3 ms·

Also I would just like to say that I find it absolutely disgusting that "do you look respectable" is some kind of proxy for the quality of medical care someone

Also I would just like to say that I find it absolutely disgusting that "do you look respectable" is some kind of proxy for the quality of medical care someone deserves, or the level of suspicion or ire a person deserves. No, I do not look sketchy or aggressive. I am literally just a normal looking dude. Rather healthy, rather well kempt. Now what the fuck should that have to do with my medical care? I sure am glad I can afford nice clothes, glad I was raised to speak proper english, and glad I have adequate dental care, cause it sounds you are suggesting pharmacists will not work with you if you are an "undersireable". I think that is pretty fucking gross. If you gave 50 junkies their drugs but it meant you didnt hassle even 1 legit patient Id call it a win. What bizarre moral high grounds peoppe take. Also I was at no point complaining about pharmacists - theyve always been super helpful to me, as much as they legally could anyway. I was complaining about the law itself, and complaining about primary care physicians. And you are correct I should have said "some states" instead of "some pharmacies" - it was, in fact, in Texas where this happened to me and you are correct, The first pharmacy I called told me that no texas pharmacy could legally fill the script from an out of state doctor.

not_a_shill 4y ago
From a pharmacy POV that doesn't address your problems with Healthcare in general: Everyone gets a baseline minimum level of care, but there are varying levels of "working with" when problems arise when you have a fixed amount of time you can get everything done in. If you don't have time, you have to use SOME other heuristic to determine priority. (Mainly speaking to how much leg work the patient wants the pharmacy to put in, vs themselves) From other Healthcare POV: There's a reason why so many people burn out. The people that make a career out of it without getting jaded are actually incredible. >If you gave 50 junkies their drugs but it meant you didnt hassle even 1 legit patient Id call it a win. But the other moral hazard comes into place when you're the one okaying questionable prescriptions that could result in someone's death. Insulin syringes was another case where junkies would lie to your face about what they were using them for. I worked with a pharmacist that wouldn't sell them to people that didn't have a reasonable way of proving that they needed them for legitimate purposes. Why? A junkie ODed outside his pharmacy after buying them. How many junkies would you have to kill before changing your own personal policy? If you don't care about killing people, it's extremely easy to just say you'll sell them to everyone. >I was complaining about the law itself, and complaining about primary care physicians. My point was some of the blame should be on the pharmacists or techs when they aren't telling you the full truth. (And it felt like they weren't when I read your post) The out of state script is a good example of what I'm talking about. If it was a CII paper script they couldn't legally fill it. But they could have also told you that an out of state doctor could eScribe in a CII if they really cared to do so.[1] And if it wasn't a CII but still scheduled they might have been legally able to fill it anyways based on the criteria in the link I posted. I've gotten hassled for even out of city CII scripts, and it's the same play where they create just enough friction to make it easier for you to go somewhere else. 1. https://www.pharmacy.texas.gov/files_pdf/QUICK_REFERENCE_GUIDE.pdf https://www.pharmacy.texas.gov/files_pdf/QUICK_REFERENCE_GUI...
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  huh interesting. Thanks for the reply. I understand the perspective of not wanting to give out material that may result in a drug overdose/death. I get it on an emotional level, but it just doesn't really make sense to me. For example, what is safer for a junky - to recieve prescription grade norco, or to sniff a pile of heroin that came from god knows where cut with god knows what? so in the case of a pharmacy sweating people about the legitimacy of their need for a norco, my way of thinking is just give the damn things out. If its a junky, so what, they just got a cleaner safer high. And if its legit, then you have just helped someone who you would have otherwise burdened with the inability to get their drugs.

not_a_shill 4y ago

From a pharmacy POV that doesn't address your problems with Healthcare in general: Everyone gets a baseline minimum level of care, but there are varying levels of "working with" when problems arise when you have a fixed amount of time you can get everything done in. If you don't have time, you have to use SOME other heuristic to determine priority. (Mainly speaking to how much leg work the patient wants the pharmacy to put in, vs themselves) From other Healthcare POV: There's a reason why so many people burn out. The people that make a career out of it without getting jaded are actually incredible. >If you gave 50 junkies their drugs but it meant you didnt hassle even 1 legit patient Id call it a win. But the other moral hazard comes into place when you're the one okaying questionable prescriptions that could result in someone's death. Insulin syringes was another case where junkies would lie to your face about what they were using them for. I worked with a pharmacist that wouldn't sell them to people that didn't have a reasonable way of proving that they needed them for legitimate purposes. Why? A junkie ODed outside his pharmacy after buying them. How many junkies would you have to kill before changing your own personal policy? If you don't care about killing people, it's extremely easy to just say you'll sell them to everyone. >I was complaining about the law itself, and complaining about primary care physicians. My point was some of the blame should be on the pharmacists or techs when they aren't telling you the full truth. (And it felt like they weren't when I read your post) The out of state script is a good example of what I'm talking about. If it was a CII paper script they couldn't legally fill it. But they could have also told you that an out of state doctor could eScribe in a CII if they really cared to do so.[1] And if it wasn't a CII but still scheduled they might have been legally able to fill it anyways based on the criteria in the link I posted. I've gotten hassled for even out of city CII scripts, and it's the same play where they create just enough friction to make it easier for you to go somewhere else. 1. https://www.pharmacy.texas.gov/files_pdf/QUICK_REFERENCE_GUIDE.pdf https://www.pharmacy.texas.gov/files_pdf/QUICK_REFERENCE_GUI...

DontchaKnowit 4y ago
huh interesting. Thanks for the reply. I understand the perspective of not wanting to give out material that may result in a drug overdose/death. I get it on an emotional level, but it just doesn't really make sense to me. For example, what is safer for a junky - to recieve prescription grade norco, or to sniff a pile of heroin that came from god knows where cut with god knows what? so in the case of a pharmacy sweating people about the legitimacy of their need for a norco, my way of thinking is just give the damn things out. If its a junky, so what, they just got a cleaner safer high. And if its legit, then you have just helped someone who you would have otherwise burdened with the inability to get their drugs.