I write this letter only reluctantly, having just experienced one of the most unanticipated and negative encounters that I have ever had, either as a CVS customer or more globally. I am a doctoral student at Emory University. Recently, I have been suffering from a herniated disc, which has caused massive back and leg pain. Through an extensive set of doctors' visits and follow-ups, I have slowly been finding a suitable solution.
Today, I had a follow-up with the spine specialist, who, having recognized the extraordinary amount of pain involved (as herniated discs are one of the single most painful injuries to undergo), prescribed a new and different dose of medication than that which he had prescribed the week before (the specific concern regarding the amount of acetaminophen being taken).
Despite the intense pain involved, I drove over to drop off the prescription at the local CVS pharmacy drive-through myself, and was told that I could return in twenty minutes. Forty minutes later, I returned and entered the store on foot again, despite the pains (there had been a longer line at the drive-through). Given the line, I was prepared to be patient, and it was not a great surprise when it took ten minutes before I was told anything. This, however, was when the disaster began.
Finally arriving at the counter, I was told that the prescription could not be filled and I would have to come back tomorrow. This was clearly unacceptable, and I calmly expressed as much--specifically that this was a new prescription, not a refill. It had been issued by the doctor today clarifying the very specific issue now being considered (namely, the need for a different and more appropriate prescription). I went over to another counter with a different technician (who was quite pleasant and helpful) and we called the insurance company. During the phone call, it became clear to me that the wrong medication was being pursued. I pointed this out, and it was quickly resolved (the new prescription went through).
I don't know why, having submitted a brand new prescription quite explicitly, anyone would have decided it a good idea to return to a prior prescription and issue a refill. This, in itself, was troubling. What if I hadn't noticed? What if I had taken the wrong medication or the wrong dosage and it had turned out to be toxic or fatal? This is not a concern to be taken lightly--the negligence demonstrated by this individual could have very real consequences.
Once these details had been resolved, I thought everything was sorted out. I was told that the prescription would be ready in five minutes or less (I was glad, since I had already been waiting for forty-five minutes). I went outside and sat in the car for about eight or ten minutes, and then went inside, figuring that they would surely have the prescription ready at this point.
Instead, I was rudely told that I was being demanding and that I just needed to back off and wait. I'm not sure who is training these individuals in manners, but it certainly needs some work. Nevertheless, I patiently waited another ten minutes. Fifteen minutes later, I inquired, "I'm sorry, but given that this mistake is quite clearly the pharmacy's fault, shouldn't you be prioritizing my medication?" I thought that the question was very reasonable, but the technician felt the need to further belittle my inquiry, insisting it was my fault. I pointed out that this was factually incorrect, and that I had submitted a new prescription to get a new prescription filled, not so that the pharmacist could arbitrarily prescribe whatever she felt appropriate.
At this point, the real problem began. The technician (Roshni, at store #2175) made a face at me and used a tone of voice like a parent would use to a three year-old child. This did not seem particularly a professional behavior to me, so I asked for her name and where I could report her. Then, independently, the pharmacist (Avis **, at store #2175; the single real problem in this equation) inserted herself with great force and rudeness, escalating what, as far as I could tell, must have been her own personal issues (perhaps an interpersonal issue in the pharmacy) into a pharmacy issue.
Specifically, the pharmacist loudly proclaimed that I would need to go elsewhere to get my mediation (which I had now been waiting over an hour to have filled). This did not seem at all reasonable to me, so I inquired as to why she was doing this. To begin with, she ignored me entirely, refusing to say anything in response. When the technician attempted to respond and was not able to explain, she finally responded with a single sentence something similar to: "I have the authority here to do whatever I want."
This didn't seem like a very good point of beginning, so I figured maybe someone else in the store could help. I talked calmly with the assistant store manager and then with the store manager, each of whom attempted to be helpful but seemed unable to do anything. They were, at least, pleasant. Nevertheless, the pharmacist made her presence known and reasserted herself over and against them, making it clear that she didn't care at all what they thought and that they had no power or influence over her.
At no point during this entire scene did I raise my voice or use any word that would be considered inappropriate in any social situation. Yet the pharmacist was patronizing, and called me explicit names and then repeated those names when asked what she had said. She accused me of suspicious activity but then refused to tell me what activity was suspicious (or identify any activity at all that had been out of the norm other than suggesting I intended to report her co-worker, whom I can only assume was her intimate friend).
