Why are physicians concerned? AMA scope of practice document

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

iknow

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
They usually don't care up until the point it affects their bottom line. When anyone threatens to take away some of their business, certain examples of collaborative practice suddenly become dangerous and unjust. Can't say I blame them. They are just looking out for themselves.
 
Why do physicians feel threatened by the increase in pharmacists' involvement in patient care. Do they believe that we are out there to try to take their jobs/authority? I thought we were there to help them take care of patients and prevent medication errors by making recommendations and interventions. How is this a bad thing?

http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home2&CONTENTID=23151&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

It's not just pharmacy. They have it out for nurses, podiatrists, audiologists, you name it. They have a whole scope of practice series just like that, for 8 different professions!! It's a turf war that they are losing, badly, to nurse practitioners and PAs. Medical roles are evolving, and they are trying to fight it. We can debate whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's definitely reality.
 
I've been trying to get a copy of the AMA document for a while now, but viewing it is restricted to members of AMA only. After reading through the ASHP statement (haven't had a chance to check out APhA's yet), it seemed like the original had to be pretty vicious towards pharmacists.

I honestly don't think the release of this is going to have a large effect on many practicing physicians, but medical students are going to come out of school with a completely skewed view of what pharmacists are meant to do and capable of doing. Very disappointing.
 
I did a big post about this on my blog.
(check it out: http://pharmacyidealist.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/turf-wars/)

Now do I think it will have a large impact on us? No

So why is it so disturbing to me? It is disturbing that the AMA is yet again putting being political over what is in the best interest of patients (the same thing happened over pharmacist's right to immunize).

It is distressing that while we have been hoping to forge more cooperation between the health professions, the leadership of the AMA, seemingly, is moving in the opposite direction.

They forget that in the years before the industrialization of the prescription medication industry (well, well before my time lol), pharmacists were much more involved in determining optimal medication therapy.
 
I mentioned before....is the AMA even relevant anymore? Can't remember, there was some debate a while back about its usefulness. Most of the younger practitioners I encounter (MD's, DO's) are 10x more receptive to pharmacists than the older, stodgy physicians who think we're only good for pouring syrups and making IV's.

But I agree...physicians have a lot to lose going forward, while we're appreciated for our input and ability to save time/resources, when we get into positions where we start eating into their share of revenue, protectionism comes into play. Can't blame them, it is the bottom line, but there are ways to coexist while this whole team-based approach to care thing shakes out.
 
Most of the younger practitioners I encounter (MD's, DO's) are 10x more receptive to pharmacists than the older, stodgy physicians who think we're only good for pouring syrups and making IV's.



An attending I was with a couple weeks ago was introducing me to the team...."This is 'jim bob' he is here to make sure you don't f@#k up the medications and kill the patient, so if you are unsure or have drug/dosing/appropriateness type questions then ask him. And 'jim bob' if you have any diagnosis or physical assessment make sure to ask them. Play well together and lets save some lives!"

This attending is a great teacher and practitioner!
 
An attending I was with a couple weeks ago was introducing me to the team...."This is 'jim bob' he is here to make sure you don't f@#k up the medications and kill the patient, so if you are unsure or have drug/dosing/appropriateness type questions then ask him. And 'jim bob' if you have any diagnosis or physical assessment make sure to ask them. Play well together and lets save some lives!"

This attending is a great teacher and practitioner!

yup sounds about right...someone posted this idea on another thread that it's pre-meds, residents, and really old MD's that don't play nice with the idea of pharmacy, but actual attendings are receptive as they live in the real world. sorry if i butchered that thought, but there you go.
 
Why do physicians feel threatened by the increase in pharmacists' involvement in patient care. Do they believe that we are out there to try to take their jobs/authority? I thought we were there to help them take care of patients and prevent medication errors by making recommendations and interventions. How is this a bad thing?

http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home2&CONTENTID=23151&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

Why wouldn't they feel threatened? Put yourself in their shoes. It seems like everyone is trying to push the boundaries and do more than they should these days. Doctors should be doctors, nurses should be nurses and pharmacists should be pharmacists. If we all work together with each of us doing our job then things should turn out pretty good for the patient. I do not see how trying to back door into the practice of medicine is good for anyone. A good example is this ridiculous DNP doctor nurse practioner thing. What a joke. If I were a Doctor and a member of the AMA I would be outraged at any group trying to cross the line into the practice of medicine. Maybe pharmacists are just getting caught up in all this.

Think of it like this. How outraged do you think we would be if pharmacy technicians started pushing for an advance practice pharmacy technician certification? A certification that would allow them to work without a pharmacists supervision and do things like fill and verify prescriptions and give immunizations ect. We would be up in arms not unlike the AMA is right now.
 
Why wouldn't they feel threatened? Put yourself in their shoes. It seems like everyone is trying to push the boundaries and do more than they should these days. Doctors should be doctors, nurses should be nurses and pharmacists should be pharmacists. If we all work together with each of us doing our job then things should turn out pretty good for the patient. I do not see how trying to back door into the practice of medicine is good for anyone. A good example is this ridiculous DNP doctor nurse practioner thing. What a joke. If I were a Doctor and a member of the AMA I would be outraged at any group trying to cross the line into the practice of medicine. Maybe pharmacists are just getting caught up in all this.

Think of it like this. How outraged do you think we would be if pharmacy technicians started pushing for an advance practice pharmacy technician certification? A certification that would allow them to work without a pharmacists supervision and do things like fill and verify prescriptions and give immunizations ect. We would be up in arms not unlike the AMA is right now.


👍

I'm curious as to what the AMA document actually says. It's impossible to start drawing conclusions about it without actually reading it.
 
Why wouldn't they feel threatened? Put yourself in their shoes. It seems like everyone is trying to push the boundaries and do more than they should these days. Doctors should be doctors, nurses should be nurses and pharmacists should be pharmacists. If we all work together with each of us doing our job then things should turn out pretty good for the patient. I do not see how trying to back door into the practice of medicine is good for anyone. A good example is this ridiculous DNP doctor nurse practioner thing. What a joke. If I were a Doctor and a member of the AMA I would be outraged at any group trying to cross the line into the practice of medicine. Maybe pharmacists are just getting caught up in all this.

