't happen, and never will unless you insist on living a dream life in a premium place like Colorado where you pay for that mountain view in reduced wages. It's a buyers market for Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs and you can take what they offer and like it - or not. They don't care.
Your position in societies pay scale is fixed unless you strike out on your own.
It matters not if you make nine dollars an hour or ninety. All that has really changed is the value of the script notes they are paying you with. Your liability and salary has not changed but the buying power of your dollar has.
You can take that to the bank if you trust it not to close it's doors and steal
what little you have left. I'll take my pay in gold and goods thank you very much!
Florida is not too bad, we have beaches and a laid back lifestyle. We also have a mouse that wears red pants and smiles a lot. No state income tax either, which is nice.starsweet said:
Cost of living is not too bad, real estate has become a little out of control, but overall not too bad.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
sdn1977 said:
25 years ago all you needed was a 4 year degree to be a pharmacist. society has figured out that pharmacist require skill and are very liable for a patient's life. that is why state boards have made the newer generation recieve only a PharmD. just like med. doc. we have to go thru rigerous training to prepare us for patients as well as medicine.
seriously what do doctors that requires them to make so much money!? i went to a dermatologists a few months ago cause i had a rash. and he just came in looked at it for 2 seconds and told me what i had. seriously you just need a bit of training to know what skin infection looks like which. and pharmacists on the other hand have to do a bit of training in order to know the differences between drug interactions in case the doctor prescribes a drug that can interact with something she/he is already taking. anyways why do doctors make so much for just looking at a rash and telling me what i have? it is cause of liablity. if he were to prescribe the wrong meds cause he give the wrong diagnosis and might have killing me you bet i would sue his ass (from beyond the grave) and he might get a revoked licence. just like if a pharmacist doesn't look for interactions they can be sued or get their licences revoked. maybe 25 years ago pharmacist weren't held accountable that much? i don't really know?! maybe society has become sue hungry (who would have thought that mcd's would get sued cause their cups didn't say their coffee was too hot
)it seems the more years in school you go the more resposible you are. like a tech gets paid less but any mistakes they make can be blamed on the pharmacist.
anyways that is my rant.
pharmwannebe2 said:25 years ago all you needed was a 4 year degree to be a pharmacist. society has figured out that pharmacist require skill and are very liable for a patient's life. that is why state boards have made the newer generation recieve only a PharmD. just like med. doc. we have to go thru rigous training to prepare us for patients as well as medicine.
seriously what do doctors that requires them to make so much money!? i went to a dermatologists a few months ago cause i had a rash. and he just came in looked at it for 2 seconds and told me what i had. seriously you just need a bit of trainining to know what skin infection looks like which. and pharmacists on the other hand have to do a bit of training in order to know the differences between drug interactions in case the doctor prescribes a drug that can interact with something she/he is already taking. anyways why do doctors make so much for just looking at a rash and telling me what i have? it is cause of liablity. if he were to prescribe the wrong meds cause he give the wrong diagnosis and might have killing me you bet i would sue his ass (from beyond the grave) and he might get a revoked licence. just like if a pharmacist doesn't look for interactiions they can be sued or get their licences revoked. maybe 25 years ago pharmacist weren't held accountable that much? i don't really know?! maybe society has become sue hungry (who would have thought that mcd's would get sued cause their cups didn't say there coffee was too hot
it seems the more years in school you go the more resposible you are.
anyways that is my rant.
A rant is surely what you have had!
Good luck with getting ahead.....and no - 25 years ago (or in my case longer than that!) it took more than 4 years to get a degree to be a pharmacist. My degree is a Pharm.D & I may be supervising you and ...... perhaps giving you a recommndation for a residency (or NOT) if you want to go further. Your derision of other providers only reflects on yourself.
Yes - I've been held very accountable for all my actions! Be very careful who you choose to alienate with your rants - we are a very small population!
