posted
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?)
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