Think of it like this. How outraged do you think we would be if pharmacy technicians started pushing for an advance practice pharmacy technician certification? A certification that would allow them to work without a pharmacists supervision and do things like fill and verify prescriptions and give immunizations ect. We would be up in arms not unlike the AMA is right now.


I completely agree with the fact that nurses shouldn't be out there trying to be doctors but pharmacy is a different thing. We don't do the same things doctors...and nurses do. The document said something in regards to pharmacists not being trained to make drug related decisions (I saw it at school)...I think if we see a drug being ordered/prescribed and we know there's something better for the patient we should be able to recommend or help the doctor "decide" to use that drug instead. If we are not trained to do that then why are we even here? We are not trying to diagnose, we are just helping treat the patient.
It should all be based on collaborative efforts.
 
Why wouldn't they feel threatened? Put yourself in their shoes. It seems like everyone is trying to push the boundaries and do more than they should these days. Doctors should be doctors, nurses should be nurses and pharmacists should be pharmacists. If we all work together with each of us doing our job then things should turn out pretty good for the patient. I do not see how trying to back door into the practice of medicine is good for anyone. A good example is this ridiculous DNP doctor nurse practioner thing. What a joke. If I were a Doctor and a member of the AMA I would be outraged at any group trying to cross the line into the practice of medicine. Maybe pharmacists are just getting caught up in all this.

Think of it like this. How outraged do you think we would be if pharmacy technicians started pushing for an advance practice pharmacy technician certification? A certification that would allow them to work without a pharmacists supervision and do things like fill and verify prescriptions and give immunizations ect. We would be up in arms not unlike the AMA is right now.

I don't agree, I think it's apples and oranges. It would be similar if there were a huge and growing shortage of pharmacists, people couldn't get scripts filled in a timely fashion as a result, and the pharmacy powers that be were by and large refusing to open new schools, and dragging their feet as much as possible because it would drag down salaries. It would be similar if everyone complained about a shortage of, say, retail pharmacists, and the pharmacist response was: We have a salary discrepancy in our field! Pay us more money -- a LOT more money, and we will try to get our students to fill those low-paid slots. No promises, though.

This is basically the reaction of the AMA and AAMC. They have created their own problem here. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want an MD to be the ultimate health-care degree that controls health care end-to-end for every American (write the scripts, approve the treatment, supervise the nurses, order the tests, do the surgery) --- but they don't want to open the schools and residencies necessary to achieve this without a huge bottleneck. They are no better than OPEC!!

They're goin' down, and hard. The floodgates are open. 29 --- 29!! --- states are considering letting nurses write CII scripts without physician supervision. Pharmacists have some independent prescribing rights in WA, NC and in the VA system. The ANA is wily, and their plans for the DNP program (with associated residencies in even DERMATOLOGY) is f***ing brilliant to increase the social stature of the nursing profession.

This is why the AMA is lashing out at everyone and anyone, garnering bad press in the process. It makes them look ugly and petty. Look at some of the articles that have come out recently - they don't put MDs in a flattering light (like the article about the hospital in MT that could only attract a dermatological surgeon by paying him $1M per year). There is populist outrage and class envy galore over stuff like this, and the AMA is completely oblivious to it.

The average joe isn't on their side bc they look like a bunch of greedy douches refusing primary care jobs that -- only!-- pay in the low 6 figures. They are losing the PR war big-time over this in a way that pharmacists aren't. For better or worse, everywhere you look, there's a pharmacist! We're not trying to ration our numbers to propel ourselves into a higher salary bracket. The perception is exactly the opposite for physicians. Therefore, people are much more receptive to getting care from nurses and PAs whom they believe aren't in it for the money. That's why there hasn't been rage over the DNP program, PA programs, or the equal reimbursement rates for nurse-midwives and OB/GYNs in the health care bill. The average joe has been cheering it, by and large. This is why the AMA will lose both the battle and the war. Pharmacists don't have that same greedy reputation -- so should push come to shove in a PR war about techs vs. PharmDs, we are in a much better position to capture hearts and minds.
 
Last edited:
Last week i asked the ER doctor a fentanyl related question. He stared at me with a blank look on his face and then told me to go and ask the pharmacist.

They are doctors of Medicine and we are doctors of pharmacy. Let them handle diagnosis and let us handle the medicine. I feel like these two fields are directly intertwined yet separate enough to allow for two groups of practitioners.
 
Excellent. This whole debate might just go to show what can happen when a shortage becomes too severe. Peripheral groups move to fill the gaps: PAs, NPs, and now DNPs. Pharmacist practitioners? I don't know...we'll see. It's too bad pharmacists don't know how to do very many procedural things...if you know what I mean...in the same way that nurses do. I do, however think that pharmacists have much to offer.

The biggest problem is that the public has ABSOLUTELY no clue what pharmacists do or no. I hope this changes.
 
Why wouldn't they feel threatened? Put yourself in their shoes. It seems like everyone is trying to push the boundaries and do more than they should these days. Doctors should be doctors, nurses should be nurses and pharmacists should be pharmacists. If we all work together with each of us doing our job then things should turn out pretty good for the patient. I do not see how trying to back door into the practice of medicine is good for anyone. A good example is this ridiculous DNP doctor nurse practioner thing. What a joke. If I were a Doctor and a member of the AMA I would be outraged at any group trying to cross the line into the practice of medicine. Maybe pharmacists are just getting caught up in all this.

Think of it like this. How outraged do you think we would be if pharmacy technicians started pushing for an advance practice pharmacy technician certification? A certification that would allow them to work without a pharmacists supervision and do things like fill and verify prescriptions and give immunizations ect. We would be up in arms not unlike the AMA is right now.

This is so perfectly broken down... If you wanted to diagnose, you should have gone to med school. If you want to make sure medications are right, be a pharmacist.
 
Last week i asked the ER doctor a fentanyl related question. He stared at me with a blank look on his face and then told me to go and ask the pharmacist.

Sure, but we all have our anecdotes. Last time I went to pick up a certain medication the pharmacist warned me about the side effect like he was some sort of hero, seemingly not realizing that although the medication can induce that effect it can also be used to treat the same thing in certain patients. He certainly didn't come off to me as a 'medication expert'.
 
