Big Answers to Small Questions

I just looked up the side effects of the new antiseizure medication I'm starting. (Almost always a big mistake, but I did it anyway.) I looked at the Mayo Clinic website, so it was a reputable website.

First, the thing that made me afraid: The Mayo Clinic website, divides side effects into two groups: First those you need to contact your doctor for immediately, then those that will probably go away and you need to contact your doctor if they become problematic. Each of these two groups is subdivided into three subgroups: Common, less common, and rare. Side effects in each subgroup are listed alphabetically. Which meant that the first side effect I encountered when I looked at the list was "blindness"! WTF? (I don't know if I've ever said on here, but going blind is something I'm particularly afraid of.)

Second, the thing that made me laugh: The side effects to contact your doctor about immediately included "tiredness." The side effects to contact your doctor about only if they don't go away and become problematic include "sleepiness" and "drowsiness." I think I understand what they're trying to differentiate here, but only after sitting and thinking it over for a bit, and even so it still has an element of "WTF?" about it.

 I got my pneumonia vaccine yesterday, and I'd like to confirm that the nurse who gave it to me was right: It will make your arm sore, so you'll want to get it in your nondominant arm. #ouch

I went to the pharmacy today to try to get hepatitis B, shingles, and pneumonia vaccines (while I still can). I was able to get one out of three:

• I got the first dose of shingles, and have to come back for the second in 1-6 months.
• I wasn't able to get the hepatitis because the pharmacy has to order more vaccine. The pharmacist told me to come back in 2 weeks or so.
• I wasn't able to get the pneumonia, because my insurance wouldn't cover it. They also wouldn't say why they wouldn't cover it[1], so I get to try to call them to find out if there's anything that I can do differently to get them to cover it.

[1] Besides the obvious reason: That the American "healthcare" "system" sucks.

Because of US prescription laws, my doctor cannot write prescriptions with refills for one of my medicines. Instead, he has to submit several individual prescriptions, one to be filled immediately and the remainder to be kept on file with my pharmacy. This morning I discovered I needed to have one of my on-file prescriptions filled, so I logged into my pharmacy website. Or I tried to: Since the last time I had used the website, my pharmacy had switched to new software. So I created an account for the new website, whereupon I discovered that I can no longer use the website to access my on-file prescriptions. Instead, I have to wait for the pharmacy to open and call to have one of the pharmacists or pharmacy texts move my on-file prescription into the fill queue.

Instituting a new system that makes your users less able to do things, and that requires your staff to do things for users that users could previously do for themselves is the opposite of progress. I should have been able to request my prescription and go about my day, awaiting the text from the pharmacy notifying me that my prescription is ready. Instead, I've had time to thoroughly explore the new website and app (in case the function I want is buried in some non-obvious submenu), write a letter to corporate complaining about the new software, and write this post, and I still haven't been able to request my prescription because the pharmacy doesn't open for another 15 minutes!

(As an aside: Why is it that the world is relentlessly set up to the advantage of morning people except for when I'm actually up in the morning and want to do things?)

ETA: It occurred to me when I came back to reply to comments on this entry that someone who didn't know me and hadn't been reading my writing for a while might think the title of this entry is a failure to properly use the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Rest assured that I know how to use the saying and I'm being very deliberate in my usage here. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" refers to cases like "After the upgrade, Feature X works faster/uses less memory/has a new interface/whatever, but it no longer includes subfeature X1, which had previously been present." On the other hand, "If it ain't broke, don't break it," is for cases like "After the upgrade, Feature X no longer works at all."

Just need to get some frustration here. If that's not your jam, please skip to the next post.

Last night, Z. asked me to check the pharmacy website and see if her prescription was ready to be picked up. I checked, and the site said it was "In process." So today I went to the pharmacy, about 8 hours after the pharmacy opened. The pharmacist said they're "just getting to" Z.'s prescription and it should be ready in about 15 minutes, if I'd like to wait. Well, she needs the medicine, so I wait. It's no big deal in and of itself, except that this happens at least once a week, and has for the past couple of years. At this point, hiring me to work in the pharmacy to see how things are done is the only way you'll ever convince me that they're not routinely waiting for the customer to come in and ask for a prescription before they start filling it. Not every time, but certainly a percentage of the times.

And I know it's not the fault of the pharmacist or the techs. It's the fault of the pharmacy companies, which even before the pandemic were cutting staffing below sustainable levels. When I first started going to this pharmacy about 10 years ago, they routinely staffed 2 pharmacists and 2-3 techs. Now they staff 1 pharmacist and 1 tech, with no reduction in number of prescriptions they have to process, plus now they're giving vaccinations on top of everything they already had to do.

But too many people won't think far enough to blame the corporation, or even if they do blame the corporation, they'll still take out their frustration on the pharmacist or tech that they're dealing with because the corporation is far away and this person is right there. Pharmacists already get less respect than their education level entitles them to[1], and this just makes it worse. I understand why the corporations have trouble hiring pharmacists for the few positions they do have - I wouldn't want the job either! Given the bullshit conditions that the pharmacists are working under, it's really to their credit that the system works as well as it does. Still doesn't change the fact that I don't like having to stand around an extra 25-30 minutes[2] to pick up a routine refill prescription.

[1] e.g. Have you seen the pharmacy licensure exam? It's one question: "Can you count to 30? Y/N"
[2] Because it's never ready in the 15 minutes they promise it.

Today was a day of medical appointments. I went this early this to get my booster. (Yay! Mission accomplished!) Then late this afternoon I took A. to see her new allergist, who she had been referred to by ENT in order to try to improve her ability to breathe. The allergist (of course) wanted to start around with a round of allergy testing (rather than requesting the ones she'd had several years ago from another allergist). So they did the prick testing on her back and she didn't respond to anything - not even the straight histamine that's the control for the test. So they did a series of tests by intradermal injections on her forearms. Still no reactions. So they decided to do blood tests. By the time they had gathered the supplies and were ready to do the blood draw, the intradermal tests had finally started to react, but they wanted to do the blood draws anyway since it had taken her so long to react. So after a 2-hour appointment (almost none of which was spent in the waiting room, she has to call tomorrow to make a followup appointment in April, at which time she'll get her test results and probably start on allergy shots.