Wow. While I like Walgreens (although I confess I have never filled prescriptions there), I agree that is horrible.
Poor woman. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That is terrible. I have no problem with them leaving themselves private notes, but those notes shouldn't have such disparaging comments in them. They could have accomplished the same thing by remaining professional and typing in something like "Patient doesn't like to have medication referred to by name, very private." There's no reason at all for that type of language.
Rule of thumb - always assume anything you type in a computer might be read by someone you don't want it to be read by.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I hate walgreens and would like to see them crucified along the interstate (well, ok, I don't hate them THAT much...)
But the woman probably is a little psycho. There are a lot of psycho people out there.
That being said, the Walgreens employees SHOULD have kept their gossip to back room mutterings instead of entering it into the computer. When you put something into a computer you always run the risk of it ending up in their hands.
Still, if the woman was that concerned about being seen in public picking up her meds, she should have done Mail Order. Yes, it's a massive pain to do mail order from Walgreens. Yes, it's enough to turn Ghandi homocidal. But after you cut through 6 months or so of mentally challenged phone operators and assuming you managed to get your prescription to the proper distribution center (Each one takes a different set of insurance companies, but they're all called "Walgreens" yay!) your prescriptions will just show up in the mail every 3 months and you won't have to go out in public to get them.
Instead, she was publicly humiliated by the pharmacy employees and instead of simply going home and having a good cry, she compounded the humiliation by having a news story about it with her name and her problems in print for all to see.
Maybe she'll get a million dollars from these people but I think if she was really as crushed as she says there's not enough money to make up for it. Not when it's compounded a thousand times by it being news.
Pix
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm so glad she's suing. We go to Walgreens, and their service is really slow and somewhat incompetent. We used to go to Eckerd and they were fast, but they gave my husband the wrong prescription once. (From which, he had horrible side-effects for weeks... we've considered suing.) Walgreens has a picture and description of what the pill should look like on either the bottle or the bag.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I like Walgreens, but that's because the people who work at my local Walgreens are eminently kind and have so far been completely trustworthy. That's one of the problems with chain stores like that, the quality of service differs so wildly.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
This seems silly to me. I think Pixiest hit the nail on the head about the massive public humiliation. Yeah they were wrong in writing these things where she could see them - but a lawsuit? Defamation? Intentional inflictment of emotional stress? This seems like a bunch of garbage. I'm interested in seeing what our resident law students (especially Dag) have to say about this.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think the lawsuit is important because it's VERY likely that they're doing the same sort of thing about their other customers. It's unprofessional and it needs to be stopped.
I'm frankly surprised that they EVER said the names of her prescriptions out loud. I was pretty sure that was illegal. All of the pharmacies I've been to have been very discreet. Sure, when you call in a refill, they might say it over the phone, but they're the only ones who know it's you on the phone. The non-pharmacists who check me out make it a point not to look in the bag for any reason.
If this is a wake-up call that forces them to protect customers privacy and make it a rule not to gossip behind their backs, then that's a great thing. I HAVE heard too many nurses gossip about their patients within earshot of other patients and visitors and I thought it was incredibly rude and unprofessional. Same thing applies to pharmacies.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Unprofessional doesn't mean illegal.
I do know that pharmacies seem to be treated differently, though.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I've signed enough HIPAA statements that I should know this, but wouldn't declaring what her medicines are be a violation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My non-legal reaction is that she's probably been a PITA customer. I bet they said her name and she freaked out at some point.
Look at the comments:
quote:"CrAzY!!" In another field, dated Sept. 30, 2004, it read: "She's really a psycho!!! Do not say her name too loud, never mention her meds by names & try to talk to her when ... "
Only the italicized portions are in any way out of bounds. And if she ever yelled at them for saying her name or her meds, I'd be hard pressed to blame them too much for typing it in the field.
The best defense against defamation is truth. Every thing she's ever done in front of the pharmacy employees that supports the label "psycho" is pretty much admissible now. And public record. Also, I'm not sure if there is such a thing as negligent publication. So the printout might not count (assuming it was a programming error). If that's the case, the only publication would be the comments too the Walgreen's staff.
For defamation, you have to show actual damages - not emotional ones in most states. How much damage did she suffer if they were filling her prescriptions.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress might falter on the same problem: if the printout was an error, then the emotional distress wasn't intentionally inflicted. I know little about this tort, though.
Negligent supervision could mean a bunch of different things, so I won't comment on it.