Sure, but we all have our anecdotes. Last time I went to pick up a certain medication the pharmacist warned me about the side effect like he was some sort of hero, seemingly not realizing that although the medication can induce that effect it can also be used to treat the same thing in certain patients. He certainly didn't come off to me as a 'medication expert'.


What drug and what effect?
 
Sure, but we all have our anecdotes. Last time I went to pick up a certain medication the pharmacist warned me about the side effect like he was some sort of hero, seemingly not realizing that although the medication can induce that effect it can also be used to treat the same thing in certain patients. He certainly didn't come off to me as a 'medication expert'.

hey you gotta let people have their small moments in life. he was probably trying to be friendly.. talking to people about drugs is the highlight of some of our career-lives at least, some of us!!
 
hey you gotta let people have their small moments in life. he was probably trying to be friendly.. talking to people about drugs is the highlight of some of our career-lives at least, some of us!!


Pharmacist may have known both effects of the drug. Just not aware of why it was prescribed.
 
When you counsel, you assume the most common use for it. When I see Cymbalta, I think depression; I don't think fibromyalgia.
 
hey you gotta let people have their small moments in life. he was probably trying to be friendly.. talking to people about drugs is the highlight of some of our career-lives at least, some of us!!

LOL...for sure, I was happy to let the guy have his moment and didn't feel the need to correct him, or tell him how much I learnt about topic in medical school. I just said, okay, thanks, and left.

The pharmacist was just one guy, he doesn't know EVERYTHING about EVERY medication, just like physicians or nurses or anyone else. My point is that I think we need to keep things in perspective when telling our little anecdotes about the one doctor or pharmacist we spoke to who wasn't as knowledgeable about a specific drug or topic as we felt they should have been.
 
LOL...for sure, I was happy to let the guy have his moment and didn't feel the need to correct him, or tell him how much I learnt about topic in medical school. I just said, okay, thanks, and left.

The pharmacist was just one guy, he doesn't know EVERYTHING about EVERY medication, just like physicians or nurses or anyone else. My point is that I think we need to keep things in perspective when telling our little anecdotes about the one doctor or pharmacist we spoke to who wasn't as knowledgeable about a specific drug or topic as we felt they should have been.

No, he doesn't. But he probably knows more about any given medication than YOU do, which is why HE'S a drug specialist and YOU are trained to diagnose.

Perhaps an attitude adjustment on your end would allow you to find pharmacists more helpful.
 
Pharmacist may have known both effects of the drug. Just not aware of why it was prescribed.

I don't think so. With the other medication I was picking up with it, it should have been pretty clear to someone knowledgeable what the doctor had prescribed it for.

Not an attack on pharmacists, just saying they are not all walking encyclopedias on every drug known to man, but that can't come as a big shock to you guys, can it?
 
I don't think so. With the other medication I was picking up with it, it should have been pretty clear to someone knowledgeable what the doctor had prescribed it for.

Not an attack on pharmacists, just saying they are not all walking encyclopedias on every drug known to man, but that can't come as a big shock to you guys, can it?


What drug and what effect?
 
Not an attack on pharmacists,

That's like saying "no offense but.." and of course when someone says that, it's meant to offend.

just saying they are not all walking encyclopedias on every drug known to man, but that can't come as a big shock to you guys, can it?

So is that a requirement to be an expert on drugs... to know every drug known to man?
 
This is so perfectly broken down... If you wanted to diagnose, you should have gone to med school. If you want to make sure medications are right, be a pharmacist.

I understand what you are saying, but not every case in contention is going to be so clearly drawn out.

Traditionally, monitoring therapy falls under a physician's purview, but there are some aspects of monitoring therapy that simply do not require a physician's expertise, much less the fee attached with the doctor's visit. On one hand, I can understand how a physician will want to perform a physical examination on a patient to check for side-effects or new conditions, especially in high-risk scenarios. By all means, I am not advocating for these sort of responsibilities to be placed away from a physician.

However, in straightforward maintenance therapy where the purpose is just to check the lipids and blood pressure on a patient who has been titrated to a stable dose for a year, I'm not sure why you wouldn't have someone else perform the tests and forward the results to the physician. In these sort of gray areas, localizing responsibilities to one profession only serves to reduce the range of patients received. I've been in situations where I've informed a patient about how their doctor wants to see them before authorizing a refill on their Lipitor, and the patient has responded by trying to boycott any visits to the doctor because the doctor is just going to check their blood pressure, run a lipid panel, and then write the same prescription for Lipitor. The cost to the patient is $80 for a foregone conclusion.

The point is that the mission statement and responsibilities is easily stated in general terms, but the specifics get bogged down in grey areas. Physicians do the diagnosing and write the prescriptions, and the pharmacists will dispense the medication. But, who follows up on the therapy? Where does monitoring maintenance therapy come into play? I can certainly understand the AMA's general position from a financial and political perspective, but in the scope of improving health outcomes, I'm not sure if there is a factual argument to be made.

--Garfield3d
 
I understand what you are saying, but not every case in contention is going to be so clearly drawn out.

Traditionally, monitoring therapy falls under a physician's purview, but there are some aspects of monitoring therapy that simply do not require a physician's expertise, much less the fee attached with the doctor's visit. On one hand, I can understand how a physician will want to perform a physical examination on a patient to check for side-effects or new conditions, especially in high-risk scenarios. By all means, I am not advocating for these sort of responsibilities to be placed away from a physician.

However, in straightforward maintenance therapy where the purpose is just to check the lipids and blood pressure on a patient who has been titrated to a stable dose for a year, I'm not sure why you wouldn't have someone else perform the tests and forward the results to the physician. In these sort of gray areas, localizing responsibilities to one profession only serves to reduce the range of patients received. I've been in situations where I've informed a patient about how their doctor wants to see them before authorizing a refill on their Lipitor, and the patient has responded by trying to boycott any visits to the doctor because the doctor is just going to check their blood pressure, run a lipid panel, and then write the same prescription for Lipitor. The cost to the patient is $80 for a foregone conclusion.

