Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The California Pharmacists Association Proves Its Worth.

This is a story about the California Pharmacist's Association. About going to bat for all the pharmacists who spend their workday stressed-out, starving, needing to take a piss for the last 6 hours of a 12 hour shift while trying to evaluate the potential for development of serotonin syndrome in a patient taking Nardil who wants to buy some Robitussin DM.

I bet the California Pharmacists Association goes to bat for us. I mean, it says right on their website they are dedicated to advocating for all pharmacists in the State of California in the Legislature. That's really cool. We could use an organization that will advocate for the interests of both the profession and our patients in Sacramento. They even have a Political Action Committee, which says its goal is to "promote good government, which enables the pharmacy community to provide quality pharmaceutical care for Californians."

That's awesome. Because you know what kept me from providing quality pharmaceutical care to the Californians who came to my counter today? The fact there are 5 phone lines in my pharmacy, a voicemail, a fax, 2 customer service windows as well as a wide-open area in the middle people see as an invitation to ask the location of potato chips and the bathroom, and that my employer saw fit to give me one other person today to take care of all this.

How many of you out there see the biggest barrier to providing quality pharmaceutical care to your customers as the working conditions your employer forces upon you? I'm looking through my magical Internet screen and seeing about 90% of your hands going up.

So I'm sure The California Pharmacist's Association was all over Assemblymember Bill Monning's hearing back in April exploring how working conditions in retail pharmacy are destroying the profession. I mean, they said they were dedicated to advocating for pharmacists in the legislature. They wouldn't lie.

Some of you can imagine where I'm going with this. Here's a little cut and paste from an email exchange between myself and Monning regarding the hearing:

Me: Were any professional organizations, such as the American or California Pharmacists Association involved? Was their input solicited?

Monning: We invited the California Pharmacists Association to attend and testify, but they declined our invitation.
Back to California Pharmacists Association's website:

Through our lobbyist, we play an active and crucial role at the Capitol in protecting the interests of the profession of pharmacy. We help to educate the Legislators on the importance of the role that pharmacists play in the overall health care of patients.

Huh. So I guess in The California Pharmacists Association's world....."active" and "crucial" are synonymous with "not bothering to show up," and "helping to educate legislators" means "not attending hearings where legislators are gathering information about pharmacy issues."

That is one kick-ass lobbyist you got there California Pharmacists Association. And by kick-ass I mean useless.

Yet somehow the California Pharmacists Association thinks it would be worth it for me to send them $365 a year to join their little club. Plus more for their Political Action Commttee. If you're a member of The California Pharmacists Association, I have a better idea. Cancel your membership, send half the amount you would have spent on dues this year to support the one person who has shown any leadership on the issues we care about, and buy yourself something nice with the rest. Everyone wins.

If, however, you choose to maintain your membership in The California Pharmacists Association after this, I am issuing a direct challenge to you to justify why.

For the love of God tell me why.

6 comments:

Scritches.com said...

OT -- compliment.

Yesterday I asked a question of a pharmacist I'd never seen before, and she not only answered my question politely but also proceeded to give me a mini-lecture on the forms of the vitamin I was looking for and how it complements other vitamins and which brand was probably the best and what, if any, contraindications there might be with the drugs I take now, and how much of it to take, etc. etc. etc. I thanked her profusely and went away far wiser than when I'd stopped in.

I kinda suspect 95% of you pharmacists out there are just as nice and helpful. So thanks. ;-)

woolywoman said...

Has it never occurred to you to put all but one of the phone lines on hold the moment you walk in, and not take them off until you are set to go? I would be surely tempted.

Từ Thanh Giác said...

It has been my experience that pharmaceutical associations are owner control. Their interest are getting the most bang for the buck from the employed pharmacist. Ethics doesn't go beyond what is forced on them by law. A hired belonging to such organizations is supporting them in their efforts to squeeze every bit of blood out of him.

Anonymous said...

"It has been my experience that pharmaceutical associations are owner control."

Bingo. Give this man a cookie. Aside from the fact that the California Pharmacists Association is run by a bunch of incompetent fools, they are beholden to pharmacy owners. They don't care about you (even if they did they would just squander your dues).

Michael J. Negrete, PharmD said...

I won't pretend to know how the "right" people at CPhA either were not informed of the hearing you mention, or made a decision to not participate. What I DO know is that encouraging pharmacists to quit their professional association will do NOTHING to further the professional goals that you purport to support. Way to weaken you profession drugmonkey.

By the way, employee pharmacists outnumber owners in CA by something like 20 to 1. If we ever want to make meaningful change in our profession, we need to stop bickering amongst ourselves and get at least 1/2 of the employee pharmacists to shell out $1/day and tell CPhA what it can specifically do to help them take better care of patients.

You up to the challenge?

Anonymous said...

CPhA "leadership" is inept and only gives flimsy lip service to notion of meaningful change in the profession. Their chief concern is self preservation (by any means). "Rewarding" this behavior by not allowing those in charge to fail at their own hand would be a mistake.