Based on the article, in my opinion, she doesn't deserve a dime from a lawsuit. Walgreen's, however, ought to apologize and arrange the mail order for her so she doesn't have to face this again.
quote:I'm frankly surprised that they EVER said the names of her prescriptions out loud. I was pretty sure that was illegal.
I like getting the audible confirmation that they've filled the right prescription.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
That was pretty stupid of the Walgreens workers. I don't get why several people here are so massively upset at Walgreens when it was just a couple people in one store who did this. Punishing Walgreens for having slow service, Katarain? Just pick a different store.
And the psycho comments had to do with her behavior in the store and not with her diagnosis of depression/anxiety. Kind of ironic. Since all this occurred before Hipaa, btw, I'm sure it wasn't illegal.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Thanks for the input, Dag. That's kinda what I expected you to say, but my understanding of the law is limited.
And I agree on your conclusion as well. The law has no place here, but Walgreens should (and I expect, will) take action on their own.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I hope I didn't leave the impression that this suit might not succeed. Stranger things have happened.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I'm not a law person at all, but what other method could send the same message to Walgreens? Filing a complaint is a good place to begin, but when dealing with a chain, the language of money seems to be a good way to really make the point that such actions by employees may affect the company's finances again in the future.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Theaca, I'm not punishing them for slow service. We still go there. We go to Walgreens because, unlike Eckerd, they haven't tried to kill us yet.
I still like the fact that she's suing them, although I think she'd be foolish not to take even a small settlement--based on Dag's assessment of her chances of winning. But her lawyer must think she has a chance, or he wouldn't have taken the case--right? Unless it's just all about his fee. I think behavior like that needs to be eliminated and the persons dealt with by the corporation. Okay, maybe it's not illegal--but it is unprofessional. I guess the reason I like that she did this has more to do with a corporation getting a wake-up call that it needs, rather than the personal damages she suffered. And the article made it sound like action wasn't being taken with only her phone calls for motivation.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:I like getting the audible confirmation that they've filled the right prescription.
Then you can ask for it. Back when I was an unmarried virgin and on birth control pills for a reason other than birth control, I was really shy about it. I was happy when they didn't embarrass me. When it comes down to it, it might be silly of me and others to be embarrassed, but it IS a private matter and shouldn't be broadcast.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
quote: Proof! Walgreens IS evil
Has there ever been any doubt? They rank (on my list) as one of the top evil companies:
1. Walmart 2. Walgreens 3. Target (slightly less evil)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:based on Dag's assessment of her chances of winning
That was really just an off-the-cuff pointing to the obvious weaknesses.
I feel this is a misuse of the legal system. If this type of thing is covered, then the system is defective.
edit: by the way, Florida does allow damages for mental suffering in defamation and they have a negligence standard for publication.
So two of my objections are knocked out immediately.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
This 'Walgreens is evil' belief is really new to me. :/ I like the fact that they're open 24 hours and that the pharmacy workers have been so nice to me.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Theaca, I think people are "massively upset" at Walgreens because there have been many problems with their pharmacy service - many talked about here.
And Advent, I'd add Best Buy to that list.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
I'll agree with the pharmacists. The woman is CrAzY.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I don't know if it's something to sue over. If it happened to me, I'd likely go to the Better Business Bureau with it, and possibly contact "Shame on You" or some other television expose outlet.
This should be more of a PR black eye for Walgreens than a law suit.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When it comes down to it, it might be silly of me and others to be embarrassed, but it IS a private matter and shouldn't be broadcast.
And if she overreacted to it instead of simply expressing her preference, then their description of her was accurate.
I got a 15 minute obscenity-filled lecture once because someone's photos "made [her] look ugly." "I don't f*&%ing look like that!" she kept saying.
She already knew that she could refuse to pay for any picture she didn't want.
There's a lot of room between what that woman did to me and politely saying, "Excuse me, please don't say my medication out loud" for "crazy" and "psycho" (in their colloquial sense) to apply.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I think she's overreacting to sue. The pharmacy workers were stupid to put such comments in their log.... Our customers are never supposed to see our logs of issues they've reported, but it happens sometimes, so we all know not to put stuff like that in there, much as we may feel like it.
And I have no complaints about Walgreen. I have a prescription for migraine meds through them, and it was a life saver that they are so ubiquitous. No matter where in the country I am for work, if I run out, I can still get my meds within 12 hours. It's very, very convenient.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Still, Dag, the pharmacists are professionals representing their store and the larger chain. You need to have discretion.
Instead of "crazy" or "psycho" - the note could have very easily said "extremely sensitive" or "reacts strongly" or even "volatile".