The point is that the mission statement and responsibilities is easily stated in general terms, but the specifics get bogged down in grey areas. Physicians do the diagnosing and write the prescriptions, and the pharmacists will dispense the medication. But, who follows up on the therapy? Where does monitoring maintenance therapy come into play? I can certainly understand the AMA's general position from a financial and political perspective, but in the scope of improving health outcomes, I'm not sure if there is a factual argument to be made.

--Garfield3d

It is for the MD to determine the course of action to take... It is for the pharmacist to advise and ensure the patient can get there. I have no issue with distributive duties (such as prescribing rights for maintenance meds) so long as the institution supports it. I'll be a PGY1 later this year...

However, if prescribing is something you are passionate about - you're in the wrong field.

The major disconnect is evident by the development of pharmacy and NP/PA. There is a lot of overhead involved in treating patients. Not just the initial treatment, but the monitoring of treatment success.

I'm just not certain that the distribution of prescribing rights is the best solution to the problem.
 
Because he didn't know 1 fact about about your fictitious anecdote, he's not a medication expert??


Umm...why on earth would you be offended about an incident with some random pharmacist at my local Shoppers Drug Mart?

The story is no more 'fictitious' than the earlier comment about the ER doc with the glazed look in his eye about fentanyl. For all we know, the ER doc is a 'medication expert', he just wasn't able to answer that one question or wanted to foster interprofessional care 🙄. Funny how the pharmacy board just ate that particular story up but can't believe one of their own could be a complete *****. And the same will happen if I posted something similar on the optometry board, the MD board, the nurse board etc. Too funny...
 
Umm...why on earth would you be offended about an incident with some random pharmacist at my local Shoppers Drug Mart?

The story is no more 'fictitious' than the earlier comment about the ER doc with the glazed look in his eye about fentanyl. For all we know, the ER doc is a 'medication expert', he just wasn't able to answer that one question or wanted to foster interprofessional care 🙄. Funny how the pharmacy board just ate that particular story up but can't believe one of their own could be a complete *****. And the same will happen if I posted something similar on the optometry board, the MD board, the nurse board etc. Too funny...

We're pharmacist - we want all of the facts. Think anal retentive...

Not meaning to attack students, but the fact that you are a student makes your level of experience suspect (just like mine).
 
Why wouldn't they feel threatened? Put yourself in their shoes. It seems like everyone is trying to push the boundaries and do more than they should these days. Doctors should be doctors, nurses should be nurses and pharmacists should be pharmacists. If we all work together with each of us doing our job then things should turn out pretty good for the patient. I do not see how trying to back door into the practice of medicine is good for anyone. A good example is this ridiculous DNP doctor nurse practioner thing. What a joke. If I were a Doctor and a member of the AMA I would be outraged at any group trying to cross the line into the practice of medicine. Maybe pharmacists are just getting caught up in all this.

Think of it like this. How outraged do you think we would be if pharmacy technicians started pushing for an advance practice pharmacy technician certification? A certification that would allow them to work without a pharmacists supervision and do things like fill and verify prescriptions and give immunizations ect. We would be up in arms not unlike the AMA is right now.
^^^Thank you for understanding.

As for the others, I'll let you in on the real secret. The job and role of pharmacy is to double check and watch out backs for the few times we slip up and things go wrong. Your job is not to tell us how to choose the right medication. We go to medical school to put the whole big picture together. The biopsychosocial profile of the patient in the context of each and everyone of their diseases. Looking in from the outside thinking you can do our job of prescribing is just ignorance.

Medicine will never split off where we just diagnose and you handle medicines. There is a reason why our degrees say Doctor of MEDICINE, Doctor of Osteopathic MEDICINE, MEDICAL Bachelors and Bachelors of Surgery. That is our job. Not yours. Furthermore the sad truth from what I have seen of clinical pharmacists and pharm students on services isn't very impressive. They get pimped a question and the first thing they do is whip out their iPhone lexicomp or epocrates. I can do that myself. Do you really have some extra magical set of knowledge that we don't, or have access to?

Furthermore to think that patients routinely only show up to visits just for a lipid check is again ignorant. It is a rare patient that shows up without an additional complaint, or simply further work. You are not trained to handle the "more" that comes walking through that door every day. Adding more cooks in the kitchen only spoils the stew.

You guys earn your keep with every day work in hospital pharmacies and retail watching for our screwups. You also earn your keep when involved in residencies to help us get up to speed with lectures and questions we were too lazy to look up or by identifying frequent mistakes we make. You also earn your keep when there are really crazy situations that you just might have a better monograph or insight on from experience - this is the realm of the old seasoned pharmacist burried deep in the hospital basement, or the new grad who busted their rear in school.

You guys are feeling threatened and angry because retail pharmacy is getting kicked around by CVS and others. Your schools are opening up way too fast and now you will have to start competing against yourselves. The glory years are ending. You have lost (for the most part) the ability to have freedom to open your own shop. Because you are trapped in a hard place, you realize the future isn't so bright and you feel the sinking socialized medical ship is the ticket out. So now you want to try and jump on some way to get reimbursed directly by CMS, to be rewarded for your training. This is an illusion being fed to you by your schools faculty telling you can do more. Don't blame us, blame them. Coumadin clinics just don't do it for you, so now you want to be like the third world countries and prescribe what ever you want. There is a reason why they are third world countries letting pharmacists prescribe...

Pharmacy already has a clearly defined role. If you want more go to medical school or become a PA. We respect the pharmacist that acts and works like a pharmacist. But when you have the audacity to say you can do our job, and by default imply you can do it better, you bet we get angry.

Thank you to all the pharmacists out there who do their job and save our rear ends, and ultimately the patients. We thank you. (The others we don't thank)
 
Umm...why on earth would you be offended about an incident with some random pharmacist at my local Shoppers Drug Mart?

The story is no more 'fictitious' than the earlier comment about the ER doc with the glazed look in his eye about fentanyl. For all we know, the ER doc is a 'medication expert', he just wasn't able to answer that one question or wanted to foster interprofessional care 🙄. Funny how the pharmacy board just ate that particular story up but can't believe one of their own could be a complete *****. And the same will happen if I posted something similar on the optometry board, the MD board, the nurse board etc. Too funny...


