Bad Capitalism

[Dispatcher]

It was a great place to work. It was not a traditional pharmacy in that it was not open to the public. It was a long term care pharmacy that supplied prescription medications to patients in 23 nursing homes in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. So I don't get sued, I'll call it ABC inc.
ABC had long term care pharmacies all across the nation. You could fit 3 to 20 Happy Harry's pharmacies inside an ABC pharmacy. They all had their own drivers that delivered the meds to the nursing homes.
The ABC pharmacy that I worked at had the best pharmacists and the best staff because all the employees were paid a decent wage with benefits. The pharmacy had competent management and production and profit was high because morale was good and employees were happy.
Then it happened. The CEO of XYZ inc (fictitious name) who was already wealthy, wanted to become richer. He bought up a ton of ABC stock; enough that he got a seat on the board of directors of ABC. He then began a hostile takeover of ABC, knowing that his stock value would increase and he could then sell it and make a tidy profit. Plus, he be taking over his main competitor, although he really didn't care about that, because soon after he sold all his ABC stock, he quit his job as CEO of XYZ (who now owned ABC) and he retired. The upper management of XYZ then began purging all the management of ABC. Then they cut salaries and wages across the board, cut benefits, laid off all the drivers nationwide in favor of independent couriers, and mismanaged things so bad that the company started losing money.
Pharmacists quit in disgust, as did pharmacy techs and support staff.
Now, the pharmacy is required to process the same amount of orders in 16 hours as it used to in 24 hours. Employee turnover is like a revolving door, and employee morale is so low that many, many mistakes are made because employees don't care anymore. That, and the employees are forced to go so fast that accuracy has become impossible. Scary, isn't it?
Already, some patients have gotten the wrong medication or the wrong dosage. None has died from it....yet.
All this, because one greedy man wanted more wealth.
But this kind of thing happens all the time because corporations are only concerned with the bottom line. Ethics be damned, quality be damned, and employees be damned. Only when investors start giving a rat's ass or the government steps in, will things change... and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

It was a great place to work. It was not a traditional pharmacy in that it was not open to the public. It was a long term care pharmacy that supplied prescription medications to patients in 23 nursing homes in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. So I don't get sued, I'll call it ABC inc.
ABC had long term care pharmacies all across the nation. You could fit 3 to 20 Happy Harry's pharmacies inside an ABC pharmacy. They all had their own drivers that delivered the meds to the nursing homes.
The ABC pharmacy that I worked at had the best pharmacists and the best staff because all the employees were paid a decent wage with benefits. The pharmacy had competent management and production and profit was high because morale was good and employees were happy.
Then it happened. The CEO of XYZ inc (fictitious name) who was already wealthy, wanted to become richer. He bought up a ton of ABC stock; enough that he got a seat on the board of directors of ABC. He then began a hostile takeover of ABC, knowing that his stock value would increase and he could then sell it and make a tidy profit. Plus, he be taking over his main competitor, although he really didn't care about that, because soon after he sold all his ABC stock, he quit his job as CEO of XYZ (who now owned ABC) and he retired. The upper management of XYZ then began purging all the management of ABC. Then they cut salaries and wages across the board, cut benefits, laid off all the drivers nationwide in favor of independent couriers, and mismanaged things so bad that the company started losing money.
Pharmacists quit in disgust, as did pharmacy techs and support staff.
Now, the pharmacy is required to process the same amount of orders in 16 hours as it used to in 24 hours. Employee turnover is like a revolving door, and employee morale is so low that many, many mistakes are made because employees don't care anymore. That, and the employees are forced to go so fast that accuracy has become impossible. Scary, isn't it?
Already, some patients have gotten the wrong medication or the wrong dosage. None has died from it....yet.
All this, because one greedy man wanted more wealth.
But this kind of thing happens all the time because corporations are only concerned with the bottom line. Ethics be damned, quality be damned, and employees be damned. Only when investors start giving a rat's ass or the government steps in, will things change... and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

That sounds alot like what private equity firms do. They buy up other corporations, strip them down, laden them down with debt and then sell the parts for a profit. They don't buy a business to improve and grow the business, they buy it for a quick profit and then destroy the company.

The problem I see with this economic system we have created is that it's not based on production anymore. We don't "make" anything. All of these people getting rich don't produce anything. They just place bets on the market, they move money around. I have to wonder how long an economy that produces nothing can stay afloat.
I was lucky enough to work for a company that was acquired, but by a firm who actually valued what we do and bought us to grow our business ( profitably), not to sell us for our parts.

