Why do people still cite the pharmacy manpower project?

[BMBiology]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Again and again, people in academia cited this study as to the reason why there is a need for more pharmacy schools. But yet, we absolutely know nothing about this study.

What is the methodology? Who are receiving these questionnaires? Have the results been validated? Nothing.

One thing we do know - the people and organizations that are sponsoring this study.

http://pharmacymanpower.com

Oh and look, they have a new contact person:

For questions about the Aggregate Demand Index, contact:

David H. Kreling, PhD,
Professor
School of Pharmacy
University of Wisconsin - Madison
777 Highland Avenue,
Madison,
WI 53705

Phone: 608.262.3454; FAX: 608-262-5262
Email: [email protected]

What happened to the original author, dean Katherine Knapp?

 

[BMBiology]

Here's an example. Dean Jordan cited this study as to why there is a need for a pharmacy school in Orange County, CA. His reasoning doesn't make any sense if you have ever been to Orange County.

"We also noted in early 2012 that the Pharmacy Manpower Aggregate Demand Index, which gauges need as accurately as any predictor might in an incredibly complex industry, was trending toward the upper half of balance of demand and need toward demand-need imbalance with the beginning signs of moderate demand. Having seen the great recession effects on housing in Orange County and the early stages of recovery in CA, it was clear to us that demand would grow. Many health-delivery organizations are transforming themselves toward the well-known “Triple Aim.” They advised this would increase pharmacists’ opportunities in heretofore unforeseen areas."

http://drugtopics.modernmedicine.co...y-pharmacy-schools-one-dean-says-no?page=full

 

[Judgment Dragon]

They need a way to lure ignorant people into their pharmacy schools to make money.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...-of-pharmacy-1st-class-starting-2015.1079374/

Dr. Lawrence Brown even cites the Pharmacy Manpower Project on SDN to justify why him opening Chapman Pharmacy School was an excellent decision.

 

[Gombrich12]

http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/supplydemand/usworkforce/projections/pharmacists.pdf

Whenever someone mentions the Pharmacy Manpower Project just send them this study from the Department of Health and Human Services. The Pharmacy Manpower Project has no credibility at all.

 

[confettiflyer]

[email protected][/email]

What happened to the original author, dean Katherine Knapp?

I believed she retired. One of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

 

[BidingMyTime]

People cite it for the same reasons that people cite anything that they know isn't true, because they want to believe its true ("oh my SO is sorry, he won't really hit me again", "oh I'll just eat 1 cookie that won't break my diet", "oh I'm not an alcoholic because I can quit drinking anytime I want to I just don't want to", "oh cigarette smoking isn't that bad look at George Burns he lived to be 100")

 

[297point1]

Seriously: what do you expect them to cite?

I have some questions about the methodology behind the Aggregate Demand Index as well, but it strikes me as a heck of a lot more rigorous than the anecdotes that pass for credible on SDN..."some of my classmates didn't have jobs when they graduated, and others didn't land jobs in the desirable metropolitan area where everyone else wants to work, so there must be an oversupply."

It is more fluid than the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates, which come out (I'm guessing) every 2-3 years? ADI may not be perfect, but I invite you to show me something better.

 

[owlegrad]

Seriously: what do you expect them to cite?

I have some questions about the methodology behind the Aggregate Demand Index as well, but it strikes me as a heck of a lot more rigorous than the anecdotes that pass for credible on SDN..."some of my classmates didn't have jobs when they graduated, and others didn't land jobs in the desirable metropolitan area where everyone else wants to work, so there must be an oversupply."

It is more fluid than the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates, which come out (I'm guessing) every 2-3 years? ADI may not be perfect, but I invite you to show me something better.

I always wondered the same thing. If "you" don't trust ADI or BLS, what does that leave? Just because someone doesn't like the data doesn't mean you get to disregard it.

 

[BMBiology]

Seriously: what do you expect them to cite?

I have some questions about the methodology behind the Aggregate Demand Index as well, but it strikes me as a heck of a lot more rigorous than the anecdotes that pass for credible on SDN..."some of my classmates didn't have jobs when they graduated, and others didn't land jobs in the desirable metropolitan area where everyone else wants to work, so there must be an oversupply."

It is more fluid than the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates, which come out (I'm guessing) every 2-3 years? ADI may not be perfect, but I invite you to show me something better.

They should cite a study that is more forthcoming with its methodology and data. All we know is they sent out surveys to hiring managers.

For example, who are these hiring managers and do they represent the profession? Are they sending 40% of the surveys to retail, 40% to hospital and 20% to managed care hiring managers? Certainly these % are not representative of the profession and can screw up the results. What is the response rate? Is it reliable?

It doesn't make any sense that one dean after another keeps on citing this study when they don't know anything about it besides the demand number they pumped out every month.

 

[tcasey]

I always wondered the same thing. If "you" don't trust ADI or BLS, what does that leave? Just because someone doesn't like the data doesn't mean you get to disregard it.

I don't think a lot of us are trying to disregard it, it's just really hard to trust considering the source it's coming from and the fact that they won't reveal their methodology.

Has anyone ever actually sent an email to the contact listed above to ask about methodology? Or gotten a response at all? My guess is they'll say the data is confidential to protect business information of the participating panelists

 

[BenJammin]

Seriously: what do you expect them to cite?

Nothing. Why are people allowed to make up facts? If you can't backup a statement with a legitimate source then the best course of action would be to cite nothing.

 

[Jbrl]

Again and again, people in academia cited this study as to the reason why there is a need for more pharmacy schools. But yet, we absolutely know nothing about this study.

What is the methodology? Who are receiving these questionnaires? Have the results been validated? Nothing.

One thing we do know - the people and organizations that are sponsoring this study.

http://pharmacymanpower.com

Oh and look, they have a new contact person:

For questions about the Aggregate Demand Index, contact:

David H. Kreling, PhD,
Professor
School of Pharmacy
University of Wisconsin - Madison
777 Highland Avenue,
Madison,
WI 53705

Phone: 608.262.3454; FAX: 608-262-5262
Email: [email protected]

What happened to the original author, dean Katherine Knapp?

Have you tried contacting Dr. Kreling? Curious to know if he's willing to divulge information regarding the questions you've specified.

 

[BMBiology]

Here is another example:

http://m.theet.com/news/business_fi...c48-a47e-11e2-9590-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm

"According to data from the Pharmacy Manpower Project, West Virginia’s most recent available demand index is 3.25, while the nationwide figure is 3.21.

W. Clarke Ridgway, assistant dean for student services at the WVU School of Pharmacy, uses the manpower project data to follow trends in the field.

“West Virginia has a demand index about equal to the national demand index,” he said. “That means that there’s a slightly greater demand for pharmacists than there are pharmacists available.

“That’s a good thing if you are a pharmacist looking for a job,” he added."

 

[PharmtoCS]

By 2018, nearly 15,000 students will graduate from pharmacy schools each year. Assuming that the number of pharmacist jobs grows at 4,140 per year (41,400 over the next 10 years) and around 6,000 (?) pharmacists retire (or are forced out) per the BLS, we still have a surplus of 5,000 per year, or one third. That is still a 33% surplus we're headed toward. Assuming that current pharmacists stay in their current full time jobs, 33% will be the unemployment of new grads. Most people would consider this figure a "high surplus" according to the ADI.

The numbers don't add up.

 

[Lnsean]

What do you expect them to say? They're there to make money off tuition.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119634/pharmacy-school-crisis-why-good-jobs-are-drying

 

[steveysmith54]

I still have no idea what this "project" is... All I know is that I graduated 3 years ago from CA's 4th oldest pharmacy school and I could barely get a part time job at that time. My school had an interview day and we were visited by Albertson/Savon, Vons, Walgreens, Rite Aid, Ralphs, Target, and CVS. Half of these chains weren't even hiring, they told us straight up at the interview. I have no frickin clue why they hell they showed up and wasted my damn time. I used to hear about RPh getting 4-7 offers with bonus. You can take any project that tell us otherwise and shove it.

 

[gwarm01]

I had a hard time finding my first job out of school. The market was too small where I lived, so I moved out of state. It still took four months to land my first job. I think I applied to over 30 different positions, yet only interviewed for three of them. All three offered me a job, so I suppose the hardest part is getting your foot in the door when you don't have a network.

I don't know if the market is getting better, or if it is just a reflection of me having more experience, but my hit rate for interviews seems to be much higher these days.

 

[confettiflyer]

We're having trouble finding qualified candidates.... between new PGY-1 grads and the high performing students that rotate through (who go on to PGY-1 anyway), most of the ones we approach get swept up elsewhere. Quantity may have increased, but finding quality graduates is still a challenge.

 

[steveysmith54]

We're having trouble finding qualified candidates.... between new PGY-1 grads and the high performing students that rotate through (who go on to PGY-1 anyway), most of the ones we approach get swept up elsewhere. Quantity may have increased, but finding quality graduates is still a challenge.

Surprising. My hospital is in LA and we filled two of our positions with residents from UCLA and Sharp's. Do you guys offer less than market pay?

 

[BMBiology]

We're having trouble finding qualified candidates.... between new PGY-1 grads and the high performing students that rotate through (who go on to PGY-1 anyway), most of the ones we approach get swept up elsewhere. Quantity may have increased, but finding quality graduates is still a challenge.

This is why this study is bogus. If it is measuring qualified candidates then the study may be reliable but without knowing its methodology we can't exactly say. I don't even think it is measuring supply vs demand. The problem is that the deans are using this study as a measurement of supply and demand and using it to justify opening more pharmacy schools. By doing so, they are accepting more and more subpar students. As a result this study keeps on showing demand > supply.

 

[confettiflyer]

Surprising. My hospital is in LA and we filled two of our positions with residents from UCLA and Sharp's. Do you guys offer less than market pay?

Generally market pay, we're not a tertiary center, also no one really leaves so my n=4 in observing the hiring process for new pharmacists.

Or maybe new residency grads pass us up because everyone that comes to us is multiyear experienced + residency...or maybe new residency grads are ultimately passed over (I'm not fully privy to the hiring process completely, just snippets).

 

[Jbrl]

Have you tried contacting Dr. Kreling? Curious to know if he's willing to divulge information regarding the questions you've specified.

I'll pose this question again; if no one has done so, how can we qualify the methodology as invalid? Sponsorship does not equate to bias.

 

[PharFromNormal]

I'll pose this question again; if no one has done so, how can we qualify the methodology as invalid? Sponsorship does not equate to bias.

Inability to demonstrate "proof" of something having the chance of being invalid should not remove any questioning of invalidity just as the inability to demonstrate "proof" of something having the chance of being valid should not remove the chance of being valid.

If we all hold ourselves to the scientific method, then we should continue to question everything. The things that we hold as true and the things that we hold as untrue deserve the same level of scrutinity. When things involve human actors or monetary exchange I personally have a bias to explore what the methodology was or what controls were (or were not) put in place to prevent the well understood motives of financial gain from impacting results. If I was not able to control/prevent them, I would provide commentary that results may have influence from factors x, y, z that I didn't or couldn't control/measure.

IMO, if academia so strongly supports, and finances, this "study" they should put this study through the same scrutiny that their toughest journal club reviewers put on phrma funded studies.

 

[BMBiology]

I'll pose this question again; if no one has done so, how can we qualify the methodology as invalid? Sponsorship does not equate to bias.

Go ahead and contact the new guy. As a matter of fact ask him to come on this forum.

I don't know why a study of this magnitude doesn't just post its methodology.

 

[Jbrl]

Inability to demonstrate "proof" of something having the chance of being invalid should not remove any questioning of invalidity just as the inability to demonstrate "proof" of something having the chance of being valid should not remove the chance of being valid.

If we all hold ourselves to the scientific method, then we should continue to question everything. The things that we hold as true and the things that we hold as untrue deserve the same level of scrutinity. When things involve human actors or monetary exchange I personally have a bias to explore what the methodology was or what controls were (or were not) put in place to prevent the well understood motives of financial gain from impacting results. If I was not able to control/prevent them, I would provide commentary that results may have influence from factors x, y, z that I didn't or couldn't control/measure.

IMO, if academia so strongly supports, and finances, this "study" they should put this study through the same scrutiny that their toughest journal club reviewers put on phrma funded studies.

Agreed. However, what I've read doesn't amount to explorative questioning - moreso accusations full of disdain. We don't know the methodology, so what inferences can we make? Who, save the government, would study the supply and demand of pharmacy? The ones who have a vested interest in it, of course.

Suppose the data is somewhat sound; what would that mean in the context of the BLS projections? It's entirely possible that the 'persons who participate in the hiring of pharmacists' (who participated in the study) are buffering the influx of new graduates by hiring more part-time pharmacists to forego provision of benefits. There could be other factors at play that haven't been addressed.

I think, if the results were reversed, no one would be questioning the authenticity of this study, instead using it as kindling for attacks on academia without first critiquing it.

Go ahead and contact the new guy. As a matter of fact ask him to come on this forum.

I don't know why a study of this magnitude doesn't just post its methodology.

Their apparent reluctance to lay it all out does elicit suspicion, but it's a bit early to administer judgment, no?

 

[PharFromNormal]

Agreed. However, what I've read doesn't amount to explorative questioning - moreso accusations full of disdain. We don't know the methodology, so what inferences can we make? Who, save the government, would study the supply and demand of pharmacy? The ones who have a vested interest in it, of course.

Suppose the data is somewhat sound; what would that mean in the context of the BLS projections? It's entirely possible that the 'persons who participate in the hiring of pharmacists' (who participated in the study) are buffering the influx of new graduates by hiring more part-time pharmacists to forego provision of benefits. There could be other factors at play that haven't been addressed.

I think, if the results were reversed, no one would be questioning the authenticity of this study, instead using it as kindling for attacks on academia without first critiquing it.

Their apparent reluctance to lay it all out does elicit suspicion, but it's a bit early to administer judgment, no?

I believe many of the accusations are in response to the blind support that those in academia have had towards this. Both camps have their inherit bias's which are being brought forward by support or criticism of a study that does not demonstrate methodology. I personally place the burden of proof (and demonstration of methodology) on those making claims rather than outsiders that might not even know where to look. Strength of this "study" is way below any threshold I would have to consider valid as it doesn't review methodology. I would also have personal opinions about those in a scientific community that accept claims without peer review and documented methodology.

 

[y0ssarian87]

I believe many of the accusations are in response to the blind support that those in academia have had towards this. Both camps have their inherit bias's which are being brought forward by support or criticism of a study that does not demonstrate methodology. I personally place the burden of proof (and demonstration of methodology) on those making claims rather than outsiders that might not even know where to look. Strength of this "study" is way below any threshold I would have to consider valid as it doesn't review methodology. I would also have personal opinions about those in a scientific community that accept claims without peer review and documented methodology.

Agreed. How can one go so far as to open a pharmacy school, citing need from PMP? How many of these deans of new schools can explain its methodology? I have a feeling the new schools are using any "data" possible to support their mission of bringing in money. If so, it's a travesty that it's at the expense of our profession.