You have yet to describe the effect and the drug. Once you do, we'll continue this little chatter. Until then, your story is fictitious.
 
It is for the MD to determine the course of action to take... It is for the pharmacist to advise and ensure the patient can get there. I have no issue with distributive duties (such as prescribing rights for maintenance meds) so long as the institution supports it. I'll be a PGY1 later this year...

However, if prescribing is something you are passionate about - you're in the wrong field.

The major disconnect is evident by the development of pharmacy and NP/PA. There is a lot of overhead involved in treating patients. Not just the initial treatment, but the monitoring of treatment success.

I'm just not certain that the distribution of prescribing rights is the best solution to the problem.

The point of my post was not to impinge upon the prescriptive duties of physicians. On the contrary, I agree that there are certain aspects of a physician's responsibilities that can easily be delineated as a responsibility that should solely belong to physicians, such as physical examinations. And, while I have my own view on prescriptive duties in health care, I feel that the grand responsibility of that matter should also belong to physicians.

What I feel is being lost in the debate is that there are gray areas, such as the monitoring aspect, that have no firmly established caretaker of those areas in health care. In the example that I posited above, my point was that you don't need a doctor's visit to check a person's blood pressure and run a lipid panel. A patient does not need to spend $80 every 6 months to a year only to receive the exact same prescription. In these cases, another healthcare professional can monitor those values for the patient, and if there is no change, then they can tell the doctor that the values are at baseline and that they can fax in a new refill for the patient.

The situation that I am describing is a rather narrow set of cases. For something requiring a bone-density scanner or a larger set of tests, the physician should be the caretaker involved. Moreso, if it's been a long time or if it is a complicated case that will likely require further investigation, then the physician is free to establish his or her purview in such situations.

However, there is still plenty of gray area in health care, and there are areas of deficiency in health care. Some of these deficiencies exist because we are rooted in outdated or nebulous views of roles, and I think what is suggested by the AMA document may be counterproductive in achieving better health care.

--Garfield3d
 
Furthermore to think that patients routinely only show up to visits just for a lipid check is again ignorant. It is a rare patient that shows up without an additional complaint, or simply further work. You are not trained to handle the "more" that comes walking through that door every day. Adding more cooks in the kitchen only spoils the stew.

I think I am being misunderstood on this point, which given the state of this thread, is understandable.

I recognize that there are many valid reasons for a patient visiting the doctor's office, and there are many valid reasons for a doctor wanting to periodically see their patient in person. If a doctor feels that there is something suspect, or it has been a while since they have had the opportunity to personally evaluate a patient on maintenance therapy, then I have no qualms about that.

Furthermore, I am not suggesting that pharmacists, or other health care professionals, should be given prescriptive powers, or even to write a carbon copy of a physician's orders under some sort of pre-established protocol agreement.

What I was stating in my example is that it is unnecessarily redundant to have a stable low-risk patient visit a doctor on a routine patient to confirm values that are easily obtained and easily interpreted through established guidelines (for instance, in the lipid example that I posited, I imagine all of us have heard of the ATP-3 and JNC-7/8 Guidelines in conjunction with Framingham risk scores?). It is an unnecessary burden to have a patient fork over $80 on office fees for what is expected to be a foregone conclusion. More importantly, it is an unnecessary burden on health care to risk deterring pushing patients away (especially the underprivileged) who consider their finances to be just as important as their health.

In such a situation (what I feel to be a gray area in health care), I feel that it is proper to have certain qualified health care professionals, such as a nurse or pharmacist, record those values outside of the doctor's office and then relay those values to the doctor. If the values are at baseline, then the patient saves some money and the doctor can fax over a new set of refills in good conscience. However, if the patient's LDL balloons, their triglycerides creep upwards, or their HDLs tank, then the pharmacist can inform the patient of the bad news and direct the patient to the physician. To me, this feels like a situation where the patient saves the cost of a visit to the doctor, and the health care professions extend their reach to a wider audience, particularly to patients who would discontinue therapy or delay visiting the doctor due to financial difficulties.

I am not suggesting that pharmacists, or other health professionals, be given diagnostic duties, nor am I suggesting that they should be given prescriptive duties. Rather, I am stating that there is currently a deficit when it comes to monitoring maintenance therapy. In some cases of these cases, the expertise of a physician is still needed. However, in certain cases, this expertise is not needed, and we can improve health care by extending these roles outside of the doctor's office.

--Garfield3d
 
The situation that I am describing is a rather narrow set of cases.

^^^ This is why pharmacists should not be involved in prescribing. I am not trained to prescribe; I am trained to identify errors in prescribing. Furthermore, by adding prescribing authority, we dilute and degrade our cardinal use. Sneezing described this from the physician perspective quite well.

While I do not agree with his assertion that the growth of pharmacy is driven by how much retail sucks, his understanding of the role of pharmacy is spot on. I enjoy playing my part on the team. It is when you covet a different role that things start to get sticky.

EDIT: In light of the most recent post - no one disputes the deficit, but there are conflicting means with which to deal with it.
 
Last edited:
seat.gif
 
^^^Thank you for understanding.

As for the others, I'll let you in on the real secret. The job and role of pharmacy is to double check and watch out backs for the few times we slip up and things go wrong. Your job is not to tell us how to choose the right medication. We go to medical school to put the whole big picture together. The biopsychosocial profile of the patient in the context of each and everyone of their diseases. Looking in from the outside thinking you can do our job of prescribing is just ignorance.

Medicine will never split off where we just diagnose and you handle medicines. There is a reason why our degrees say Doctor of MEDICINE, Doctor of Osteopathic MEDICINE, MEDICAL Bachelors and Bachelors of Surgery. That is our job. Not yours. Furthermore the sad truth from what I have seen of clinical pharmacists and pharm students on services isn't very impressive. They get pimped a question and the first thing they do is whip out their iPhone lexicomp or epocrates. I can do that myself. Do you really have some extra magical set of knowledge that we don't, or have access to?

Furthermore to think that patients routinely only show up to visits just for a lipid check is again ignorant. It is a rare patient that shows up without an additional complaint, or simply further work. You are not trained to handle the "more" that comes walking through that door every day. Adding more cooks in the kitchen only spoils the stew.

