Chico Pharmacy

Review: On April 15, 2015 I asked a clerk ([redacted]) in Chico Pharmacy ([redacted]) if they had something to protect a finger, and was shown a box of Finger Covers (by [redacted]). I was not sure if I needed it and asked for for some other items for finger protection. I was told that this box was the only item available for finger protection at the pharmacy and decided to purchase it (box of 36, purchase price $6.33 with tax). Later the same day I found what I was looking for in another pharmacy, and on April 21, 2015 I brought an unopened box of Finger Covers back to the pharmacy for return. I was very surprised that the clerk [redacted] refused to take it back referring to the store owner who establishes her own rules since she "owns the store". I indicated to [redacted] that at the time of purchase I was not told that I would not be able to return the box, and that there were no signs in the pharmacy alerting customers to their policy of no returns. [redacted] continued to refer to the store owner.Desired Settlement: I request that the item be refunded in the amount $6.33.

Business

Response:

Sorry for having to inconvenience a customer and Revdex.com.We are a licensed healthcare facility and we are afraid of the bug MRSA- Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus that is recently making people very sick. Finger cots may be easily contaminated and the customer had the item for a few days without mention to our facility she was dissatisfied. The patient's finger was still wrapped in gauze could easily have contaminated the cots also.We hope you find we had good reason to not allow the finger cots to be returned.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: It is hard to accept the pharmacy’s explanations based on their concern of spread of MRSA. Along with other items the box of finger covers waslocated in the open access area and anyone who was interested could touch the box with their “fingers … wrapped in gauze” or without gauze. Following pharmacy’s safety concerns in the conditions of open access, the pharmacy would have equally “good reason not to allow” the finger covers to be sold to their customers in the first place!In my complaint I did not discuss the pharmacy rules or their reasons. I complained that there was no sign in the pharmacy alerting customers about their policy of no returns, and that the clerk never mentioned that I would not be able to return the box once purchased, despite the fact that she clearly saw my hesitation. Since all other pharmacies I know allow customers to return items purchased over the counter, Chico pharmacy practices of not allowing returns and not informing clients about their rule seem deceptive to the customers.I request that a refund of $6.33 for the box of finger covers be issued to me, and that the pharmacy post a clear sign indicating their policy of no returns.

Business

Response:

In regards to complaint ID# [redacted] we have reviewed the comments by the customer, and have concluded that we will accept the return, and issue the refund. We will post a more a conspicuous sign stating our return policy. Not all items are non-returnable, but some are designated as such for patient safety. Items such as the cots, which come in a non-sealed package are not accepted for return due to the fact that once they have left our control, (as with prescriptions, [by order of CA Board of pharmacy]) we cannot guarantee that the item is still in saleable condition (the package may have been opened, or the item exposed to temperature extremes) for the next person who might want to buy it. Patient health and safety are primary concerns, and most people are more comfortable knowing that we are not reselling items such as this that have left the store and been returned.Please let Ms [redacted] know that she may return the item for refund, and we will dispose of it.Sincerely,Chico Pharmacy

Consumer

Response:

I am partially rejecting this response because:I went to the pharmacy today and was issued a refund for my purchase. I have found a sign posted stating the pharmacy return policy. The pharmacy has many signs, several of them at the entrance about the use of cellular phones on premises, and other very visible signs in and outside the pharmacy. The sign about their return policy is displayed on the side wall near the door, and not easily noticeable, due to its location away from the counter. Some customers who have already paid and are on their way out may or may not notice the sign. I understand that the management of the pharmacy wants to strictly enforce the rules related to the health and safety. It would be even better if in addition to the safety and financial benefits of the pharmacy the management would also pay attention to financial interests of their customers who should know the pharmacy's no return policy before they pay. I request that the manager will keep her promise and post a "conspicuous sign" stating the pharmacy's return policy near the counter.

Review: Pharmacist advised to purchase medication out of pocket and return for refund after prior authorization paperwork has gone through. I waited a week for the prior authorization paperwork to be processed and then, they still hadn't done the legwork, I was forced to purchased my medication per pharmacist instruction. Received a confirmation of the prior authorization going through, returned to the pharmacy with the receipt for a refund as instructed. I was told first it hadn't gone through. Then I was told to wait while the man called [redacted] tried to change my approval date. all this in a three week period, it isn't right. The staff up front are always nice & patient & on the ball, but this is the second time they did this scam with the prior authorization. I let it goDesired Settlement: Refund

Business

Response:

On October 28, 2015 a new prescription was written by the patient’s doctor. The medication is not covered by the patient’s insurance. We requested the doctor do a Prior Authorization. The prescription was filled on October 30, 2015. Our normal policy is to wait for the Prior Authorization before filling. On rare occasions, we allowed someone to purchase the medication and if the Prior Authorization came through, we would refund when the patient brought in the receipt.In this case, when the doctor requested the Prior Authorization, he did not ask for it to be retroactive to October 30. The Prior Authorization is approved, but not effective until November 16, 2015 and good until November 15, 2016. We asked the insurance to retroactive the date to October 30, they wouldn’t. we asked the doctor to request the authorization be retroactive to October 30. As of this date, the Authorization still is effective November 16.We can’t refund the prescription price since we can’t bill her insurance. If she can convince her insurance to change the effective date to October 30 so that we can bill her insurance, we will be willing to refund what she paid, if she brings in the receipt.Thank you for your attention to this matter.Sincerely,[redacted]