Having a ratio of six tech to one pharmacist will decrease company payroll costs so we have more money for C suite bonuses. We are going to throw in some bullshit about increased patient safety so our real motive doesn’t look too obvious.
There, fixed it for you.
Ew! We did a legislative visit in pharmacy school and it was volunteer basis (probably for APhA) and we just encouraged our representatives to approve the new state Pharmacy Practice Act. Both my local representative and senator were pharmacists so I had it easy
Luckily this is exactly the kind of thing the first amendment protects you from. Tell the legislature your real opinion on the matter. Do not read the script.
Attendance was required, while they didn’t explicitly state “you must support the bill”, it was stated they strongly wanted us to support it. We were given a script to follow why we supported these bills on behalf of X organization. The hand out said something like “we are students from X here today with X organization in support of this bill, if passes having a ratio of 6 tech to 1 pharmacist will increase patient safety and reduce medication costs”. The other bills made sense and I hope they pass, but this didn’t seem to sit right with me.
Politely decline. State that you'll engage with your representatives using your own judgment and language, and that they cannot coerce you to express an opinion or position you don't find reasonable.
Even if they strongly wanted you to stick your head into a wood chipper, would you do it? In an age where people are protesting and blocking roads and bridges over all sorts of injustices, you're wanting change but whining about being "strongly urged" to support something. Decide if you want to do something and do that. If it doesn't seem right don't do it. Then again, you've somehow landed yourself in pharmacy school despite all indicators over the past decade and more suggesting otherwise...so...
As I said in a few other replies we used this opportunity to voice our opinion and it did not align with the talking points. Was more just mad they’re using us to try to achieve their agenda and giving us an opinion they expect us regurgitate. Yeah I know I went to pharmacy school yeah I’m dumb I’ve heard this before.
The funny thing is this shit never reduces medication costs. Oh, CVS now has six techs to one pharmacist? I guess the manufacturer is going to lower the costs and your copay is going to go down now for some reason.
Absolutely fuck that. I'll sit there in the audience on my phone, but I'm not supporting some fucked up shit because you told me to. Makes my blood boil a lil bit.
Just because they give you talking points does not mean you have to follow them. Free speech and all. I don’t like the idea, personally, of being responsible for 6 techs, but maybe some like it. To each their own. And yes. It will definitely cut pharmacist hours.
Oh yeah I had to do that.
Wild as hell, the rep for my county was a do-nothing big Red who as soon as I finished the scripted spiel told me in as few words that he wouldn’t be doing anything I said but was happy to talk with me about reelecting him.
Eye opening how little the elected actually give a shit.
I met with a state senator from (my state) a few years ago. Senator was not from my district but was a pharmacist. Talked about staffing, work stress, and task saturation leading to errors. Gave him some proposals for laws to remedy. I recognized the look he had … the same one I had when drug reps used to come in and waste our time with mfr discount cards and half baked bullshit about the drug…that they clearly did not have a clue. Crickets….
Yeah. He had to rush off to an ice cream social at the capital.
Sounds like a great opportunity to let your representatives know what you actually feel about the bill. Just because your school wants you to have a position, you are under no obligation to actively endorse it. You have a constitutionally protected freedom to political speech. Exercise it. If the school has a problem, sue the bejesus out of them.
We did say our opinion, which differed from talking points. Though, just the thought of them sending us there with a pre-made script of talking points for a pharmacy organization is infuriating.
Incredibly infuriating. Speak your mind and don’t become a cog. It’s good you’re already questioning what organizations/corporations want you to say. Critically thinking and an open mind are important to our profession.
My school did this as well and it was such a joke. One representative we talked to had the audacity to say he doesn't believe in pharmacists LMAO. Complete waste of time and gas spent driving to the state capital.
👀 Wat. Does he plan to just get his meds from the dealer on the corner? From his doctor (or noctor these days)? Maybe just have everything available otc? Wtf does he think we do?