The pharmacist was simultaneously both smug and self-confident and also irritable and distant. She explicitly assured me that nothing would come out of my complaints, indicating that she had some sort of protection that allowed her to treat customers however she wanted without ever risking anything happening to her. Eventually, she clarified that there had not actually been anything suspicious at all but that I had acted like a **. Aside from finding this incredibly offensive, it belies the entire fact of the matter, which is that I had maintained a cordial and professional demeanor while she had degenerated to being unprofessional.
The pharmacist generally acted as if she didn't hear half of the things I had said, and required me to repeat them. Then, after having me repeat them several times, she responded still holding the phone only long enough to call me names and hand back my prescription, making an offensive comment under her breath and then telling me explicitly that she was ignoring me and ignored all further attempts to communicate.
Frankly, I would not be at all surprised if this pharmacist had actually been on some substance herself, as it seemed that she was in an altered state concerning her ability to relate to other people. I do understand, however, that sometimes such behavior occurs as a result of interaction with drugs without ever having actually consumed any such drugs. In either case, the pharmacist seemed to be very on-edge in a way that I could not quite locate; I suspect that this has something to do with her relation to drugs, although I certainly could not say in what sense.
I believe that this pharmacist needs to be brought to account (among other things) for her problematic relationship to drugs--how this relationship implicates her ability to relate to other people, and how it implicates her ability to be in control of other people's medication. Specifically, it appears that she has become psychically dependent upon drugs as the means by which she can achieve a power trip, or a position of power over the drug user.
This situation is specifically enumerated in Georgia statutes regarding crimes and offenses with controlled substances:
(8) "Dependent," "dependency," "physical dependency," "psychological dependency," or "psychic dependency" means and includes the state of dependence by an individual toward or upon a substance, arising from the use of that substance, being characterized by behavioral and other responses which include the loss of self-control with respect to that substance, or a strong compulsion to use that substance on a continuous basis in order to experience some psychic effect resulting from the use of that substance by that individual, or to avoid any discomfort occurring when the individual does not use that substance.
While it is clear that the clause is intended primarily to address the explicit user of the substance, it is also clear that the clause is intended to include any individual who may come in direct relation to the context of the drug. Specifically, behavioral and other responses such as loss of self-control with respect to the substance and some psychic effect such as joy, or self-satisfaction. The pharmacist made it clear that she was quite pleased with herself for forcing me to go elsewhere.
Further, the document clarifies that:
(22) "Potential for abuse" means and includes a substantial potential for a substance to be used by an individual to the extent of creating hazards to the health of the user or the safety of the public, or the substantial potential of a substance to cause an individual using that substance to become dependent upon that substance.
The effect of this misconduct is the denial of treatment, which creates a hazardous condition for the health of the user. At the very least, this condition is one of extreme and unmanageable pain, which is clearly not acceptable. Additionally, it is clear that the effect of this denial of treatment is to force painful dependence on a substance that is not available.
As I understand, the appropriate recourse in this situation is that the Georgia Pharmacy Board revoke the pharmacists' license for practice while she is put under review:
The board shall be authorized to deny registration, to deny renewal, or to revoke or suspend the registration of a pharmacy technician for any of the grounds set forth in Code Section 26-4-60 or Code Section 43-1-19.
I am sure, from the interactions, that the pharmacist will invent any sort of story in order to cover over this exchange. I can only hope that the store in question has retained their video footage so that the store and board can review the specifics of the exchange. At the very least, I expect her to appear before the board for review:
However, said denial of a technician application, denial of the renewal of a certificate, or suspension or revocation of a technician registration shall not be considered a contested case under Chapter 13 of Title 50, the "Georgia Administrative Procedure Act," but said applicant or registrant shall be entitled to an appearance before the board.
and
(f) The board may deny or refuse to renew a pharmacy license if it determines that the granting or renewing of such license would not be in the public interest.
It is self-evident, regardless of all other details, that this pharmacist's behavior is not in the public interest. It is quite precisely against the public interest, as she has invoked her authority as pharmacist in order to carry out personal vendettas against customers that she doesn't even know (but apparently has prejudged as suspicious).
I expect clear steps to be taken to remedy this situation. Specifically, I await:
-an acknowledgement of the receipt of this letter;
-that the pharmacist, at the very least, be temporarily suspended and brought before the board for disciplinary hearings, if not simply outright fired;
-the pharmacy assistant to be reprimanded and moved out of the pharmacy;
-a personal apology;
-an explanation of what will be done to ameliorate the harms; and
-a detailed enumeration of what has been done internally to address this behavior and to ensure no further such behavior occurs.
This is clearly not an acceptable situation. I look forward to hearing how you intend to address and correct such horror.