217
Rite Aid, Facing Slumping Sales and Opioid Suits, Files for Bankruptcy
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
217 points (98.7% liked)
News
23311 readers
1259 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I’m sure they were legal prescriptions, but the government wants pharmacies to police doctors. Instead of just getting the doctor in trouble for writing for excess opioids, they want the pharmacies to be in trouble for filling the prescription the doctor wrote.
The pharmacies make more money for selling more scripts, so the company isn’t incentivized to police the doctors and tell them “no” and there isn’t a set guideline on who to tell no and for what reason, but somehow the pharmacies are at fault.
My take is that if the federal or state governments feel that doctors are writing too many opioid scripts, they should go after the doctors, not the pharmacies.
Pharmacist here. I can't really agree with that take. We have shared liability, in large part because the doctor is super good at diagnosis, and relatively good at what to prescribe for it, and a pharmacist is not good at all at diagnosis, but is trained specifically on medications and interactions.
A doctor should not be prescribing something harmful for you, but it happens, and the pharmacist catches it and calls and gets it straightened out. That's a normal situation, but opioids are a bit different.
The doctors were overprescibing, but we always were allowed to refuse prescriptions. If it was questionable, we can always call and document our conversation with the doctor. I've never heard of a pharmacist getting in trouble if they actually called and verified the MD did truly want that much medication, after being specifically warned of the risks.
If the pharmacists did that call for all of these, then I'm with you it's the doctors' fault. But if they just took in the prescriptions and filled them without checking for safe use, they failed to do their job protecting the patient from harm.
An addict will get or steal prescriptions from multiple doctors. How does policing doctors prevent abuse as well as making the pharmacy the gatekeeper?
There are lots of laws and regulations that don't really work 100%, but make it harder for the crime to be committed. I think it fits into that category.
For example, many financial companies bend over backwards to try and prevent business activities from occurring over unapproved communication channels. Basically the SEC forces them to monitor all business activities, and if the company doesn't at least try to do things like block personal email web sites, log text messages to clients on personal phones, etc., the company can be fined for not trying hard enough. Even though all the things meant to block or monitor can be easily bypassed.
I personally can't decide if it's the right thing to do in face of insolvable problems, or a stupid waste of time and resources. Probably a bit of both.
My take is that Rite Aid didnt pay the proper congressman to make this go away