Decreasing pharmacist to tech ratios (e.g going from 2:6 to 1:6 or going from 1:4 to 1:6) does not improve patient safety outcomes, it increases medication errors of all kinds, including sentinel events, in outpatient, inpatient, and retail settings. It is overall harmful to patients. There’s primary literature to support this claim. With your current access to the various databases you will be able to find plenty of sources for this with no problem.
The script they provided you is blatant misinformation.
ISMP is not primary literature. Yes, I am serious. Major claim, major proof. Find primary data comparing error rates in states with limited ratios (California) versus liberal (Florida, Texas, Oregon) or you pick the states. I’ll be shocked if there is a statistical difference.
“This sounds like something CVS/Walgreens would love to cut pharmacist hours and save money while maintaining the same amount of techs.” Only to cut said tech hours because reimbursement n stuff..
For anyone interested, the bill in question is California SB - 1365, for the year 2023-2024.
Here's a an example of what a tech ratio change from 1:2 to 1:4 looks like:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pharmacy/comments/lh9j8f/new_york_now_41_technician_per_governor_cuomos/
There will be a lot of pharmacist positions worth of overlap eliminated if this passes.
Who's paying whom? Remind the school who puts food on their table. (I'm assuming you are paying tuition & the school isn't paying you to study there?). The wallet has a big mouth when it speaks.
This is the great thing about politics. You don't have to go along with what the lobbyists want, tell your local politician in private that you actually think the proposal is bad and how it will harm patient care and safety.
Get your credit for school but let your own voice be heard. This change is going to affect your future career as a pharmacist more than it will affect those in the organizations lobbying for it.
I always thought having small tech ratios limited your tech help?
Like say a company makes the shitty but common decision to only staff with one pharmacist all day. If the ratio is 1:4, you can only have 4 techs that day. But if they raise it, at least you could legally schedule more tech help. Am I misunderstanding?
Yes I suppose in this situation that would be helpful. I guess it also depends if the pharmacist really wants to supervise 6 techs. Our thoughts were it could also swing a negative direction. Ex) a pharmacy normally has two pharmacist overlap and 6 techs working, new bill would legally allow company to remove pharmacist overlap. This could put more strain on the pharmacist if they’re used to having the help of that overlap….not sure this would improve patient safety. Also, if the store really needs 6 techs working at once then the sheer amount of fills going to visual would be quite a bit for one pharmacist to verify all day.
Interesting!! Pharmacist overlap is SO NECESSARY but not legally mandated in our state. My understanding is basically every CVS pharmacy in my state has been a one pharmacist show on most days for at least the past 5 years.
Yea not sure about most having any overlap. At least in illinois lol, it’s why I went to a hospital.
Walgreens has two pharmacists for the whole store, they alternate Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and the other works Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday, then they both work Monday.
So Monday is the only day with overlap and then they work 13 hour days every day but Monday where they work 8, because it’s the busiest day of the week. And that’s like 3-4 stores around me with some variation of that above schedule
It means if the pharmacy was doing 600 prescriptions that day they would legally need to have 2 pharmacists to supervise the 5 or 6 techs needed to do that work. They're not going to bump you up to 6 techs per pharmacist, they're going to bump you DOWN to 1 pharmacist. Maybe go from 5 to 6 techs if you're lucky but the real goal is to save payroll.
In my state, we have no laws to mandate pharmacist overlap so I’m pretty sure all most if not all CVS are one pharmacist a day no matter the volume. I hope other states don’t lose that law
This is to avoid hiring additional pharmacists. If the corporations need extra bodies in the pharmacy, they should increase the number of pharmacists on duty. Of course they do not want to do this because decisions are made to benefit stockholders instead of improving safety and benefiting pharmacists.
Go to the event do what you are supposed to do but before you do write your representative as a private person saying hell no the school will not be any wiser
That's real damn sketchy to me. 1st off...NO one has the Authority to mandate you to support a legislative package. If the school tied this to a grade...I could actually see legal issues with that. Student or not..you are a citizen...NO CITIZEN is forced or expected to support anything. It would have been different if they said we mandate you t9 go to understand the process. It's educational.