You guys earn your keep with every day work in hospital pharmacies and retail watching for our screwups. You also earn your keep when involved in residencies to help us get up to speed with lectures and questions we were too lazy to look up or by identifying frequent mistakes we make. You also earn your keep when there are really crazy situations that you just might have a better monograph or insight on from experience - this is the realm of the old seasoned pharmacist burried deep in the hospital basement, or the new grad who busted their rear in school.

You guys are feeling threatened and angry because retail pharmacy is getting kicked around by CVS and others. Your schools are opening up way too fast and now you will have to start competing against yourselves. The glory years are ending. You have lost (for the most part) the ability to have freedom to open your own shop. Because you are trapped in a hard place, you realize the future isn't so bright and you feel the sinking socialized medical ship is the ticket out. So now you want to try and jump on some way to get reimbursed directly by CMS, to be rewarded for your training. This is an illusion being fed to you by your schools faculty telling you can do more. Don't blame us, blame them. Coumadin clinics just don't do it for you, so now you want to be like the third world countries and prescribe what ever you want. There is a reason why they are third world countries letting pharmacists prescribe...

Pharmacy already has a clearly defined role. If you want more go to medical school or become a PA. We respect the pharmacist that acts and works like a pharmacist. But when you have the audacity to say you can do our job, and by default imply you can do it better, you bet we get angry.

Thank you to all the pharmacists out there who do their job and save our rear ends, and ultimately the patients. We thank you. (The others we don't thank)

I do not completely agree with all at all points. I agree that there should be a clear cut in what each professional should do. However, I find your post is very self-centered, and intended to diminish the value of pharmacy profession, and belittle others in this forum. I think the ultimate goal of all healthcare professionals is to cure, prevent, and promote health to the patients. Patients should be the focus point, not a doctor, nor a pharmacist, nor a nurse. We all work together to make bring the best of healthcare to the patient.

You guys earn your keep with every day work in hospital pharmacies and retail watching for our screwups. You also earn your keep when involved in residencies to help us get up to speed with lectures and questions we were too lazy to look up or by identifying frequent mistakes we make. You also earn your keep when there are really crazy situations that you just might have a better monograph or insight on from experience - this is the realm of the old seasoned pharmacist burried deep in the hospital basement, or the new grad who busted their rear in school.

A hospital pharmacist is not there to watch your screwup, is not there to speed up with lectures and questions because you are too lazy to look up, nor a pharmacist is buried deep in the hospital basement, but for the sake of the patients.

I do not know if a pharmacist should or should not prescribe, but one thing I know is that if there is not enough doctor to meet the demand of healthcare, other professions will do it, examples are PA, Nurse Practitioners. Whether you agree with my point or not, you can't change the fact that pharmacist profession is changing its direction right now from dispensing medications to pharmaceutical care. It can be slow at this moment, but it can be successful in the future. The world is always changing, there is always room for any professional to improve, expand its role to meet the demand of the market.
 
I'm anxiously awaiting Priapism's response to this thread. I have my popcorn waiting.

But it all boils down to the same thing it always boils down to concerning healthcare professionals. It's an industry run by a bunch of narcissists whose self value is obtained by what they perceive their level of prestige to be. Some clinical pharmacists want more of it and, for better or worse, are branching out from the original scope of pharmacy...some physicians think they've "earned" the right to be special and never have others do what they've traditionally done.

Really, what other industry are people fighting over getting to do more work? It's so bizarre to me.

The idea of pharmacists having an increasing role in pharmacotherapy isn't necessarily a bad idea. There are studies that show that pharmacists help patient outcomes (i.e. Asheville project)...others that say we offer no help at all (like that study about dyslipidemia I posted a few months ago). That's what we should be doing. Experimenting with the mechanisms of healthcare delivery to see what ways are the most efficient and efficacious. Not breaking down into some lame clan warfare where we want to protect what we perceive is "ours" or what "should be ours".
 
Last edited:
^^^^^ Amen to 5minutes

Sneezing, you make a few valid points but you come across as the most condescending and arrogant jerk to ever post on these forums. Any point you made was negated by your atrociously patronizing tone. I don't care if your a DO resident, an MD resident, an MD/PhD, an attending, or even someone highly prominent in the field. If any physician, nurse, PA, NP ever attempted to unprofessionally belittle me, my colleagues, and my profession to my face, I'd immediately raise my middle finger to their face and tell them to have a nice day.

Why? I don't care who you are or what your credentials are, at the end of the day your a god-da$#@d human. This crap about you being too lazy to look up information so thats the only thing I'm good for? BS. Don't even dare tell me you or any other MD knows a FRACTION what a pharmacist knows about drugs. You may know a sufficient amount of information on a handful of drugs that you commonly prescribe, but the line ends there. Don't ever, EVER have a large enough ego to possibly fathom you know more about a subject area then the person who spent four years of their lives dedicated to the study of Pharmacology, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacotherapeutics.

I didn't spend 8 years total of my life to dedicate myself to protect the sorry behind of an incompetent PCP who haphazardly prescribes statins to 25 year old pregnant patients because their LDL was "a little high." What in gods name, this should never happen and yet it has happened multiple times in my short career. I don't give a damn about you, about your ego, or about your license/liability. I care about mine, because I am an independent pharmacy practitioner, not some subservient of a self-created MD demigod.

I spent 8 years dedicated to the study of pharmacotherapy so that I can better the lives of patients by ensuring they receive safe, effective, and ECONOMICAL pharmaceutical care. Economical, something physicians have NO CLUE ABOUT. High blood pressure? How about Bystolic and Diovan (instead of trusty metoprolol and lisinopril)? Forget about the fact the patient has Medicare Part D and that would rip them into the donut hole in 4 months flat combined with their other meds.

I think you sound scared honestly. The monopoly the MD/DO degree has on the health care system is fragmenting as the nation realizes we need a more economical solution. Charging $80-$125 for immunization visits, BP/lipid panel checks and refill renewals is simply not viable long term. Go ahead and make an argument all you want; it simply will not work for this nation collectively. Do I agree with the new health care plan? Not necessarily. That isn't whats important. Whats important is that its here, its reality, and your going to have to adapt your own practice model or drown trying. This includes accepting the expertise of other health care practitioners, and this includes the medication experts.