Well just by making the program a Doctorate program does not add any credibility or change to the field. Do not get me wrong, I have the upmost respect for Pharmacist's jobs. But to assume the field is better because of new letters is inaccurate. All you needed was a certificate to be a PA, now you need a Master's Degree, now you got DNP (Doctor of Nursing Programs open), my alma mater switched from a MPT (Master's of Physical Therapy) to a DPT (Doctor of Physical Therapy) with pretty much the same EXACT classes. I know this because my best friend graduated as the last MPT before the university decided to go with the DPT like everyone else. His sister was one year behind him so she fell in the new chartered DPT program. She has a DPT, he has a MPT. They both make the same exact money, and actually I think he makes more, and they were offered identical positions. Everything is becoming DOCTORATE now. I wont be suprised to see a EMT Doctorate program opening soon 🙄sdn1977 said:
image that...going around the hospital and saying hello doctor to everyone person that walks by haha.MD2b20004 said:
sdn1977 said:
sigh sorry about that. i tried to find a reason why pharmacists now are paid more than back in the day since liablity is the same.
it is a hard question and i don't know my history of pharmd./ b.s...so forgive me if i offended anyone.
i still believe liablity is a big factor!
MD2b20004 said:
I take it from your screen name that you are interested in medicine. I welcome you to the pharmacy forum!
There is a thread which details the history of the PharmD - you might search for it. However, in a nutshell....it is a very old degree. It was one of the first degrees given in pharmacy in the late 1800's. It was determined that the BS degee would be awarded in the 1930's when the ACPE, which is the accrediting board for pharmacy education, determined the uniform requirements for US education of pharmacists. This essentially ended the apothecary assistant positions which were frequent prior to that.
However, after WWII, in 1950, USC brought back the PharmD degree to incorporate the amount of education which was required to keep up with the massive abundance of drug research which followed the war.
The ACPE determined in 2000, the only degree to be awarded in the US would be the PharmD. Between 1950 & 2000, almost 75% of the schools had already converted to a PharmD.
So....altho I work side by side with pharmacists who have BS degrees, our pay is not about our degrees. That is a total NON- ISSUE! We are paid the same! The Pharm.D is not a new degree nor is it a ploy to change pay scales or scope of practice.
We are paid what we are paid because we know what we are supposed to know and are valued in the marketplace. My liability is the same today as it was 25 years ago.
My point to pharmwannabe2 was perhaps too sarcastic for a forum. I was trying to impress that it is not in his/her interest to rant about colleagues or prescribers who she/he might later be of benefit to her or to make assumptions of what appears to be superficial from his/her point of view.
It is of benefit to all of us to be respectful of our positions, particularly when we may not know the details of other professions -- just my opinion.
pharmwannebe2 said:25 years ago all you needed was a 4 year degree to be a pharmacist. society has figured out that pharmacist require skill and are very liable for a patient's life. that is why state boards have made the newer generation recieve only a PharmD. just like med. doc. we have to go thru rigerous training to prepare us for patients as well as medicine.
seriously what do doctors that requires them to make so much money!? i went to a dermatologists a few months ago cause i had a rash. and he just came in looked at it for 2 seconds and told me what i had. seriously you just need a bit of training to know what skin infection looks like which. and pharmacists on the other hand have to do a bit of training in order to know the differences between drug interactions in case the doctor prescribes a drug that can interact with something she/he is already taking. anyways why do doctors make so much for just looking at a rash and telling me what i have? it is cause of liablity. if he were to prescribe the wrong meds cause he give the wrong diagnosis and might have killing me you bet i would sue his ass (from beyond the grave) and he might get a revoked licence. just like if a pharmacist doesn't look for interactions they can be sued or get their licences revoked. maybe 25 years ago pharmacist weren't held accountable that much? i don't really know?! maybe society has become sue hungry (who would have thought that mcd's would get sued cause their cups didn't say their coffee was too hot
it seems the more years in school you go the more resposible you are. like a tech gets paid less but any mistakes they make can be blamed on the pharmacist.
anyways that is my rant.
.
sdn1977 said:
You're just bitter because you are over the hill. 😛
pharmwannebe2 said:
I know, I think that to myself, someone in a trauma situation and the EMT calls for the DOCTOR and everyone shows up, the Physical Therapist, the Podiatrist, the Nurses, the Pharmacists, the Desk Receptionist (you never know maybe an online Doctore in Administrative Assistant is in the works Well heck, at least in the senerio I listed above, everyone in the ER will be there when it is said WE NEED A DOC, NOW... MD2b20004 said:
ROFL...booyah doctors soon everyone in medicine will take over like you all have mahahahwhahahwhwhaha...maybe doctors will soon have to have a higher degree title. like doctor doctor or something.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