It conveys the message better, and is more professional. Ten years down the line, when a whole new batch of pharmacists are working there, how are they to interpret "crazy" or "psycho"?
The individuals in question should be reprimanded if not let go from their positions. If a teacher wrote "this parent is psycho" in an official computer note field, there would be major reprecussions. Same if a doctor wrote it in a hospital note field about a patient.
If you want to write comments like that in personal memoirs or a journal, that's your business. If you are entering it into a company database, I think you are asking to be fired or officially reprimanded.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Instead of "crazy" or "psycho" - the note could have very easily said "extremely sensitive" or "reacts strongly" or even "volatile".
It conveys the message better, and is more professional. Ten years down the line, when a whole new batch of pharmacists are working there, how are they to interpret "crazy" or "psycho"?
...
If you want to write comments like that in personal memoirs or a journal, that's your business. If you are entering it into a company database, I think you are asking to be fired or officially reprimanded.
I agree it was unprofessional. I wouldn't disagree with firing those responsible. But a lawsuit?
[ March 14, 2006, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
As I said, I wouldn't have gone the lawsuit route. I would have gone the "making Walgreens suffer a PR nightmare" route of publicizing both the comments written and the managerial reactions (namely that it happened again after a complaint, and the same people were still working there).
Better Business Bureau, newspapers, news programs like "Shame on You", etc. It's insulting on the part of the pharmacists there, and there should be reprecussions.
Of course, the lawsuit does all of that, but it seems like overkill.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Yeah, unprofessional. Not illegal. Gosh, I wish I could sue anyone who said nasty things to me or about me in a business setting.
It really worries me when Hatrackers want to punish a corporation for the opinions of a few of its employees. The company should fire the buggers, but not be sued. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Fie on the moron at Walgreens who idiotically thought that "Patient Information" meant information about the patient, not information for the patient. Somebody there is inexperienced and unprofessional, and, at the very least, needs counselling. I'm suspecting that it is likely some airhead who makes so many mistakes that they won't be working there long.
If I were the Walgreens mangager, I would apologise, let the lady know that they investigated and discovered the culprit who no longer works for the company. Then I would offer some kind of compensation, like free photo developing, or a $50 gift certificate.
It sounds more like the work of one bonehead behind the counter than of a systematic program of evil intent.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
United Airlines is the most evil company of them all, of course. Walgreens are amatures next to them.
Pix
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, one thing's for sure. If she was offended by her privacy being made public, bringing a lawsuit is the absolute wrong thing to do about it. She can kiss her privacy goodbye. Her affliction, her medication, and her probable overreactive personality are water-cooler talk now.
Posted by Jack Bauer (Member # 9182) on :
The person she really needs to sue is whatever lawyer took her money on the premise she might get damages for this.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:suspecting that it is likely some airhead who makes so many mistakes that they won't be working there long.
Herein lies the problem I've found with Walgreens' pharmacies (at least before a nice local pharmacy opened up the street from me and I stopped going to Walgreens to get prescriptions filled).
They seem to have a high turnover of pharmacy staff and a greater-than-average concentration of staff with poor customer service skills.
Growing up I had a local pharmacy I went to, until CVS came along. They had to close their prescriptions side of things and focus on cards/candy/liquor - they had been sort of an "everything" store.
Then I went to CVS, being the only option nearby, which provided good and fast service, regardless of which of the three nearby branches we went to.
I moved and started going to Walgreens, since they were right around the corner. Nothing but problems. My roommate has had the same experience. And so has my sister down in Maryland. We've all taken our business elsewhere.
I even witnessed a woman at Walgreens saying, "If your goal is to drive away customers, you're doing a good job. I certainly won't be back."
Surely there are good Walgreens around, but I haven't found one yet.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have had nothing but good experiences at Walgreens.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I wish that Allucard were still around*; I'd love to get his input on this.
*I wish this in general, not just in the context of this discussion. Allucard's a great guy, and the forum is poorer for his not being active these days. Anyone heard from him lately?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I've discussed my experiences at Walgreens before.
They give me an attitude when I tell them that I don't have insurance. Suddenly, I am totally UNABLE TO PAY!!!!
They don't tell me up-front that they don't have my medications in stock. Instead, they tell me to come back in an hour and when I've come back and waited in line for over thirty minutes, they tell me that my medication is not in stock. Thanks, I just wasted precious life time that could have been better spent inspecting my belly button for lint or watching paint dry.
