Does APhA Really Represent Pharmacists?

Tonight I was playing with my son with the TV on in the background when a commercial splashed across the screen. Immediately I stopped what I was doing and watched, jaw slightly agape, at what was on the screen.

What was it you may ask? Take a look for yourself:


Beautiful is it not? Even more so when you go to the actual YouTube page and read the purpose of the advertisement. It truly is great to see a professional organization be assertive and stand up for their profession. Clearly the AMA will not sit idly by and wait for change to come to them.

Bravo for that.

Now wouldn't it be great if APhA did the same? Between the health professional organization trifecta of the AMA, APhA and ADA, the APhA is often the silent partner. Whereas the AMA and ADA are very active outside of their practitioners and have a very broad public awareness, few outside of our immediate profession even know what APhA is.

It's one of the topics I have pushed several times on this site in the past and will continue to do so until someone actually listens. Recently I discussed the distressing notion that a business oriented enterprise is, in effect, leading our profession to change for their own selfish reasons.

It is something which has even been brought up in publications like the Wall Street Journal. Interesting how those even within the profession see the massive amount of benefit of the idea I laid out, yet APhA does not seem interested in actually following through with it.

It is this which is the most distressing aspect of pharmacy as a whole. In school and by APhA we are repeatedly told about the "future" of pharmacy, but in reality there does not appear to be a realistic path towards this future. Progress by APhA can be measured by the speed of a sloth, and we run the risk of being bypassed by other health care profession as the system evolves.

For instance let's look over the Strategic Issues on the AMA website which describes who they are and what they are fighting for. It is rather all encompassing while being concise and plotting for the future, wouldn't you agree? It's something even the lay person could read and instantly understand what AMA, and physicians as a whole, stand for.

Now let's look over what APhA has listed as their Advocacy Issues. One of the first things you notice is a lack of an adequate summary to the overall goal of the organization. Line by line and link by link they list specific issues, but there is no connection between the issues and what they mean for pharmacy. The AMA does a spectacular job of presenting their main goals and then diving into the specifics. Here, the APhA merely presents the specifics without any cross-linking to form a cohesive idea. In the end, the problem lies not so much with the issues themselves, but more with how they are presented.

Clearly the AMA's website is focused towards both their providers and their patients whereas APhA's website is tailored to its providers. There is already a disconnect of perception between pharmacists and their patients, and this does nothing but further that divide. If anything, the APhA website continues to make it's self inaccessible to the patients they so often tout as the focus of their work.

Why is this? Why is it the organization, which is financed partially through the dues of pharmacists, seems to ignore this crucial ingredient to the long term success of the profession? Why is it that pharmacists across the country feel like they have no voice?

There was no immediate response to the disparaging remarks by the CEO of Medco from APhA. For those unfamiliar with the situation, this link provides a good summary. How is it that our so-called voice of the profession remains eerily silent while one of the most powerful individuals in health care obtusely insults our profession?

What are those dues good for then? Several times it has been reaffirmed that the APhA can only reflect the views of those members who participate, and pay, through their membership. Granted I see the logic in this, by why is membership required to represent pharmacists as a whole? Why is it that none of the 70+ pharmacists I have worked with over the last ten years are active with APhA? Why is it that rarely do you find a community pharmacist, who just happen to make up the largest constituents of the profession, that considers the APhA worthwhile?

Because they have no faith in it. APhA is viewed as a lion with no teeth and no roar. Why devote time to something which is ultimately fruitless? As pharmacists are pushed around year after year with little light at the end of the tunnel, of course they become disillusioned. Who wouldn't?

So why doesn't APhA throw up a hail mary and start to regain the trust of the pharmacists it represents? Why doesn't APhA consider educating patients on who they are to overcome the biggest obstacle the profession faces, a lack of understanding of who and what a pharmacist is. Why doesn't APhA maintain a daily, strong active voice for the profession which can readily respond to comments from individuals such as David Snow?

Why doesn't APhA model itself after the AMA and actually represent the profession?

Give me a reason to want to be a member of APhA. Give me a reason to want to be extraordinary proactive within the profession. Give me a reason to stand up for what pharmacy stands for. Give me a reason to have faith in APhA.

Is that too much to ask?