3 ms·

What empirical studies do you know justify this claim?

evrydayhustling 8y ago
Um the experience of waiting in line at the drug store in four states in the last fifteen years? If you think most people have a more involved relationship with their pharmacist, I doubt I'm going to dissuade you.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  It was just over ten years ago, but I had the experience of having an allergic reaction to a medication prescribed to me, and a pharmacist that was knowledgeable enough to warn me not to take the obvious OTC remedy for my symptoms because it would likely make things worse.
  - evrydayhustling 8y ago
    Your comment makes me recognize that my own above could sound fundamentally dismissive of a pharmacist's role, which I don't intend. I recognize that good pharmacists can be a safety check or troubleshooter, and safeguards are valuable even when rarely needed. However, the fact that your anecdote was 10 years ago underscores the point that the vast majority of pharmacy interactions are transactional: pick up the medicine the doctor ordered in. This is demonstrated in how doctors and insurance treat pharmacies as interchangeable, and the pharmacies themselves advertise discounts and quick pickup rather than diagnostic track record. Per the post further up the thread, it is reasonable for most patients to think of pharmacists as middlemen. I think this is why many people are shocked that a pharmacist can block a prescription on moral grounds. The lack of a relationship makes the pharmacist overriding you and your doctor's judgements seem entirely out of the spirit of the transaction. It feels like a neighbor you barely know using a moment of economic leverage to have a major impact on your life, for which they will have no accountability. I'm personally sympathetic to the idea that a pharmacist, or anyone, shouldn't have to act outside their moral principles. But that should come along with clearly advertising what transaction is being offered -- "We fulfill prescriptions" is a different service offering than "we fulfill prescriptions that we agree with", and a patient needs to know in advance which they are sending their order to.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      I think it's possible things have changed in the last decade, but I don't think it was accidental or the natural evolution of things. Unlike the situation years ago, today I am required to use a particular pharmacy (CVS) by my insurance company. So I think that anything other than filling pill bottles must be crushed by the way the market is currently working. There is simply no point in providing any expertise or extra service when your audience is captive. I used to prefer Rite-Aid, but it's not an option now.

Um the experience of waiting in line at the drug store in four states in the last fifteen years? If you think most people have a more involved relationship with their pharmacist, I doubt I'm going to dissuade you.

perl4ever 8y ago
It was just over ten years ago, but I had the experience of having an allergic reaction to a medication prescribed to me, and a pharmacist that was knowledgeable enough to warn me not to take the obvious OTC remedy for my symptoms because it would likely make things worse.
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  Your comment makes me recognize that my own above could sound fundamentally dismissive of a pharmacist's role, which I don't intend. I recognize that good pharmacists can be a safety check or troubleshooter, and safeguards are valuable even when rarely needed. However, the fact that your anecdote was 10 years ago underscores the point that the vast majority of pharmacy interactions are transactional: pick up the medicine the doctor ordered in. This is demonstrated in how doctors and insurance treat pharmacies as interchangeable, and the pharmacies themselves advertise discounts and quick pickup rather than diagnostic track record. Per the post further up the thread, it is reasonable for most patients to think of pharmacists as middlemen. I think this is why many people are shocked that a pharmacist can block a prescription on moral grounds. The lack of a relationship makes the pharmacist overriding you and your doctor's judgements seem entirely out of the spirit of the transaction. It feels like a neighbor you barely know using a moment of economic leverage to have a major impact on your life, for which they will have no accountability. I'm personally sympathetic to the idea that a pharmacist, or anyone, shouldn't have to act outside their moral principles. But that should come along with clearly advertising what transaction is being offered -- "We fulfill prescriptions" is a different service offering than "we fulfill prescriptions that we agree with", and a patient needs to know in advance which they are sending their order to.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    I think it's possible things have changed in the last decade, but I don't think it was accidental or the natural evolution of things. Unlike the situation years ago, today I am required to use a particular pharmacy (CVS) by my insurance company. So I think that anything other than filling pill bottles must be crushed by the way the market is currently working. There is simply no point in providing any expertise or extra service when your audience is captive. I used to prefer Rite-Aid, but it's not an option now.