Response to Pharmacy Ownership Bill Vote

After months of advertising, debates, and heavy anticipation from both sides, North Dakota senators voted 57-35 against repealing the current pharmacy ownership law, enacted in 1963.

Clearly the majority of North Dakota’s state senators are not for the common citizens, but instead filling their own pocketbooks with bribes from their pharmacist cohorts. By their own admittance, they have been inundated with phone calls and emails urging them to vote for the repeal, and chose to ignore those pleas. Clearly most North Dakotans want to see this law repealed.

By voting against this law, many North Dakotans will continue to go out of state to obtain their prescriptions, handing important tax revenue to neighboring states. Many of our local pharmacies now hold monopolies on the cities they serve, and this bill would have ended that. Competition keeps everything in check, and is necessary.

If these senators were complaining about the amount of messages they had before, just wait until now, after they chose to ignore the needs of the people they represent. I commend those 35 senators who voted for the repeal, and applaud them for standing up for what was right.

Thrifty White Drug Is Going Too Far

A recent article posted in the Bismarck Tribune has revealed an e-mail sent out by a Thrifty White Drug executive to pharmacists of the regional drug chain with a disturbing message. In the email, employees were told that unless they oppose repealing the pharmacy ownership law, they will not see raises this year.

Other statements in the executive’s email were also questionable, including a statement that read, "For those of you who have failed so miserably in this cause, reward will be based upon cooperation and performance."

It is a personal choice whether or not to support a law, and employees cannot be punished for their opinion on such a law. There is no law saying a company has to grant raises at all, but granting them to only those who support a law is not right. The tone of the email is not acceptable either.

I suspect many employees will look for other jobs following this, and that some customers may be turned away. Thrifty White has been a well-respected company across North Dakota for many years, but this conduct now casts serious doubt on the company’s ethical practices.

Clearly Thrifty White is concerned about increased competition should the law be repealed, and responding irrationally to the situation. The company is one of only two chain drugstores in the state (the other being CVS/pharmacy) and has locations in all major cities, where national chains would most likely build.

Amusingly enough, Thrifty White has been one of the leading opponents of the repeal, claiming it will destroy locally owned pharmacies, of which Thrifty White itself does not classify.

This desperate attempt at coercion is appalling and disgraceful.

To Read More About Thrifty White Drug, Click Here

To Read The Bismarck Tribune Article, Click Here

The Truth About Pharmacy Laws of North Dakota

There has been another recent push to repeal the pharmacy law in North Dakota that restricts pharmacy ownership. The law, which was enacted in 1963, was created to protect locally-owned pharmacies from national and/or regional chains. This is not the first time this law has been challenged, however.

One notable challenge came in 1973 when regional drug chain Snyder's Drug made claim that the law was unconstitutional. Snyder's parent, Red Owl, already had several grocery stores within the state and had hoped to expand into the pharmacy business. In 1977, Osco Drug and White Drug also challenged the law alongside the National Association of Chain Pharmacies, but lost.

North Dakota has two exceptions to this law, CVS/pharmacy and Thrifty White Drug. CVS had purchased Osco Drug in 2006, which, along with White Drug, had locations in North Dakota prior to the law.

Those who support the law say repealing it would put an end to local ownership. Many argue that they receiving better customer service and one-on-one attention from the pharmacist. Some have also argued that a locally owned pharmacy is safer; claiming that a pharmacist takes a less active role in national chain stores.

Those who want the law repealed claim that national competition will provide more options and lower costs. No doubt about it, the moment the law would be repealed, national stores such as Walgreens and Wal-Mart would rush into the state. North Dakota is the only state of which Wal-Mart does not operate pharmacies.

It is true that national chains often rely on pharmacy technicians to fill prescriptions, however a pharmacist is still ultimately responsible for each script filled. A pharmacist is always present and must personally verify each script. He is putting his career and reputation on the line with each verification. Secondly, pharmacy techs must become certified, and typically undergo rigorous training. There are even college degrees targeted for pharmacy technicians. Additionally, if a technician and pharmacist are both working on your script, that makes two people making sure there are no mistakes. Most local pharmacies have just a pharmacist on duty.

Saying that a local pharmacy is safer than a national chain just isn’t true. Yes, there have been circumstances across the country of wrongly dispensed medication at national chains, but even those are rare. CVS and Walgreens alone have over 12,000 stores in the United States, so there is bound to be a mistake once and awhile amongst the millions of prescriptions filled each year. It is not always the pharmacy’s fault either, but sometimes the doctor who prescribed the medicine.

This country is built on free enterprise, and yet North Dakota is restricting that freedom by not allowing these companies to do business in this state. With this law in place, it is also limiting competition in the state, and in turn creating local monopolies.

Residents are worried about their small-town pharmacy going out of business. First off, if your local pharmacy is as great as you make it sound, it will be able to effectively compete against the national chains. It will only fail because it is not as good, and then I ask you if that’s what you want – an inadequate pharmacy.

National chains offer more than just pharmacies, they offer a full array of household merchandise as well. It’s hard to find a candy bar in a local pharmacy, much-less a bottle of laundry detergent. National chains often have longer hours as well, and many even have in-store walk-in clinics such as CVS’s Minute Clinic.

In the end, your small-town pharmacy will survive. Only pharmacies near the larger cities, especially Bismarck and Fargo, will be affected. Most chains won’t even consider a store in a trade area less than 50,000 people.