On occasion, I come back to pick up my prescription, and they tell me that they never received one and look at me like I must be imagining things.
They are EXTREMELY rude to me every time I go. And every time I call for ANYTHING. This is not limited to a single Walgreens. I called a different Walgreens (not the one in which I am regularly tempted to strangle pharmacy techs) one evening to ask about a side effect, and the woman was an absolute and total b****.
And when I called their 800 number and left messages, no one ever called me back. They never pick up their customer service phone, as far as I can tell.
Oh, and they won't call other Walgreens to see if they might have my meds instead. They tell ME to call. And then, since I'm calling about Ativan and Z-cof, they treat me like a pill/opiate junkie. Like, hi, I haven't slept for four days because I'm coughing so badly, thanks so much for witholding my medication and making no effort whatsoever to find it for me.
Anyways. I don't think this is a frivolous lawsuit at all, especially considering that Walgreens really, honestly does not seem to give a damn about customer complaints.
I'd sue 'em myself, if I could.
I'd also love to see their notes on me.
-pH
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
My only Walgreens experience is stopping in at one in Reno to borrow a phonebook in order to find a Red Lobster. The woman behind the counter wouldn't let me borrow one until I offered to leave my driver's license. She then watched me like a hawk so that I wouldn't take off with her phonebook. All in all a rather strange experience.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
pH, I think you must go to my walgreens.
They treat you like you're invisible, walking by several times before FINALLY telling you it will be a few moments.
They say prescriptions will be ready at a certain time, so you show up and wait in that long long long line, and nope, they're not ready. Even though you gave them an extra 12 hours.
You have to wait for 2 different people to tell the pharmacist 3 times (with many many minutes in between) that your prescription needs authorization before it could be filled before she understands that they weren't saying that it simply needed to be filled. She kept on thinking they could take care of it, but it needed HER authorization.
It turned out we couldn't get the prescription filled because it was too close to the last filling, according to our insurance--or at least that's what they said. When we offered to pay for it ourselves, suddenly the reason was that it was a "controlled substance." (Duh. They're all controlled substances.) If it was too soon by law to fill the prescription, fine, but don't blame it on the insurance.
And to top it all off, when my husband went back to pick it up the next day (it was 1 day too soon), it turned out that they typed the WRONG medication into the computer (different pain med), and if they had put the right one in, it would have gone through the night before.
So yeah, we have no love for Walgreens. But as I said, Eckerd really screwed up, almost killing my husband. If he hadn't noticed before taking the second pill, then he probably would have died. Maybe we should look into one of the smaller ones around here--but we REALLY rely on them being open 24 hours.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I love my pharmacy, and I'm sure they have note fields because they ask me about things they couldn't possibly be just remembering. I mean, I'm not that memorable, am I?
I hope I've never given them reason to write anything negative. I treat pharmacists like the professionals they are, they deserve some respect from me and I expect they will show me respect in return. So far, never been a problem. As for the clerks, I've found them helpful and friendly. One called me on the phone once to tell me that a medication I'd dropped off a prescription for was not in, so I wouldn't waste time coming back for it.
They do say my medication names out loud and I don't have a problem with it. I don't really care if they say "It's the Zofran refill, right?" But then again, Zofran is an anti-nausea. Maybe I'd care if it was something else, but I seem to remember them doing it with the Celexa I used to take for depression too and it didn't bother me. I don't know what HIPAA says about saying medication names out loud...does anyone?
Oh, and my pharmacy is a Publix - same place I do my grocery shopping so it's convenient.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:We go to Walgreens because, unlike Eckerd, they haven't tried to kill us yet.
Unless a man named Eckerd threw a hand grenade in the general direction of you and your husband, this statement is waaaay melodramatic. Yes, I realize that them screwing up his pills could've had disastrous consequences, but don't insinuate that it was on purpose.
And just a general note, Eckerd's was bought by CVS last year. I've noticed their service is much improved since then. Their hold music is much worse, though.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Unless a man named Eckerd threw a hand grenade in the general direction of you and your husband, this statement is waaaay melodramatic. Yes, I realize that them screwing up his pills could've had disastrous consequences, but don't insinuate that it was on purpose.
Obviously it wasn't intentional harm. It was negligence which DID cause extreme pain and ongoing harm. And I think that's pretty serious, thank you.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Oh, you realize it wasn't intentional? Maybe saying that a corporation tried to kill you isn't a great idea, then.
Negligence is not murder. It's serious enough in it's own right.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Killing isn't murder, either.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's true. But when it's on purpose it is. Which is what the statement "tried to kill us" says.
