Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Quick post

It's been busy for me over the last few weeks, so I haven't had the time, and quite honestly, the energy to put up any blog posts. Between a screwy schedule at work (thanks to corp only replacing a portion of the hours of a pharmacist who is on medical leave), trying to sell our house, talking to other pharmacists across the country, and focusing on developing my MTM business, there just aren't enough hours in the day to be able to sit down and deliver a solid blog.

Plus I haven't really had any good ideas to write about. I do have a few ideas rolling around inside my head, I just need to grab a legal pad to jot down my thoughts so I can organize them. But as it is right now I've lost my mojo and can't seem to find it. If you have seen my mojo, please send it back to me at ericrph /at/


Tuesday, April 12, 2011

For the folks in Camp Hill


executives/board of directors,

When you decided to implement the

which of the following were you high on


And did you happen to consult with ANY pharmacist who currently works in pharmacy about this before rolling it out?

A pharmacist who does NOT work for you

Saturday, April 9, 2011

APhA House of Delegates actions (YAWN)

"Of the six new business items proposed during the meeting, three were ultimately accepted. The final text will be forthcoming, but the approved statements support requiring influenza vaccination of pharmacy personnel, adding pharmacists as providers under the Social Security Act, and encouraging collaboration with the American Public Health Association. A statement addressing the legalization of medicinal marijuana in certain states was referred to the Board of Trustees for consideration in 2012." from the APhA Newsroom

Just some quick thoughts on the three new business items that were approved by the house of delegates at APhA 2011. Here's a link to who comprises the house of delegates.

#1- Influenza vaccinations for pharmacy personnel

I opposed this and still do. A comment following my post said it well... "No reason for this in a community pharmacy. Are they going to force all the cashiers, managers, etc.. too? How bout the cashier at the bank or the grocery store? STUPID!"

#2- Adding pharmacists as providers under the Social Security Act

This is the one item that I can get on board with. The APhA has been advocating for expanded roles for pharmacists in direct patient care. But we need a revenue source to cover the expenses associated with the expanded roles. Medicare is the starting point. Private insurers will follow once Medicare recognizes us. Medicare was created 46 years ago. It's time we get recognized as providers. This should be the sole focus of the APhA until we receive the recognition.

#3- Encouraging collaboration with the American Public Health Association

OK. Whatever. I'm sure somebody is patting themselves on the back for getting this one through.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Ponderings following last week's post

Part of the inspiration (if you would call it that) behind my sicker at a younger age post was a recent article I linked to off of Twitter that showed a region of the country that was termed "the diabetes belt".

I live in the area that would be considered the "muffin top" of said diabetes belt. Which actually surprised me because I can't imagine an area that has more young patients with diabetes than my area, but there are.

I addressed some of the issues that I believe play into the development of chronic medical conditions at younger than expected ages. Things like fast food, video games, nutrient-poor food, and apathy/laziness. I had some enlightening conversations with people who look at these issues from a societal point-of-view.

But there was one thing that I didn't think about until I sat down to figure out what my next post would be.

Are some of these conditions caused by our society pumping medications into our kids at younger and younger ages?

One of my friends is an orthopedic surgeon. He always likes to refer to medications as "controlled poisons", and he is right. There's a reason why they are called dangerous drugs.

So why are we, as both parents and medical professionals, so willing to put these chemicals into the bodies of our children? Remember, the manufacturers don't conduct large scale studies on kids because they really don't know if the kids could be harmed.

I wonder if putting these controlled poisons into our youth at such young ages somehow alters the immune (and other) system(s) of the children, causing their bodies to develop these conditions decades before they would otherwise.

Case study... I have a 17 year old patient who has been visiting the local counseling center. Over the past 18 months, s/he has had a steady diet of atypical anti-psychotics. S/he has packed on the weight over this same time period. Now S/he has been diagnosed with diabetes and is learning how to use insulin on a sliding scale because his/her pancreas doesn't work now.

My casual observation of the age group that my last post focused on (the under 32 crowd) seem to have significant histories of antidepressant use.


Or has our pill-crazy society brought this on ourselves?

Just some thoughts that have come to my mind since last week. What are your thoughts? Leave a comment here or shoot me an email.