I’m not a lobbyist, I’m a researcher. But working for the trade association representing PBMs, it’s hard not to notice that the National Community Pharmacists Association, NCPA, repeatedly asserts that independent pharmacy counts are declining. PCMA has done research on this issue, and found an increase in the number of independent pharmacies. Now, we’re going a step further and explaining why our research is factual, empirical, and credible.

A new white paper, Understanding Differences Between the Number of Pharmacies Reported by NCPA and NCPDP, from Professor Peter Hatemi, an independent consultant and Distinguished Professor at Penn State University, investigates why PCMA’s research has repeatedly found that the number of independent pharmacies is not declining, despite claims to the contrary by NCPA.  PCMA, and Professor Hatemi, uses the gold standard in pharmacy count data sources from the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP) paired with a clear and transparent methodology for preparing that data for analysis. And in short, NCPA simply does not.

Last year, I worked with Professor Hatemi to publish research, through PCMA, titled “Independent Pharmacies in the U.S. are More on the Rise than on the Decline,” which used that gold-standard dataset. Professor Hatemi’s work found that independent pharmacy lobbyist claims about fewer independent pharmacies in the United States were not supported by data. The report found that over time, independent pharmacy growth has been generally positive; there were more independent pharmacies in 2019 than there were in 2010.  

Here’s an excerpt from PCMA’s statement on that report: “In terms of absolute change in the number of stores, independent pharmacies are faring better than chain pharmacies. Between 2010 and 2019, the number of independent pharmacies increased by more than 2,600 stores, or 12.9%, whereas chains lost around 80 stores, or 0.2%.”

The new paper by Professor Hatemi explains clearly why PCMA’s pharmacy counts, and the data source that they come from are credible, and why NCPA’s pharmacy counts are not. NCPA bases its pharmacy counts on an unknown combination of NCPDP data and an unrepresentative survey, paired with undisclosed coding definitions and methodology. The result is a private dataset that is only partially released through annual reports to select subscribers. 

In fact, “NCPA states in their Digest they ‘do not make any assurances, representations, or warranties with respect to the data upon which the contents of this report were based.” In contrast, NCPDP’s data is transparent and publicly available, as is PCMA’s coding methodology of that data – and that’s why Professor Hatemi is willing to publicly issue not one but two papers outlining how and why independent pharmacies are increasing in the United States. 

As a researcher, I care very much about clear and accurate data. I know my colleagues at PCMA hope that policymakers do too.