I think the CEO you talk about made a poor business decision. To me it sounds as if he could have made more money over the long term if he kept your company afloat. His focus was not on creating value, not on maximizing shareholder equity, but instead on short term profits. That sort of thinking is a cancer in the business world that is all too pervasive these days.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Only when investors start giving a rat's ass or the government steps in, will things change... and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

It's only working because the long term care facilities are allowing it to happen. If they dropped ABC (XYZ) when the orders started getting fucked up then none of that would have happened. Why didn't they?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

It's only working because the long term care facilities are allowing it to happen. If they dropped ABC (XYZ) when the orders started getting fucked up then none of that would have happened. Why didn't they?

It's always possible that XYZ offered cheaper services and the potetial cost of a lawsuit was more than offset by cost savings. People go to long term care to die in most cases. Long term care is a fancy name for nursing home. If someone dies because of an improper medication, it might not be aparent, meaning the risk of a lawsuit is lower than you would have in most other circumstances. I'm really just guessing though. Maybe the government mandated that XYZ was the preferred suplier and if you are accepting mediare or medicaid money you need to use XYZ.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's always possible that XYZ offered cheaper services and the potetial cost of a lawsuit was more than offset by cost savings. People go to long term care to die in most cases. Long term care is a fancy name for nursing home. If someone dies because of an improper medication, it might not be aparent, meaning the risk of a lawsuit is lower than you would have in most other circumstances. I'm really just guessing though. Maybe the government mandated that XYZ was the preferred suplier and if you are accepting mediare or medicaid money you need to use XYZ.

I don't know........it seems to me if ABC was providing to longterm care facilities, and ABC was bought by XYZ, and XYZ started fucking up, the longterm care facilities should have stopped using XYZ.

it's not as straightforward as saying "Only when investors start giving a rat's ass or the government steps in, will things change."

[Phantom]

Hey most guys in the "non-traditional pharmacy" business end up dead or in jail after a year or two. This guy should be happy he beat the odds !

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by 7960

It's only working because the long term care facilities are allowing it to happen. If they dropped ABC (XYZ) when the orders started getting fucked up then none of that would have happened. Why didn't they?

First of all, many of the nursing homes are owned by the same corporation, and they sign a one year contract with the pharmacy company.
Second, because this type of pharmacy serves such a large area, there aren't many of them, and signing with another company can mean getting their meds from a pharmacy 150 miles away.
Third, some of the competing pharmacies are even worse than XYZ.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

First of all, many of the nursing homes are owned by the same corporation, and they sign a one year contract with the pharmacy company.

First of all, if the contract doesn't provide for a way to change or nullify it if the company is bought or starts to fuck up then the lawyer who wrote it should be disbarred.

Second, because this type of pharmacy serves such a large area, there aren't many of them, and signing with another company can mean getting their meds from a pharmacy 150 miles away.

Second, so?

Third, some of the competing pharmacies are even worse than XYZ.

Thirds, if some are worse then that also means some are better.

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by 7960

First of all, if the contract doesn't provide for a way to change or nullify it if the company is bought or starts to fuck up then the lawyer who wrote it should be disbarred.

Second, so?

Thirds, if some are worse then that also means some are better.

A. I don't know exactly how the contract reads.
B. If you own a chain of nursing homes or you are the administrator of one and a patient needs a life saving medication STAT, do you really WANT to wait 3.5 hours for it to arrive from 150 miles away?
(3 hours driving time + half hour for processing)
Or would you rather face the impending lawsuit from the family when the patient dies?

[Dumpy Dooby]

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with Capitalism.

[kombayn]

^Me too... [hi-5]

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with Capitalism.

If the government owned the pharmacy none of this would have happened ?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

A. I don't know exactly how the contract reads.

You know that they signed a one year contract and you seem to be bitching about something related to what would be a standard part of any contract to provide a service. Sounds to me like you're complaining about something you really don't know too much about.

B. If you own a chain of nursing homes or you are the administrator of one and a patient needs a life saving medication STAT, do you really WANT to wait 3.5 hours for it to arrive from 150 miles away?

a) sounds like the home needs to start stocking some life saving meds
2) what's keeping them from going around the corner and buying what they need locally?
iii) call 911, the ambulance and/or hospital will have the meds and they'll be there in minutes

Or would you rather face the impending lawsuit from the family when the patient dies?

Sounds like someone is making a decision based on money. How about making one based on the best interests of the patient instead? I'm an idiot about this stuff and it took me all of 8 seconds to think up three possible solutions (listed above). Surely real doctors and people smart enough to run an elder care facility can come up with a few more.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Phantom

If the government owned the pharmacy none of this would have happened ?