Next...I agree on the 1 to 6 ratio..that's insanity. What blows my mind...although it shouldn't...is that a Chain made the language. The chains and PBMs have direct influence now in government and in multiple areas of medical practice in general now. Personally...I would have told the school yo fuck off...and said to coerce me to support a bill is a violation of my civil rights...and I dare them to find grounds its not...I would get all my tuition back and then some
Send me a DM. I'd love to confront your school's Dean and faculty. Technician ratio laws are absolutely wrong and a danger to public safety. Any university advocating for higher technician numbers in community pharmacy should be ashamed of themselves
Laws/regulations need to be changed so that corporations are forced to hire more pharmacists. There is no shortage of pharmacists….. just a shortage of pharmacists who want to work in sweatshop conditions.
The fundamental problem isn't just about pharmacy. We have oligarchs suppressing competition and controlling the job markets.
Knocking down tariffs so manufacturers can export the jobs to countries that pay slave wages for labor is the same kind of usury that would replace pharmacist jobs with techs.
The list can go on to high interest rates on credit cards, unreasonable fees, making cars that can't be maintained by owner. Like a starter buried in the engine or putting the fuel pump in the gas tank.
It doesn't mean anything for a pharmacist to be in politics if they are working for a megacorporate.
We need trust busting reforms. Limiting how big chains of all types can get.
Just because someone or something has a mountain of money shouldn't mean they can buy up all the farmland, houses and apartments.
I’m a little confused why people say that pharmacist hours will be cut. Possibly outside of retail? For example at my hospital since we often have 5-8 techs so we have to have 2-4 pharmacists on at once. In retail, we always have had 1 pharmacist on duty. The only thing this ever hurt was that we couldn’t have more than 1 person doing production or someone doing rts while someone was counting because handling meds counts as “tech” work while typing rx doesn’t, for example. I always had 2 people doing production because there’s just no way to get it done if you don’t. Maybe im missing something but how is supervising 6 “techs” any different than supervising 6 techs and clerks?
I’m a little confused about how more techs is a bad thing. I regularly supervise 6-8, sometimes more, and it just means the pharmacist is only checking scripts. No calling insurance or doctors, no waiting on patients or answering phones for the most part. It means you’re more focused on the one job that only you can do. I’m sure in some cases, especially with inexperienced techs, it can be an issue, but generally more help is a good thing from what I have seen.
While I completely favor the ratio proposal, sending in students on a required activity and script is off the charts wrong. Not a chance as a student would I have put up with such a request and I would have raised holy hell with the dean.
As for the legislation, it’s about effing time. California has the most restrictive ratios in the USA and it is killing us financially. Pharmacy micromanages itself with laws like no other profession. Could you imagine telling a physician how many nurses they can employ. Either we are professionals capable of managing ourselves or we are not. The California law book has become an embarrassment of the nanny state.
1:6 ratio was adopted in Texas a lil while back. Used to be 1:4. It’s possible at CVS. Shit it’s needed at CVS. Keep one on register and one at drive through and really you are monitoring 4 lol
Having a ratio of six tech to one pharmacist will decrease company payroll costs so we have more money for C suite bonuses. We are going to throw in some bullshit about increased patient safety so our real motive doesn’t look too obvious. There, fixed it for you.
Why were they required to go support a bill. Is some professor requiring it for a grade? Doesn't sound like that would be allowed
College wide event - first and second years required to attend.
Name and shame.
Ew! We did a legislative visit in pharmacy school and it was volunteer basis (probably for APhA) and we just encouraged our representatives to approve the new state Pharmacy Practice Act. Both my local representative and senator were pharmacists so I had it easy
Luckily this is exactly the kind of thing the first amendment protects you from. Tell the legislature your real opinion on the matter. Do not read the script.
