17 ms·
I'm just waiting for these massive corporations to get into the automation of Pharmacy work. I know a number of highly paid (110k+) pharmacists who largely: A)
by WhompingWindows 7y ago
I'm just waiting for these massive corporations to get into the automation of Pharmacy work. I know a number of highly paid (110k+) pharmacists who largely:
A) count pills
B) put pills into orders
C) do retail
D) answer questions/customer service
Meanwhile, the industry is being flooded with new graduates from dozens of schools...If this isn't a case for automation of A-C, I don't know what IS a case for automation in healthcare.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoWhy would you want to unemploy a bunch of people doing a cushy, fun, do nothing job? What's wrong with you?
- gruez 7y agoretail/pill counting is fun?
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoAs someone whos worked both blue collar and white collar jobs, pharmacist is one of the better gigs out there.
- inpharmaticist 7y agoIt's an okay gig on average, currently. Chains keep buying the smaller guys out, reducing hours and support staff, increasing demands of metrics, and offering lower and lower pay to new grads. It doesn't help that new schools keep opening and applicant numbers do not increase in quality or quantity. The BLS anticipates 0% job growth in the next 10 years.
- wil421 7y agoProbably not but $110k a year can buy a whole lot of fun. Pill counting is not soul crushing, work to live don’t live to work.
- TheSoftwareGuy 7y agoTo provide lower prices to the millions of people who need medication? That money has to come from somewhere
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoNow is not the time to start pretending like we care about sick people.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoPharmacy revenues will remain constant. The only difference is that instead of paying pharmacists, all that money is just going to sit in the caymans, with all the other automation gains.
- niij 7y agoShould we bring back telephone operators too? The price for phone service (especially long distance) has dropped since phones were invented, surely some of that is due to automation and tech advances.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoHonestly? Yeah.
- niij 7y agoDo you think technical progress is making life worse for the average person? I realize it's popular opinion (and I tend to agree) that it's disproportionately benefiting the richest. But that doesn't mean most people aren't benefiting from the cost/time savings that new technology has brought. Curious to hear why you think that way.
- 7y ago
- TylerE 7y agoIt is absolutely not a do nothing job. Every one I've ever interacted with seemed overstressed from the insane work load/hours, if anything. 12-14 hour shifts are common.
- zachwood 7y agoI'm pretty familiar with pharmacy roles and pharmacists do not count or fill pills. That is the job of pharmacy technicians.
- giggles_giggles 7y agoExactly, the pharmacist is there to provide expert advice when you have a complicated prescription or combination of prescriptions. You can tell by these comments that the HN crowd leans young -- not enough people dealing with chronic illnesses who have seen the value in having a consult with the pharmacist when you pick up your medication. My wife has a handful of chronic illnesses and I want her to be able to ask questions of someone who has been educated in the role, method of action, correct dosages, and possible interactions of her medications.
- WhompingWindows 7y agoExactly, they are there for customer service, not for retail, which is a huge proportion of their duties.
- zachwood 7y agoI mean this may be partially true for a retail pharmacy setting, but is much different in a clinical one. Even in an place like Walgreens where customer service is a big part of the job, the idea that it's all a pharmacist does feels simplistic and reductionist and plainly wrong. There's lots of coordination with the patient's doctor and insurance and other pharmacies they might use. It's like saying programmers just type into a keyboard.
- tudelo 7y agoIsn't that mostly the job of the doctor prescribing the medication? I could see value in having an expert at the point of pick up either way.
- eropple 7y ago
- learc83 7y agoMost of A, B, and C are done by techs. Pharmacists are there to manage the techs. But predominantly they are there to be prevent or be held liable for mistakes and loses/thefts of very high value inventory.
