3 ms·

> Independents? Good one :).

by boulos 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago
North Dakota requires pharmacies be owned by independent pharmacists. It works. Other states could follow, if they so choose. It is a choice. Prevents private equity roll ups, prevents consolidation, and is proven to be beneficial for all parties involved. https://ilsr.org/rule/pharmacy-ownership-laws/2832-2/ https://ilsr.org/rule/pharmacy-ownership-laws/2832-2/ (Walmart spent almost $10M attempting to challenge this law, and still lost to North Dakota voters: https://www.drugtopics.com/view/walmart-spent-93-million-challenge-nd-pharmacy-law https://www.drugtopics.com/view/walmart-spent-93-million-cha...)
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  proven to be beneficial for all parties involved I'm intrigued, but where was it proven?
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Quoting from the citation I provided: > In North Dakota, prescription drug prices are more affordable than in two-thirds of all states. Pharmacies are more plentiful, with more per capita than in neighboring South Dakota, Minnesota, or nationally, and they’re more broadly distributed; North Dakota’s rural areas are 51 percent more likely to contain a pharmacy than similarly-populated areas of South Dakota. And in general, independent pharmacies provide higher quality care, studies and surveys of customer satisfaction find. > North Dakota reaps economic benefits, too, from this local ownership. Without the Pharmacy Ownership Law, a 2014 report from ILSR estimates, about 70 of North Dakota’s independent pharmacies would close. Chain pharmacies headquartered around the country and out-of-state mail order companies would fill the gap, and ILSR estimates that direct economic losses to the state’s economy would be at least $17 million, and as high as $29 million, without accounting for indirect impacts such as lost tax revenue. So, prescriptions are affordable and accessible to prescription consumers, these independently owned and operated pharmacies are sustainable, dollars are kept local and in the state, and large format retailers (Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid) are kept out of the market. Voted for by 60% of North Dakota voters in their last referendum. "Proven to be beneficial for all parties involved."
    - WillPostForFood 3y ago
      Could've read the link, but quoting here works too. I did read the link, but was hoping there might be something more to it. prescription drug prices are more affordable than in two-thirds of all states. Pharmacies are more plentiful, with more per capita than in neighboring South Dakota, Minnesota So 17th best in the country in prices doesn't seem like a huge win? Neighboring Montana is doing better at 11th best (2014 - most recent price data from your link), and North Dakota has been dropping in the rankings, from 10 in 2010 to 17 in 2014. You can't really tell if there has been a small benefit or small penalty to consumers. But definitely doesn't scream huge win on this policy.
- eru 3y ago
  > North Dakota requires pharmacies be owned by independent pharmacists. Germany does so as well, and requires even stuff like aspirin be sold only in pharmacies. Result is that such basic medication is a lot more expensive there than in eg neighbouring Netherlands.
- duskwuff 3y ago
  North Dakota is demographically weird enough (fourth lowest population density behind Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska; only one city - Fargo - has more than 100k residents) that I'd be hesitant to draw too many conclusions from it.
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  I want to believe you , but history doesnt seem to follow. IT is also a rule in many states that independent doctor practices and I believe veterinarians, too, must be owned by the licensed professional (MDs or Vets) Yet private equity and hospitals are scooping up independent doctor practices left and right It is a weird concept - you get some kind of medical director, and ownership is never changed, just control changes, the owner charges a management fee to the practice, and voila - you now "own" a doctor's office. I would absolutely would want to see this arrangement tested, since it goes against the spirit of the law

> Independents? Good one :).

by boulos 3y ago

> Independents? Good one :).

North Dakota requires pharmacies be owned by independent pharmacists. It works. Other states could follow, if they so choose. It is a choice. Prevents private equity roll ups, prevents consolidation, and is proven to be beneficial for all parties involved. https://ilsr.org/rule/pharmacy-ownership-laws/2832-2/ https://ilsr.org/rule/pharmacy-ownership-laws/2832-2/ (Walmart spent almost $10M attempting to challenge this law, and still lost to North Dakota voters: https://www.drugtopics.com/view/walmart-spent-93-million-challenge-nd-pharmacy-law https://www.drugtopics.com/view/walmart-spent-93-million-cha...)

WillPostForFood 3y ago
proven to be beneficial for all parties involved I'm intrigued, but where was it proven?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Quoting from the citation I provided: > In North Dakota, prescription drug prices are more affordable than in two-thirds of all states. Pharmacies are more plentiful, with more per capita than in neighboring South Dakota, Minnesota, or nationally, and they’re more broadly distributed; North Dakota’s rural areas are 51 percent more likely to contain a pharmacy than similarly-populated areas of South Dakota. And in general, independent pharmacies provide higher quality care, studies and surveys of customer satisfaction find. > North Dakota reaps economic benefits, too, from this local ownership. Without the Pharmacy Ownership Law, a 2014 report from ILSR estimates, about 70 of North Dakota’s independent pharmacies would close. Chain pharmacies headquartered around the country and out-of-state mail order companies would fill the gap, and ILSR estimates that direct economic losses to the state’s economy would be at least $17 million, and as high as $29 million, without accounting for indirect impacts such as lost tax revenue. So, prescriptions are affordable and accessible to prescription consumers, these independently owned and operated pharmacies are sustainable, dollars are kept local and in the state, and large format retailers (Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid) are kept out of the market. Voted for by 60% of North Dakota voters in their last referendum. "Proven to be beneficial for all parties involved."
  - WillPostForFood 3y ago
    Could've read the link, but quoting here works too. I did read the link, but was hoping there might be something more to it. prescription drug prices are more affordable than in two-thirds of all states. Pharmacies are more plentiful, with more per capita than in neighboring South Dakota, Minnesota So 17th best in the country in prices doesn't seem like a huge win? Neighboring Montana is doing better at 11th best (2014 - most recent price data from your link), and North Dakota has been dropping in the rankings, from 10 in 2010 to 17 in 2014. You can't really tell if there has been a small benefit or small penalty to consumers. But definitely doesn't scream huge win on this policy.
eru 3y ago
> North Dakota requires pharmacies be owned by independent pharmacists. Germany does so as well, and requires even stuff like aspirin be sold only in pharmacies. Result is that such basic medication is a lot more expensive there than in eg neighbouring Netherlands.
duskwuff 3y ago
North Dakota is demographically weird enough (fourth lowest population density behind Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska; only one city - Fargo - has more than 100k residents) that I'd be hesitant to draw too many conclusions from it.
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
I want to believe you , but history doesnt seem to follow. IT is also a rule in many states that independent doctor practices and I believe veterinarians, too, must be owned by the licensed professional (MDs or Vets) Yet private equity and hospitals are scooping up independent doctor practices left and right It is a weird concept - you get some kind of medical director, and ownership is never changed, just control changes, the owner charges a management fee to the practice, and voila - you now "own" a doctor's office. I would absolutely would want to see this arrangement tested, since it goes against the spirit of the law