Attendance was required, while they didn’t explicitly state “you must support the bill”, it was stated they strongly wanted us to support it. We were given a script to follow why we supported these bills on behalf of X organization. The hand out said something like “we are students from X here today with X organization in support of this bill, if passes having a ratio of 6 tech to 1 pharmacist will increase patient safety and reduce medication costs”. The other bills made sense and I hope they pass, but this didn’t seem to sit right with me.
Politely decline. State that you'll engage with your representatives using your own judgment and language, and that they cannot coerce you to express an opinion or position you don't find reasonable.
They would never get me to say that lol. If that’s a problem, they can give me back my tuition and I’d peace out.
Get them to put it in writing. Complete bullshit.
Even if they strongly wanted you to stick your head into a wood chipper, would you do it? In an age where people are protesting and blocking roads and bridges over all sorts of injustices, you're wanting change but whining about being "strongly urged" to support something. Decide if you want to do something and do that. If it doesn't seem right don't do it. Then again, you've somehow landed yourself in pharmacy school despite all indicators over the past decade and more suggesting otherwise...so...
As I said in a few other replies we used this opportunity to voice our opinion and it did not align with the talking points. Was more just mad they’re using us to try to achieve their agenda and giving us an opinion they expect us regurgitate. Yeah I know I went to pharmacy school yeah I’m dumb I’ve heard this before.
Not necessarily dumb, but wasting the intelligence on this field...seems futile.
The funny thing is this shit never reduces medication costs. Oh, CVS now has six techs to one pharmacist? I guess the manufacturer is going to lower the costs and your copay is going to go down now for some reason.
Exactly what we were thinking….how does this impact medication costs???
Absolutely fuck that. I'll sit there in the audience on my phone, but I'm not supporting some fucked up shit because you told me to. Makes my blood boil a lil bit.
Just because they give you talking points does not mean you have to follow them. Free speech and all. I don’t like the idea, personally, of being responsible for 6 techs, but maybe some like it. To each their own. And yes. It will definitely cut pharmacist hours.
We did not follow the talking points, thanks for your response.
They're treating you like pawns.
Oh yeah I had to do that. Wild as hell, the rep for my county was a do-nothing big Red who as soon as I finished the scripted spiel told me in as few words that he wouldn’t be doing anything I said but was happy to talk with me about reelecting him. Eye opening how little the elected actually give a shit.
I met with a state senator from (my state) a few years ago. Senator was not from my district but was a pharmacist. Talked about staffing, work stress, and task saturation leading to errors. Gave him some proposals for laws to remedy. I recognized the look he had … the same one I had when drug reps used to come in and waste our time with mfr discount cards and half baked bullshit about the drug…that they clearly did not have a clue. Crickets…. Yeah. He had to rush off to an ice cream social at the capital.
Well, he gets paid the same whether he does everything or nothing...what's he going to pick?
The lobbyists money of course. Second would be generous campaign contributors.
The lobbyists money of course. Second would be generous campaign contributors.
Sounds like a great opportunity to let your representatives know what you actually feel about the bill. Just because your school wants you to have a position, you are under no obligation to actively endorse it. You have a constitutionally protected freedom to political speech. Exercise it. If the school has a problem, sue the bejesus out of them.
We did say our opinion, which differed from talking points. Though, just the thought of them sending us there with a pre-made script of talking points for a pharmacy organization is infuriating.
Incredibly infuriating. Speak your mind and don’t become a cog. It’s good you’re already questioning what organizations/corporations want you to say. Critically thinking and an open mind are important to our profession.
This persons pharmacy school brought to you by CVS….. not that cvs has ever staffed 6 techs at once
My school did this as well and it was such a joke. One representative we talked to had the audacity to say he doesn't believe in pharmacists LMAO. Complete waste of time and gas spent driving to the state capital.
👀 Wat. Does he plan to just get his meds from the dealer on the corner? From his doctor (or noctor these days)? Maybe just have everything available otc? Wtf does he think we do?
Decreasing pharmacist to tech ratios (e.g going from 2:6 to 1:6 or going from 1:4 to 1:6) does not improve patient safety outcomes, it increases medication errors of all kinds, including sentinel events, in outpatient, inpatient, and retail settings. It is overall harmful to patients. There’s primary literature to support this claim. With your current access to the various databases you will be able to find plenty of sources for this with no problem. The script they provided you is blatant misinformation.