Take care.
 
I think you sound scared honestly. The monopoly the MD/DO degree has on the health care system is fragmenting as the nation realizes we need a more economical solution. Charging $80-$125 for immunization visits, BP/lipid panel checks and refill renewals is simply not viable long term. Go ahead and make an argument all you want; it simply will not work for this nation collectively. Do I agree with the new health care plan? Not necessarily. That isn't whats important. Whats important is that its here, its reality, and your going to have to adapt your own practice model or drown trying. This includes accepting the expertise of other health care practitioners, and this includes the medication experts.

Take care.

QFT. Especially when some physicians are publicly so loud, so condescending, so holier than thou like this one. It makes it very hard to listen to their message rather than sitting back and enjoying watching them get smacked down a peg or 10 by cut reimbursements and the growth in other allied health fields like NP/DNP.
 
^^^Thank you for understanding.

As for the others, I'll let you in on the real secret. The job and role of pharmacy is to double check and watch out backs for the few times we slip up and things go wrong. Your job is not to tell us how to choose the right medication. We go to medical school to put the whole big picture together. The biopsychosocial profile of the patient in the context of each and everyone of their diseases. Looking in from the outside thinking you can do our job of prescribing is just ignorance.

Medicine will never split off where we just diagnose and you handle medicines. There is a reason why our degrees say Doctor of MEDICINE, Doctor of Osteopathic MEDICINE, MEDICAL Bachelors and Bachelors of Surgery. That is our job. Not yours. Furthermore the sad truth from what I have seen of clinical pharmacists and pharm students on services isn't very impressive. They get pimped a question and the first thing they do is whip out their iPhone lexicomp or epocrates. I can do that myself. Do you really have some extra magical set of knowledge that we don't, or have access to?

Furthermore to think that patients routinely only show up to visits just for a lipid check is again ignorant. It is a rare patient that shows up without an additional complaint, or simply further work. You are not trained to handle the "more" that comes walking through that door every day. Adding more cooks in the kitchen only spoils the stew.

You guys earn your keep with every day work in hospital pharmacies and retail watching for our screwups. You also earn your keep when involved in residencies to help us get up to speed with lectures and questions we were too lazy to look up or by identifying frequent mistakes we make. You also earn your keep when there are really crazy situations that you just might have a better monograph or insight on from experience - this is the realm of the old seasoned pharmacist burried deep in the hospital basement, or the new grad who busted their rear in school.

You guys are feeling threatened and angry because retail pharmacy is getting kicked around by CVS and others. Your schools are opening up way too fast and now you will have to start competing against yourselves. The glory years are ending. You have lost (for the most part) the ability to have freedom to open your own shop. Because you are trapped in a hard place, you realize the future isn't so bright and you feel the sinking socialized medical ship is the ticket out. So now you want to try and jump on some way to get reimbursed directly by CMS, to be rewarded for your training. This is an illusion being fed to you by your schools faculty telling you can do more. Don't blame us, blame them. Coumadin clinics just don't do it for you, so now you want to be like the third world countries and prescribe what ever you want. There is a reason why they are third world countries letting pharmacists prescribe...

Pharmacy already has a clearly defined role. If you want more go to medical school or become a PA. We respect the pharmacist that acts and works like a pharmacist. But when you have the audacity to say you can do our job, and by default imply you can do it better, you bet we get angry.

Thank you to all the pharmacists out there who do their job and save our rear ends, and ultimately the patients. We thank you. (The others we don't thank)

There is tonnes of truth in this post. Very well stated. An yes, I am a pharmacy student.
 
I think the point here is physicians are trained to diagnosis and pharmacists are trained to provide pharmaceutical care. Are there overlaps? Yes since medicine is an art and there are a lot of grey areas in it.

However any physicians who thinks that they can be replaced by a pharmacist deserves to be replaced by one. The same applies toward NP/PA.
 
Bottom line: pharmacists are the medication experts, I don't care what anyone says. Sure, there are crappy pharmacists, but there are also crappy physicians and nurses. We receive much more didactic education regarding medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, and pharmacotherapy compared to physicians and nurses.

However, pharmacists play a supportive role. Our job is to help physicians, and possibly correct any issues regarding pharmacotherapy. We let nurses know what drugs can be run in the same IV line, etc. We compound, we prepare radiopharmaceuticals. All kinds of stuff. We have a very respectable profession.

If you want to be a pharmacist, go to pharmacy school. If you want to be a physician, go to medical school. If you want to be a nurse, go to nursing school. But, there is nothing wrong with some scope of practice expansion as long as there is benefit to the patient. Replacing a MD with a DNP is probably not a good idea. But teaming up the two would be. Teaming up MDs with PharmDs is beneficial to patients.

The problem is that some physicians, pharmacists, and nurses think they are God and know everything. If everyone in every profession would be a little more down to Earth and be willing to listen to others, the patients would benefit.

Everyone needs to quit suffering from micropenis and know your role instead of constantly having turf battles. If you work hard and know your stuff you will receive respect from other healthcare professionals. Just being a pharmacist, a physician, or a nurse doesn't entitle you to respect. It's how hard you, as an individual work, and how you can help other professionals as well as patients.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line: pharmacists are the medication experts, I don't care what anyone says. Sure, there are crappy pharmacists, but there are also crappy physicians and nurses. We receive much more didactic education regarding medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, and pharmacotherapy compared to physicians and nurses.

However, pharmacists play a supportive role. Our job is to help physicians, and possibly correct any issues regarding pharmacotherapy. We let nurses know what drugs can be run in the same IV line, etc. We compound, we prepare radiopharmaceuticals. All kinds of stuff. We have a very respectable profession.

If you want to be a pharmacist, go to pharmacy school. If you want to be a physician, go to medical school. If you want to be a nurse, go to nursing school. But, there is nothing wrong with some scope of practice expansion as long as there is benefit to the patient. Replacing a MD with a DNP is probably not a good idea. But teaming up the two would be. Teaming up MDs with PharmDs is beneficial to patients.

The problem is that some physicians, pharmacists, and nurses think they are God and know everything. If everyone in every profession would be a little more down to Earth and be willing to listen to others, the patients would benefit.

