Better reasons needed for Pharm.D. change

Drug Store News, June 22, 1992 by Ken Rankin

The Food Marketing Institute's recent pirouette on the issue of a mandatory entry-level Pharm.D. degree has focused fresh attention on proposals to revamp the educational curricula for future pharmacists.

That's good because, at a time when pharmacy is being counted on as a brake against runaway health costs, proposals that may impact the cost and availability of pharmacy manpower are of more than academic interest.

Unfortunately, the debate over the all-Pharm.D. concept has failed to address these issues.

Instead, the central focus right now is a curiously constructed joint statement by three national pharmacy organizations - APhA, NARD and AHSP - supporting the establishment of a "new" doctor of pharmacy degree that would replace the B.S. as the sole entry-level degree for all future U.S. pharmacists.

What's involved in this plan aside from a change in academic terminology? You'd be hard-pressed to answer that question based on the APhA-NARD-ASHP "joint statement."

The thrust of this new curriculum, according to the statement, should be to enable graduating pharmacists "to be responsible for the appropriate use of medications," and to "help people make the best use of medications."

There's no indication of how this would represent an improvement over the current pharmacy school curriculum, nor is there an explanation of how today's pharmacists are deficient in these respects.

As for the specific "characteristics of the |new' doctor of pharmacy curriculum," the blueprint developed by the three pharmacy groups lists such items as:

* "development of skills in the selection, initiation and management of drug therapy";

* "development of professional pride and self-esteem;" and

* "encouragement of active roles in local, state and national organizations of the profession."

Those may be fine goals and objectives for the nation's pharmacy practitioners, but they're not a sufficient basis for making a decision on overhauling the educational requirements for health care providers.

It's not possible to even begin to evaluate the advantages and drawbacks of a universal Pharm.D. program without at least knowing the length of this proposed new mandatory entry-level curriculum.

Shifting to a six-year basic educational requirement could add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of obtaining an entry-level pharmacy degree.

How many students would be discouraged from considering a pharmacy education by the extra costs associated with an additional year of schooling?

What's the likely long-term impact on pharmacy manpower and on the cost of pharmaceutical services to the public?

Since the joint statement studiously avoids any indication of the number of years required under this new entry-level program, it's not possible to address the important public policy issues surrounding the mandatory Pharm.D. concept.

An all Pharm.D. curriculum may well be defensible, desirable and even critically important to the health of the nation in the 21st century.

But it's up to the advocates of such a change to outline the benefits and costs of their proposal to the profession and to the public.

So far, they haven't done this.