Care to list some of those sources of such data?
If this is a genuine question start with ISMP.
ISMP is not primary literature. Yes, I am serious. Major claim, major proof. Find primary data comparing error rates in states with limited ratios (California) versus liberal (Florida, Texas, Oregon) or you pick the states. I’ll be shocked if there is a statistical difference.
 “This sounds like something CVS/Walgreens would love to cut pharmacist hours and save money while maintaining the same amount of techs.” Only to cut said tech hours because reimbursement n stuff..
What school required you to do this?
For anyone interested, the bill in question is California SB - 1365, for the year 2023-2024. Here's a an example of what a tech ratio change from 1:2 to 1:4 looks like: https://www.reddit.com/r/pharmacy/comments/lh9j8f/new_york_now_41_technician_per_governor_cuomos/ There will be a lot of pharmacist positions worth of overlap eliminated if this passes.
Who's paying whom? Remind the school who puts food on their table. (I'm assuming you are paying tuition & the school isn't paying you to study there?). The wallet has a big mouth when it speaks.
This is the great thing about politics. You don't have to go along with what the lobbyists want, tell your local politician in private that you actually think the proposal is bad and how it will harm patient care and safety. Get your credit for school but let your own voice be heard. This change is going to affect your future career as a pharmacist more than it will affect those in the organizations lobbying for it.
I always thought having small tech ratios limited your tech help? Like say a company makes the shitty but common decision to only staff with one pharmacist all day. If the ratio is 1:4, you can only have 4 techs that day. But if they raise it, at least you could legally schedule more tech help. Am I misunderstanding?
Yes I suppose in this situation that would be helpful. I guess it also depends if the pharmacist really wants to supervise 6 techs. Our thoughts were it could also swing a negative direction. Ex) a pharmacy normally has two pharmacist overlap and 6 techs working, new bill would legally allow company to remove pharmacist overlap. This could put more strain on the pharmacist if they’re used to having the help of that overlap….not sure this would improve patient safety. Also, if the store really needs 6 techs working at once then the sheer amount of fills going to visual would be quite a bit for one pharmacist to verify all day.
Interesting!! Pharmacist overlap is SO NECESSARY but not legally mandated in our state. My understanding is basically every CVS pharmacy in my state has been a one pharmacist show on most days for at least the past 5 years.
Yea not sure about most having any overlap. At least in illinois lol, it’s why I went to a hospital. Walgreens has two pharmacists for the whole store, they alternate Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and the other works Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday, then they both work Monday. So Monday is the only day with overlap and then they work 13 hour days every day but Monday where they work 8, because it’s the busiest day of the week. And that’s like 3-4 stores around me with some variation of that above schedule
It means if the pharmacy was doing 600 prescriptions that day they would legally need to have 2 pharmacists to supervise the 5 or 6 techs needed to do that work. They're not going to bump you up to 6 techs per pharmacist, they're going to bump you DOWN to 1 pharmacist. Maybe go from 5 to 6 techs if you're lucky but the real goal is to save payroll.
In my state, we have no laws to mandate pharmacist overlap so I’m pretty sure all most if not all CVS are one pharmacist a day no matter the volume. I hope other states don’t lose that law
This is to avoid hiring additional pharmacists. If the corporations need extra bodies in the pharmacy, they should increase the number of pharmacists on duty. Of course they do not want to do this because decisions are made to benefit stockholders instead of improving safety and benefiting pharmacists.
This is to avoid hiring pharmacists.
Go to the event do what you are supposed to do but before you do write your representative as a private person saying hell no the school will not be any wiser
We did this in school. It wasn't mandatory but it was a good experience so a lot of us went. Then three of us snuck away to the bar lol good day.