Everyone needs to quit suffering from micropenis and know your role instead of constantly having turf battles. If you work hard and know your stuff you will receive respect from other healthcare professionals. Just being a pharmacist, a physician, or a nurse doesn't entitle you to respect. It's how hard you, as an individual work, and how you can help other professionals as well as patients.

The Jets and the Sharks!!!
 
^^^^^ Amen to 5minutes

Sneezing, you make a few valid points but you come across as the most condescending and arrogant jerk to ever post on these forums. Any point you made was negated by your atrociously patronizing tone. I don't care if your a DO resident, an MD resident, an MD/PhD, an attending, or even someone highly prominent in the field. If any physician, nurse, PA, NP ever attempted to unprofessionally belittle me, my colleagues, and my profession to my face, I'd immediately raise my middle finger to their face and tell them to have a nice day.

Why? I don't care who you are or what your credentials are, at the end of the day your a god-da$#@d human. This crap about you being too lazy to look up information so thats the only thing I'm good for? BS. Don't even dare tell me you or any other MD knows a FRACTION what a pharmacist knows about drugs. You may know a sufficient amount of information on a handful of drugs that you commonly prescribe, but the line ends there. Don't ever, EVER have a large enough ego to possibly fathom you know more about a subject area then the person who spent four years of their lives dedicated to the study of Pharmacology, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacotherapeutics.

I didn't spend 8 years total of my life to dedicate myself to protect the sorry behind of an incompetent PCP who haphazardly prescribes statins to 25 year old pregnant patients because their LDL was "a little high." What in gods name, this should never happen and yet it has happened multiple times in my short career. I don't give a damn about you, about your ego, or about your license/liability. I care about mine, because I am an independent pharmacy practitioner, not some subservient of a self-created MD demigod.

I spent 8 years dedicated to the study of pharmacotherapy so that I can better the lives of patients by ensuring they receive safe, effective, and ECONOMICAL pharmaceutical care. Economical, something physicians have NO CLUE ABOUT. High blood pressure? How about Bystolic and Diovan (instead of trusty metoprolol and lisinopril)? Forget about the fact the patient has Medicare Part D and that would rip them into the donut hole in 4 months flat combined with their other meds.

I think you sound scared honestly. The monopoly the MD/DO degree has on the health care system is fragmenting as the nation realizes we need a more economical solution. Charging $80-$125 for immunization visits, BP/lipid panel checks and refill renewals is simply not viable long term. Go ahead and make an argument all you want; it simply will not work for this nation collectively. Do I agree with the new health care plan? Not necessarily. That isn't whats important. Whats important is that its here, its reality, and your going to have to adapt your own practice model or drown trying. This includes accepting the expertise of other health care practitioners, and this includes the medication experts.

Take care.

I am not belittling or insulting the profession. I respect pharmacists and want to shake your hand, give you a hug, and simply say, "Thank you for all of your hard work that is often times behind the scenes and unknown to us, nurses and patients." You guys are important.

But when you disrespect what we do on a daily basis and insinuate you can do it better, I don't respect that pharmacist.

Now which is it? Am I afraid, or egotistical to the point of a god complex? I prefer to think neither and realize the importance of what we do should not lightheardedly be usurped at the broad sword of political scope of practice expansions. I will consider the idea of a huge ego when the people who have spent 4 years studying drugs (pharmacists) are asked questions and the first thing they do is go to epocrates or lexicomp or micromedex. You'll realize this once you are actually out on your 4th year rotations. How can one not?

The previous poster above citing the positive and negative trials of expansion I respect that. If there is good evidence that shows you can markedely do so with either economic or financial improvements, go for it, knock yourselves out. Please don't do it by politics, all that does is cause both professions to waste money on politicians. But from what I know of what goes into doing our job, there will likely be very limited issues for you to claim as your own. You do coumadin and vanc dosing at the moment, am I missing any others?

But to draw attention to the $80-120 office visit is a red herring. A patient who is so healthy that lipids or one other issue are their only problem are usually seen once a year anyways, and an anual physical is performed. You also forget the benefit of the longitudinal patient-physician relationship and being able to know your patient, so when they do come in the future, you know when the are sick, and you when something is wrong behaviorally. When you start throwing in other providers that is gone. That is destroyed and patients feel disenfranchised from being punted every where. Now directly addressing the costs, there are such things as fixed overhead. Retail clinics who are targeting that cost you speak so ill of are actually withdrawing from certain markets. They have found the balance in this market for "low lying fruit" of low acuity patients. If CVS, walgreens, etc feels it is easier to have an NP do it, why do you think you will be able to do it better? Why would you want to spend your day doing that if not for money? You already have a rich intellectual niche, why add more boring repitious management? If any one is money hungry it is those corporations before it would be a physician...

How is it you spent 8 years learning pharmacology? Pharmacy residencies only extend at most to two years. Pharmacy school is 3-4 years. Now if you are upset that pharmacy kicked off the degree inflation and now wants to mandate a bachelors prerequisite, I would be upset too. That's academic highway robbery. And then to consider you guys are trending towards residencies that mostly use as slave labor rather than truly instruct or offer unique unobtainable knowledge (where just a few years ago a fresh grad performed just fine in), I would again be ticked off too. All the while, bachelors RPH pharmacists know just as much, and so I've heard second hand, actually know how to compound better then new grads.

If you are an independent pharmacy practitioner, as you allude to (even though you show as student), you are my hero. That is the type of pharmacist I would like my patients to go to in the future. You are the person who I would love to get phone calls from because I would know you personally. My patients would also know you. That means what you have to say carries more weight and can even be insightful if patients are having behavioral changes, aren't filling the scripts, etc. CVS and walgreens have destroyed what independents still fight for. Please keep up the good fight if that is your goal or actual practice setting.
 
Oh, and be careful about wishing for reimbursement decreases in your quest to curse physicians. Pharmacists are also suckling off this teet too for coumadin clinics and on occaision patient counseling. It does have a ripple effect and affects you too. Plus, it makes the whole expanding pharmacy into clinical roles a little bit less desireable too. Jumping on the CMS band wagon opens the same types of heahaches you curse us for...
 
Top