Your faculty are either ignorant of history, or bought into the institutional amnesia that pharmacy organizations peddle. This has been answered multiple times on the Boards, but the short story is, HCFA (the forerunner to CMS) openly proposed to the CPT committee that was AMA run at the time to have pharmacy as a provider paid on procedural credits in 1972 to be a part of the initial HMO act. APhA intentionally screwed it up (opposed it officially which is now scrubbed from their institutional history but is readily available at White Oak) being the dysfunctional, counterproductive, and worthless organization that it is today, and there are those in CMS who were in HCFA when APhA did that who aren't inclined to be forgiving to the profession. In other words, there was a time where that was offered to us on a silver platter, but our own leaders tanked that proposition for greed. The most damning thing was when APhA realized how badly they screwed it up in the 1990s, they went to the committee and argued before the very person who advocated for them in the 1970s and tried to lie to his face on the circumstances, not remembering that he was the one who tried to give them that status in the first place, but was derailed because APhA felt that product paid more than procedure. I have it on good authority by multiple witnesses at the meeting that the meeting was abruptly terminated after he lost it in front of them. Ever since, pharmacy talks a game, but does not have any real intention of going through with it. APhA thanks you for getting your Board Certifications to contribute to their warchest.
My own opinion is fairly complicated as to whether or not pharmacists should have provider status, but the main point that I would give is that in a world where pharmacists are paid on procedure and not product, pharmacists should expect to make much less. I've seen clinical pharmacist efficiency, and given a generous 80% of what an FM/IM physician bills for a standard visit through the RBRVU system, pharmacists would have to work pretty hard to break $80k, much less the $130k we are paid now. But, I can't see why a midlevel practitioner couldn't provide those services cheaper (because quality is hard to measure), so I'd be curious about the circumstances. Just as a relatlive matter, our median is still about a third over PA's and about 15-30% over APRNs in most markets for general care (so, I know the CRNA and specialist APRNs make above our level, but they are the exception and not the CVS equivalent). Since pharmacists generally care about their livelihoods, getting a 30-40% paycut might be a bit much to ask.
If there is anything I truly dislike about the profession, it's the mediocrity of us collectively wanting better but not willing to put in the real effort. When we have the rare people who do, they leave the profession as it's easier to change yourself than to change a bunch of shortsighted pharmacists. Someday, I think I'll feel safe enough to surrender my license over ideological reasons as my work no longer requires active practice. But the mediocre pharmacist in me is still too strong in not taking risks, so I still get work to pay for it.