The pharmaceutical industry does not operate within a Capitalist system. So again, I don't see what this has to do with Capitalism.

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by 7960

You know that they signed a one year contract and you seem to be bitching about something related to what would be a standard part of any contract to provide a service. Sounds to me like you're complaining about something you really don't know too much about.

a) sounds like the home needs to start stocking some life saving meds
2) what's keeping them from going around the corner and buying what they need locally?
iii) call 911, the ambulance and/or hospital will have the meds and they'll be there in minutes

Sounds like someone is making a decision based on money. How about making one based on the best interests of the patient instead? I'm an idiot about this stuff and it took me all of 8 seconds to think up three possible solutions (listed above). Surely real doctors and people smart enough to run an elder care facility can come up with a few more.

Actually, this is something I know quite a bit about.
1. The homes do have what's called an "Interim box" where they can find meds such as antibiotics and one type of painkiller. However, there are 100s if not 1000s of drugs, and it's impossible (and economically unfeasible because of expiration dates) to stock all of them.

2. Most local pharmacies around here don't deliver, and the from what the nurses tell me, apparently there is something in the contract that prevents them from buying elsewhere.

3. Of course an ambulance ride to the hospital is always an option.
But the fact is, I have seen times when a patient went without a certain medication for hours or days because of a mistake in pharmacy processing, yet the patient was not taken to the hospital.

And as far as decisions based on money? Most nursing homes are "for profit" institutions. And frankly, most of them don't give a rat's ass about the patients as long as the state inspectors stay happy and the home is milking the medicare cow.
Nursing homes pride themselves on how many "beds" they have. They don't even call them "patients".

In the end, patients are the reason it's a bad idea to staff a pharmacy with a bunch of rookie temps and do whatever else you want just to make more money without regard to how it affects people adversely.
That's bad capitalism.

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That sounds alot like what private equity firms do. They buy up other corporations, strip them down, laden them down with debt and then sell the parts for a profit. They don't buy a business to improve and grow the business, they buy it for a quick profit and then destroy the company.

The problem I see with this economic system we have created is that it's not based on production anymore. We don't "make" anything. All of these people getting rich don't produce anything. They just place bets on the market, they move money around. I have to wonder how long an economy that produces nothing can stay afloat.
I was lucky enough to work for a company that was acquired, but by a firm who actually valued what we do and bought us to grow our business ( profitably), not to sell us for our parts.

I think the CEO you talk about made a poor business decision. To me it sounds as if he could have made more money over the long term if he kept your company afloat. His focus was not on creating value, not on maximizing shareholder equity, but instead on short term profits. That sort of thinking is a cancer in the business world that is all too pervasive these days.

You hit the nail on the head .

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Actually, this is something I know quite a bit about.

Take your pick. You either know "quite a bit" like you're saying now or you "don't know exactly how the contract reads" like you said earlier.

1. The homes do have what's called an "Interim box" where they can find meds such as antibiotics and one type of painkiller. However, there are 100s if not 1000s of drugs, and it's impossible (and economically unfeasible because of expiration dates) to stock all of them.

Fine, but.....

2. Most local pharmacies around here don't deliver,

Then put a nurse in a car and drive over to get it, or

and the from what the nurses tell me, apparently there is something in the contract that prevents them from buying elsewhere.

And we're right back to "if the contract doesn't provide for a way to change or nullify it if the company is bought or starts to fuck up then the lawyer who wrote it should be disbarred."

3. Of course an ambulance ride to the hospital is always an option.
But the fact is, I have seen times when a patient went without a certain medication for hours or days because of a mistake in pharmacy processing, yet the patient was not taken to the hospital.

So the home is making a decision, probably based on money, not to do what's right for the patient.

You are full of contradictions.....nobody can change the contract so you have to get meds from 3 hours away even though there are local pharmacies but they don't deliver and nobody can drive over there so people sit for days without their meds and nobody dials 911 even though lawsuit-happy america is going to sue when someone dies.

I think you're making up "details" as you go so it looks like the best (only) solution was to not lose your cushy local job. The fact is (probably) *EVERY* contract has some kind of terms and if the supplier violates those terms then they can be dumped, or fined, or the contract writer has the option to go somewhere else... and if the lawyer wasn't completely full of shit when he wrote it, the contract writer should be able to charge it back to the supplier.

In the end, patients are the reason it's a bad idea to staff a pharmacy with a bunch of rookie temps and do whatever else you want just to make more money without regard to how it affects people adversely.
That's bad capitalism.

Sounds like it's working pretty well for the supplier. It's only working poorly for the home because people who own it and/or work there aren't doing what's best for the residents.