Regarding “Status of PharmD/PhD Programs in Colleges of Pharmacy”

Abstract

The need for faculty in US schools of pharmacy has increased dramatically over the last decade as the result of the opening of new schools, expansion of the student population in existing programs, and the expansion of competing career opportunities for existing faculty. The recent report of Gourley and colleagues1 describes an innovative dual degree (PharmD/ PhD) program which was designed to attract and prepare professional pharmacy students to become the faculty of the future. Unfortunately in their introduction they provide erroneous information regarding a bill (S. 648, “A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to health professions programs regarding the practice of pharmacy”) that was introduced by Senator Reed to address the perceived need for pharmacists to work in critical shortage areas by establishing a loan repayment program for individuals with a pharmacy degree who agree to work for a minimum of 2 years in such areas. The bill also would have established a loan repayment program for pharmacy school graduates and near-graduates who were willing to serve on the faculty of a pharmacy school for at least 2 years. The key error regarding S. 648 is the author's statement that “The pharmacy manpower shortage has become such an issue that Congress has taken action to ease the shortage. In 2003, Congress passed the Pharmacy Education Aid Act.” Unfortunately, the Congress did not pass this Act and it was not signed into law by the President. The facts are S. 648 was introduced in the Senate on March 18, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The bill was modified in Committee and reported to the full Senate by Senator Gregg, Chairman of the Committee (report No. 108-189) on November 6, 2003. It passed the Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent on November 25, 2003. The full text of the measure as passed by the Senate and as referred to the House of Representatives on December 8, 2003, can be found in the Congressional Record on pages S16054-16057. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on December 17, 2003, and resided there without subsequent consideration until the end of the 108th Congress. Thus, in essence the bill “died in committee.” Under S. 648, as it passed the Senate in late 2003, the Health Resource Services Administration (HRSA) would have been able to enter into contracts with students or graduates who agreed to work for a minimum of 2 years at a school of pharmacy. HRSA would reimburse participants up to $35,000 per year for their outstanding loans. The school hiring the participant however would have been required to match federal payments, and would not have been able to reduce the faculty member's salary to account for the loan repayments. Based on information from HRSA, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expected that there would not be much participation by pharmacy schools in the faculty loan repayment program because of the matching requirement. Indeed CBO estimated that the number of participants in the faculty loan repayment program would reach a maximum of 30 in 2008. This program as it was drafted thus had little potential to address the real and expanding needs that are now evident some 3 years later. No similar legislation to date has been introduced in the 109th Congress and thus the momentum to address the shortage of pharmacists including faculty has waned. There is thus definitive need for the development and expansion of innovative programs such as the one described in this report by Gourley and colleagues. Dual degree programs and other creative ventures offer the potential for schools of pharmacy to compete for the best of their graduates. Although the outlook at the federal level for future support of health professions educational programs--especially faculty loan repayment programs--appears to be bleak, initiatives at the state level, if supported by faculty, academic administrators, and the pharmacy community, as a whole may be a viable means to address the imbalance between the expanding need for pharmacy faculty and the limited supply available from our existing programs. Gary R. Matzke, PharmD School of Pharmacy, Medical College of Virginia/Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia