Yes, there will always be pharmacists, simply because someone has to be ultimately responsible for the safe and efficacious distribution of drugs, whether it's in hospital, or elsewhere. The question really is, what will pharmacists do in the future, more specifically, in the retail setting. The numbers of people on chronic meds are going up...and so are the numbers of medications on the market. I don't think think the current drug distribution system can handle that. Pharmacists in retail will have to find their niche in a future almost certain to include automation and a more involved and responsible technician staff (unless all you want to do is supervise the robot
).
One of the first courses at my pharmacy school was a "history of pharmacy practice" course, but what they were trying to teach (or preach, really) was the concept of "pharmaceutical care"...using the expertise of pharmacists to allow patients to utilize their drug therapy more efficiently to achieve definitive outcomes that improve their quality of life. That would mean careful monitoring of patient drug regimens. That would also mean operating asthma, diabetes, hyperlipidemia clinics (adjusting meds under collaborative practice agreements with physicians), smoking cessation services, etc. The problem is, pharmacists are still in the process of proving the worth of such services...and they need to prove it to the insurance industry in order to receive compensation for those services. Why would you offer these services to patients if you're not gonna get paid for them?
It's strange really, it's both an exciting and sorta scary time to become a pharmacist, since we are in the process of defining our scope of practice. Even though I'm most likely gonna be in the clinical/hospital setting, how this plays out will help define who and what I am as a pharmacy professional.