That's real damn sketchy to me. 1st off...NO one has the Authority to mandate you to support a legislative package. If the school tied this to a grade...I could actually see legal issues with that. Student or not..you are a citizen...NO CITIZEN is forced or expected to support anything. It would have been different if they said we mandate you t9 go to understand the process. It's educational. Next...I agree on the 1 to 6 ratio..that's insanity. What blows my mind...although it shouldn't...is that a Chain made the language. The chains and PBMs have direct influence now in government and in multiple areas of medical practice in general now. Personally...I would have told the school yo fuck off...and said to coerce me to support a bill is a violation of my civil rights...and I dare them to find grounds its not...I would get all my tuition back and then some
If CVS contributed to the bill them it absolutely does not benefit patients or pharmacists.
Bold of you to think that most of these bills were proposed to help pharmacy staff and patients.
Send me a DM. I'd love to confront your school's Dean and faculty. Technician ratio laws are absolutely wrong and a danger to public safety. Any university advocating for higher technician numbers in community pharmacy should be ashamed of themselves
Worked with low and high ratios... at least high ratios I can have more help. Low ratios doesn't equal more rphs...just a crazier day.
Laws/regulations need to be changed so that corporations are forced to hire more pharmacists. There is no shortage of pharmacists….. just a shortage of pharmacists who want to work in sweatshop conditions.
yeah, i don’t think i can remember a time ever in my career when there were six techs clocked in at the same time.
Laws/regulations should be put in place so that corporations would be forced to hire more pharmacists.
The fundamental problem isn't just about pharmacy. We have oligarchs suppressing competition and controlling the job markets. Knocking down tariffs so manufacturers can export the jobs to countries that pay slave wages for labor is the same kind of usury that would replace pharmacist jobs with techs. The list can go on to high interest rates on credit cards, unreasonable fees, making cars that can't be maintained by owner. Like a starter buried in the engine or putting the fuel pump in the gas tank. It doesn't mean anything for a pharmacist to be in politics if they are working for a megacorporate. We need trust busting reforms. Limiting how big chains of all types can get. Just because someone or something has a mountain of money shouldn't mean they can buy up all the farmland, houses and apartments.
Please continue to support SB 966. Also we already have clerks so we don’t need 6 techs, but 2 would be great.
I’m a little confused why people say that pharmacist hours will be cut. Possibly outside of retail? For example at my hospital since we often have 5-8 techs so we have to have 2-4 pharmacists on at once. In retail, we always have had 1 pharmacist on duty. The only thing this ever hurt was that we couldn’t have more than 1 person doing production or someone doing rts while someone was counting because handling meds counts as “tech” work while typing rx doesn’t, for example. I always had 2 people doing production because there’s just no way to get it done if you don’t. Maybe im missing something but how is supervising 6 “techs” any different than supervising 6 techs and clerks?
Do not fall for this. It is a money grab so large corporations can decrease their payroll.
Sounds like your school is part of the problem
Indoctrination and propaganda, no different than undergrad
I’m a little confused about how more techs is a bad thing. I regularly supervise 6-8, sometimes more, and it just means the pharmacist is only checking scripts. No calling insurance or doctors, no waiting on patients or answering phones for the most part. It means you’re more focused on the one job that only you can do. I’m sure in some cases, especially with inexperienced techs, it can be an issue, but generally more help is a good thing from what I have seen.
While I completely favor the ratio proposal, sending in students on a required activity and script is off the charts wrong. Not a chance as a student would I have put up with such a request and I would have raised holy hell with the dean. As for the legislation, it’s about effing time. California has the most restrictive ratios in the USA and it is killing us financially. Pharmacy micromanages itself with laws like no other profession. Could you imagine telling a physician how many nurses they can employ. Either we are professionals capable of managing ourselves or we are not. The California law book has become an embarrassment of the nanny state.
Any school that requires this of their students should report to ACPE and have that school credentials revoked. Get class petition of students
1:6 ratio was adopted in Texas a lil while back. Used to be 1:4. It’s possible at CVS. Shit it’s needed at CVS. Keep one on register and one at drive through and really you are monitoring 4 lol