- fma 7y agoLike this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-bNu1yICMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-bNu1yICMw I saw this (or one like this) in action in China at a hospital. There were 15+ windows to line up for the pharmacy and each one had a lot of 10+ people. I was in shock because in the US even 2 people in like would take forever. The procedure is, you scan your ID at a machine attached to a pillar. The screen tells you which line to line up in. When you get to the front of the line you hand your card to the nurse the medicine comes down a chute. The line moved fast. I received my medicine in a matter of minutes. Also I paid for the medicine w/ the doctor that prescribed it - so none of this BS about "oh your insurance doesn't cover this, you haven't met your copay" talk that half the pharmacists seems to spend their time with. The doctor told me what to do with it and fielded any questions.
- tudelo 7y agoMoving prescriptions or getting a new prescription especially for controlled substances or things that require prior authorization from insurance co is just a PITA from a user perspective.
- ng12 7y agoYou've got it backwards. Pharmacists are hired because it's legally required. They're there to catch the dosage mistakes, look out for potential interactions, and to answer questions about medication and the proper usage. You cannot legally distribute prescription medication without a pharmacist physically present. CVS and Walgreens would love to get rid of the pharmacists -- they hate that each store needs a couple $110k/year pharmacists just to handle the legal requirements and to be on-site for the few cases where something needs extra attention. That's why they put them to work doing the manual retail side of it to get the most for their dollar.
- creddit 7y agoWhat is it the OP got backwards? They're not really disagreeing with anything you said, though you give more color with regards to drug interactions.
- ng12 7y agoBecause it's not the case that the pharmacist is automatable. A small fraction of the work is completely un-automatable and the easily automatable stuff is just busy work. Even if you automated it they'd still have to hire a pharmacist, he would just have less to do.
- creddit 7y agoDrug interactions are basically the perfect type of thing to automate. It's just a lookup. For usage questions, how many parameters does that vary on? Amount, frequency symptomm? Seems very easy to automate as well. The only thing not able to be automated is law abidance. This would require changing of the law.
- Double_a_92 7y ago> For usage questions, how many parameters does that vary on? Amount, frequency symptomm? Seems very easy to automate as well. The pharmacist couldn't even know exactly. That is probably mostly to check for order of magnitudes errors (missed commas, additional 0s).
- ww520 7y agoThe automation of pharmacy needs to happen in two areas: 1. Count pills and package them. 2. Drug interaction detection. 1 can be automated. In fact the warehouse style pharmacy can do all that. The doctors (or you) send the prescription to the pharmacy warehouse. They ship the medicine to you. 2 can also be automated. Drug interaction are sets of rules and the detection can very well be done with machines.
- refurb 7y agoUnrelated to your comment, but having a job as a pharmacist has changed drastically over the past 20 years. It used to be a ticket to an upper middle class life. Pharmacies were desperate to hire and starting wages were well above $100,000. Then pharmacies schools popped up. Lots of them. Wages are dropping and not everyone who graduates gets a residency or a job. It’s been fascinating to watch because I considered pharmacy school a long time ago. Glad I never did it.
- lonnyk 7y agoDo you happen to know what starting wages are now compared to <time before now>?
- avocado4 7y agoCheck out Alto Pharmacy. I used them in SF, smooth service.
- dntbnmpls 7y agoThat's one thing I've wondered about as well. Most of what pharmacists do can be automated and should be automated. That doesn't mean pharmacists should be without work. Their expertise should be applied elsewhere. What's the point of getting so much education to simply count pills? Better yet, why can't your doctor just send the request to a pharmacist facility and have them fill the order and deliver it to your home? Why does he hand you a piece of paper that you have to bring to a pharmacist? When you give blood, you don't take the vials/tubes to the testing facility. The doctor's office sends it where it needs to go.
- jariel 7y agoPharmacists are Health Care professionals and they're part of the chain of credibility. You absolutely want credible people dosing out medicine, double-checking, etc.. In no uncertain terms should unqualified people be answering questions about anything healthcare-related. Just the smallest questions I ask my pharmacist, I can tell she is super well trained: relatively clear when she can be, when she doesn't know she indicates this, for things out of her bounds she refers to the doctor. Very careful communication. For a little over $100K + all the training, I'd say it's a reasonable deal. That's about the professionalism you'd want before having someone chime in on your health. Maybe it could be reformed but I think pharmacists are valuable.