I just think saying, "My husband could've died due to their incompetence" is just as powerful, but with the added bonus of being true.
[ March 14, 2006, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: You have to wait for 2 different people to tell the pharmacist 3 times (with many many minutes in between) that your prescription needs authorization before it could be filled before she understands that they weren't saying that it simply needed to be filled. She kept on thinking they could take care of it, but it needed HER authorization.
It turned out we couldn't get the prescription filled because it was too close to the last filling, according to our insurance--or at least that's what they said. When we offered to pay for it ourselves, suddenly the reason was that it was a "controlled substance." (Duh. They're all controlled substances.) If it was too soon by law to fill the prescription, fine, but don't blame it on the insurance.
Actually, if patients are trying to fill controlled substances too early, most doctors LIKE it when the pharmacy is watching out for that. I'm not sure what the rules are, and it might vary by state. But my guess is when the insurance noted it was too soon, the pharmacist realized it was too soon too and withheld it, even from cash pay.
The authorization you are talking about... sounds like a prior authorization between the the insurance company and the physician. I'm not sure the pharmacist's authorization means anything. If it was worded oddly, it's no wonder that the pharmacist didn't understand what they meant.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
As far as the mail order bit goes, it's difficult to get controlled substances by mail order. Birth control, yes. Ritalin, No.
AJ
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Depends on the program. I've seen several patients with mailaway strong narcotics and ritalin and adderall. And xanax.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
From what I understand with HIPAA, no one should be able to match up you and what medications you take unless you tell them yourself or you've signed a release for them to know from someone else. This would include shouting your name and what you were taking in the pharmacy.
Anxiety and depression are one thing, but I really don't want my pharmacist shouting out that my Seroquel (atypical antipsychotic) is ready. "OMG! AN ANTIPSYCHOTIC! YOU'RE A WHACKJOB!" Now, while most people probably aren't thinking that, if you've got the illness, you're usually paranoid that people ARE thinking that.
If that makes sense.
Anyway, what those pharmacists and/or techs did was incredibly unprofessional and I'm sure did impact that woman's mental health and treatment. It's not just about a woman just having a crappier day, it's about someone who already has problems, is probably paranoid that people think she's crazy, and oh my goodness, they DO think that.
As for the lawsuit and going public? Makes..no...sense...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
One of the other problems I could see with mail order (aside from the unreliability of the postal service) is that sometimes you don't need the drug at a regular interval.
Like, my Ativan prescription is PRN. I get 60 pills per prescription. Often, those will last me three months. But sometimes (like this month), I have a lot of stressful things happen, and I burn through them in a month.
I guess I could just have them delivered every month anyway, but then I'd have a medicine cabinet full of Ativan, and I'm paranoid enough about my non-antibiotic prescriptions that since my medicine cabinet has a clear door, I hide them behind the other prescriptions and boxes of Benadryl and whatever in case some random person comes over or I have to call a plumber or something.
-pH
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Every Walgreen's I've been to has had their pharmacy pick up window set back from the aisles to afford a certain level of privacy while talking with a patient. Many of them also have the drop-off window similarly recessed. It's definitely not easy to eavesdrop in these stores - and yes I have actually tried (on my own family, never a stranger).
As for the disparaging comments, this is what, the third? fourth? different company that's been publicized as doing this and getting caught in the last year or so. Comcast and SBC for sure, and I think the local electric company also sent out a bill to a customer with nasty comments printed on it. So it's definitely not just a Walgreens problem. But you'd think that after one.. and then two... and then three! companies all get thrust into the limelight for the exact same type of offense, someone would get the message that this is a bad thing to do...
I don't think the companies themselves are "evil" when these situations come up. I do think that the employees who are inputting these kinds of comments should be held responsible for their behavior. Unfortunately, I don't know if there's a way to spot check systems to ensure appropriate commenting is taking place. (and with the mixed capitalization on the one, I wonder if someone was expecting a database search on certain words?)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca:
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: You have to wait for 2 different people to tell the pharmacist 3 times (with many many minutes in between) that your prescription needs authorization before it could be filled before she understands that they weren't saying that it simply needed to be filled. She kept on thinking they could take care of it, but it needed HER authorization.
It turned out we couldn't get the prescription filled because it was too close to the last filling, according to our insurance--or at least that's what they said. When we offered to pay for it ourselves, suddenly the reason was that it was a "controlled substance." (Duh. They're all controlled substances.) If it was too soon by law to fill the prescription, fine, but don't blame it on the insurance.
