Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I stopped going to CVS when my doctor faxed over (it’s been a long time) a prescription, they didn’t fill it. And it took them forever to find it. They had to go through a ream of faxes to find it. Turns out, they get so many prescriptions, and very few people actually picked them up.
That is interesting because I do that a lot. Didn't think of that being an issue. What tends to happen is that all my doctors seem to feel they have to end the visit by prescribing a pill. It is easier to just pretend i am going to take it and then not fill it. Because they get all offended if I say I don't want your stinking pill.
Or, and this happened, my doctor prescribed me a creme and it turned out to cost $500. Nope. I wish that you could get the price before the prescription went in.
The cost of a specific generic drug manufacturer to a pharmacy depends on what wholesaler/buying group they use. Sometimes the difference is small, a few dollars. Other times, it is very significant.
Reimbursement rates are so low, it is not in the pharmacy's interest to order anything but the preferred generic brand. Due to penalties, a pharmacy which has to fill a brand when a generic is available, will probably end up losing money on it.
It's something new where? There's no pharmacist involved in any of my monthly refill transactions unless I request to speak to them.
I didn't quote you. My reply was to someone else lol
Walmart is the one that changed where the pharmacist has to hand you your meds, techs can't touch it now.
I didn't quote you. My reply was to someone else lol
Walmart is the one that changed where the pharmacist has to hand you your meds, techs can't touch it now.
Yes, I know you didn't. But it needed clarification, because it was not clear that you were referring to a Walmart-only policy.
Part of the issue is people no longer know how to multitask. They do nothing but stand around when the exact thing they’re waiting for is working. Example, the car in the drive thru has to wait for their meds, wait on the front counter. People need to do more than one thing at a time. It’s an issue I’ve been noticing with younger workers.
There is no such thing as multitasking. It's a myth. It's humanly impossible to do more than one thing at a time. People think they do, but they don't. In fact, when you try multitasking, you're actually more inefficient than when you do a series of tasks sequentially. If an employee is trying to answer the phone and filling a pill bottle with medication simultaneously, what they are actually doing is shifting their attention and brain capacity from one task to another and back again. They listen to the customer's question, try to answer it, fill a few pills in the bottle, then switch their brain back to the customer's question. In so doing, they are wasting milliseconds or seconds refocusing their mind from one job to the other. Back and forth back and forth. Not only does it take longer, they are more likely to make mistakes on both tasks. The problem is multiplied if they are trying to do more than two tasks at "once."
It's something new where? There's no pharmacist involved in any of my monthly refill transactions unless I request to speak to them.
That is my experience too. I know both the techs and the pharmacists, and it's the techs who hand me my prescriptions. If there is a problem, or I have a question, I speak to the pharmacist.
Last time I picked up scrips was yesterday, for my daughter. A pharmacy tech handed me the meds, handled the payment, I didn't even see the pharmacist. I know he was there, I just didn't see him.
There is no such thing as multitasking. It's a myth. It's humanly impossible to do more than one thing at a time. People think they do, but they don't. In fact, when you try multitasking, you're actually more inefficient than when you do a series of tasks sequentially. If an employee is trying to answer the phone and filling a pill bottle with medication simultaneously, what they are actually doing is shifting their attention and brain capacity from one task to another and back again. They listen to the customer's question, try to answer it, fill a few pills in the bottle, then switch their brain back to the customer's question. In so doing, they are wasting milliseconds or seconds refocusing their mind from one job to the other. Back and forth back and forth. Not only does it take longer, they are more likely to make mistakes on both tasks. The problem is multiplied if they are trying to do more than two tasks at "once."
LOL, guess you never read while you were sitting on the john. I figured I spent about half my life "multitasking", generally filling in the time gaps in one task with another task, getting the second task partially finished, going back to the first task, and imagining that I saved a little bit of time that way. Depending on the tasks, as well as the concentration and general acuity of the person doing the tasks, it can work. I think of examples like preparing and baking a cake. Once the cake is in the oven, it'll be there for a while, a person could carry out another task that could be completed in a short time, and hopefully not forget about that cake baking in the oven.
