Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Question of the Day November 25, 2014 Since the business model for compounding pharmacies is based on profit and growing your business, how many independent pharmacies or small pharmacies will still be around in five years? Since the compounding industry is pushing back against any type of federal regulation and continue to claim, despite evidence to the contrary, that NECC was a one time deal, won't they eventually be the demise of all the smaller, locally owned compounding pharmacies who will not be able to stay in business and compete as more and more larger corporations and larger compounding pharmacies buy up smaller pharmacies or force them out of business? From a business model viewpoint is there anyway these smaller compounding pharmacies can stay in business without breaking the law? Aren't compounders their own worst enemy by training more and more pharmacists, not through universities and colleges to compound, but through trade groups designed to make money and by encouraging and allowing more and more growth of compounding pharmacies and pharmacists? Won't good, law abiding compounding pharmacists and pharmacies be forced out of business under this profit driven model? And the FDA or federal government won't be to blame. The compounding industry will be to blame.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

A consequence of super-size-me compounding mentality: publicly traded suppliers to the industry will bypass pharmacy all together and go straight to medical clinics with tested soundbites of the day to create large markets. Say good-bye to pharmaceutical care and rational, informed compounding, assuming such rationality existed to begin with. With evermore disclaimers on the chemical-recipe-formula-marketing supplier side, will we see pharmacists rise up and advocate for their patients best interest, collectively insisting that suppliers warrant what they sell, like the results of certificates of analyses for the chemicals they use? Or will they continue to take business risks in environments where they may be pawns in substandard chemical laundering schemes?