Actually, if patients are trying to fill controlled substances too early, most doctors LIKE it when the pharmacy is watching out for that. I'm not sure what the rules are, and it might vary by state. But my guess is when the insurance noted it was too soon, the pharmacist realized it was too soon too and withheld it, even from cash pay.
The authorization you are talking about... sounds like a prior authorization between the the insurance company and the physician. I'm not sure the pharmacist's authorization means anything. If it was worded oddly, it's no wonder that the pharmacist didn't understand what they meant.
The way THEY worded it was that insurance wouldn't pay. And it didn't matter that it was a controlled substance anyway, because they had put the wrong drug name in the system. The one they put in was an emergency one week one he had previously, but the doctor had given him a new prescription of something ELSE. So the restriction didn't even apply.
My point is that the pharmacy techs asked the pharmacist several times to look at what the computer was saying about the prescription and she didn't understand or didn't try to understand. This caused us a much greater wait, as she kept on taking care of customers ahead of me. (In fact, the line was so messed up that it was hard to tell what the line really was.) And in addition to that, we were refused a legitimate prescription because of a screwup--someone actually looked at a written prescription and typed in a completely different drug. If the morning pharmacist hadn't been competent enough to figure it out, he would have gotten the wrong prescription AGAIN. (This wouldn't have been life-threatening like the last one, unless you count more cumulative liver damage threatening.)
If things are worded oddly between the pharmacy techs and the pharmacist that is their problem. People who work together should understand each other, especially in a pharmacy. I'm sure there's a specific phrasing that they use and that the computer uses.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Katarin, my wife works at a pharmacy, or at least she did, and that is NOT the fault of the pharmacy to be honest.
Many things have multiple reasons why they can't be filled, and sometimes only the first reason shows up to explain why. After that condition is met, another will show up. There are a multitude of laws they have to comply with, and if the reason insurance won't fill it is that the dates don't match up then they can't legally release the script to you.
As far as the other stuff that happened, that just sucks, and you probably did the right thing switching. I hope it all works out for you.
As far as the comments about this lady, I have little to no doubt that those comments were about her behavior in line rather than a knee-jerk reaction to what scripts she was on. By law these people HAVE to explain what the patient is taking, and any counterindications, and every pharmacy has a little section for privacy if a patient wants to be alone when discussing their treatment. It can be dealt with in more than one way, but if they pharmacist had NOT mentioned something and harm came of it they then would be facing another, potentially serious type of lawsuit, possibly even a wrongful death one.
Sometimes you just can't win.
I agree with Dag...the only unprofessional part of those comments were the Crazy and Psycho bits.
Kwea
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Katarin, my wife works at a pharmacy, or at least she did, and that is NOT the fault of the pharmacy to be honest.
Many things have multiple reasons why they can't be filled, and sometimes only the first reason shows up to explain why. After that condition is met, another will show up. There are a multitude of laws they have to comply with, and if the reason insurance won't fill it is that the dates don't match up then they can't legally release the script to you.
As far as the other stuff that happened, that just sucks, and you probably did the right thing switching. I hope it all works out for you.
Thanks. I think it'll all work out just fine.
And I understand that the pharmacy was right to refuse to fill that medication. I didn't like that they blamed it on the insurance primarily, as if there were no other problem, but yeah, I get that some things are more controlled than others. But the fact that they had entered the wrong prescription IS their fault, and a point that most people seem to be missing. They had a right to deny to fill the wrong prescription--not the right one.
Eh... Doesn't matter.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
A semi-related tangent:
My girlfriend works as a vet tech in Pennsylvania, and they have a system for warning each other about "difficult" pet owners. I don't remember the exact codes that they use, but if a person is an angry, difficult, or psycho pet owner, they put certain markings on the pet's file to let each other know what type of problems have been experienced in the past.
I imagine that if someone figured out their code, they might get upset with them. I don't, however, believe that it would be a good reason to sue the vet's office. ::shrug::
That sort of fits into the conversation.
Also, I have an interview this Friday for an assistant manager position at Walgreens....so for the time being, as long as they may be paying me a pretty good salary sometime in the near future, I don't think they are evil.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I used to work in a pharmacy. I used to want to be a pharmacist, you see.
Which makes me even MORE annoyed by Walgreens.
-pH
Posted by Tullaan (Member # 5515) on :
Actually most states do not require the pharmacist to explain about the medication. Only that the patient was offered the information.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
(slightly less evil)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)