Or if a pharmacy tech is assigned to the drive-in window customers, if there aren't any right then he/she could answer a phone call, or carry out some of the other tasks they have. In that setting, as in many other situations, though, it'd take a lot of concentration, and no interruptions, as well as a wholy functioning brain not to make a mistake on any of the tasks, or leave them unfinished and forgotten.
That's my problem, as I get older I can't multitask nearly as effectively as I did when I was younger. I can still read on the john, though.
LOL, guess you never read while you were sitting on the john. I figured I spent about half my life "multitasking", generally filling in the time gaps in one task with another task, getting the second task partially finished, going back to the first task, and imagining that I saved a little bit of time that way. Depending on the tasks, as well as the concentration and general acuity of the person doing the tasks, it can work. I think of examples like preparing and baking a cake. Once the cake is in the oven, it'll be there for a while, a person could carry out another task that could be completed in a short time, and hopefully not forget about that cake baking in the oven.
Or if a pharmacy tech is assigned to the drive-in window customers, if there aren't any right then he/she could answer a phone call, or carry out some of the other tasks they have. In that setting, as in many other situations, though, it'd take a lot of concentration, and no interruptions, as well as a wholy functioning brain not to make a mistake on any of the tasks, or leave them unfinished and forgotten.
That's my problem, as I get older I can't multitask nearly as effectively as I did when I was younger. I can still read on the john, though.
But technically, that’s not multitasking. The concept of multitasking is actually doing two things at once. My husband could multitask. He could talk on the phone answering business questions while doing something else completely different on the computer. I once watched him do that — talked to a client about one thing, while composing an email to another client.
Simply going from one task to another, to another and then back to the first isn’t multitasking that’s just... tasking.
There is no such thing as multitasking. It's a myth. It's humanly impossible to do more than one thing at a time. People think they do, but they don't. In fact, when you try multitasking, you're actually more inefficient than when you do a series of tasks sequentially. If an employee is trying to answer the phone and filling a pill bottle with medication simultaneously, what they are actually doing is shifting their attention and brain capacity from one task to another and back again. They listen to the customer's question, try to answer it, fill a few pills in the bottle, then switch their brain back to the customer's question. In so doing, they are wasting milliseconds or seconds refocusing their mind from one job to the other. Back and forth back and forth. Not only does it take longer, they are more likely to make mistakes on both tasks. The problem is multiplied if they are trying to do more than two tasks at "once."
Like I said on CD before:
I once told a PITA patient that was b******g about how long her wait would be: "God, in his infinite wisdom only gave me two hands and one brain, and when they work together optimally, they can only fill one prescription at a time. So, I suggest that if you want your Rxs today, let me go and use my hands and brain on the prescriptions in front of yours so that I can do the same for you"
I've recently been going to a couple different pharmacies (large chains) for my meds and noticed how understaffed they are, seemingly all the time. Fortunately, I haven't needed meds for a while until recently, but it was really troubling to see how rushed, frantic, and frazzled all the employees seemed to be, regardless of time of day or which day of the week. And there are usually lines at checkout. This has to be due to understaffing for the volume of prescriptions filled.
Customer service suffers in that environment, and asking questions seems to "bother" them because they are literally running around the work area. In addition, this kind of workplace is a recipe for mistakes. I double checked each prescription after paying for it, to make sure the tablets were the correct ones and that they had given me the right number.
I've also noticed "shortages" of some common meds. I had to call around a few other pharmacies to find one med I needed. And forget calling them to ask a question. The person on the phone is again "in a hurry."
It seems that things have changed, and not for the better, in these chain pharmacies. Anyone else experience this kind of rushed, frantic pharmacy service?
It is a career choice these folks make. Nobody holds a gun to their heads to make them stand at a job the whole time they are at work or to work 'shot staffed'.
Hey! They have HALF the prescriptions to fill now than 5 years ago when the opioid 'crisis' stopped them filling 99% of all pain medication 'scripts. They should have plenty of time now to take a break etc. I do stop and count my meds in front of them now as I had shortages in my own meds at a large chain. Even tho the PhD scribbled their initials on the count that a Pharmacy Tech did, they did nothing to check it but look and count the pills through the plastic bottle. No amount of schooling can teach you to count the correct # of pills like that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.