The Vanishing Of The Drug Stores: Rural Pharmacies On The Decline

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

30 Responses

  1. Brandon Berg says:

    It’s that tiny sliver of wildly overpaid drugs, especially generics, that determines whether a pharmacy can survive. A generic drug that costs $4 might get reimbursed by a drug plan at $4,000.

    This is the most interesting part of the story, and it’s just a throwaway line. Why is the insurance company paying out $4,000 for a pill that costs the pharmacy $4? This seems important.Report

  2. Saul Degraw says:

    Corner drug stores have largely also disappeared from the urban landscape. I can’t remember the last time I picked up a medication from a drug store that was locally owned. Maybe never in my life and I am 41, not exactly a spring chicken anymore.

    I have a very complicated relationship with nostalgia pieces like this though because I have a lot of suspicions that things people are nostalgic for are often hazy memories of youth that did not correspond with reality that much. What people remember is being cared for as children by loving parents (hopefully) and everything gets distorted with this idea and that makes the past somehow better. The 1980s or whenever were not more awesome, people just think they were because they were children and had no responsibilities beyond some chores and doing homework (hopefully, not all children are so lucky).

    Or they remember being young and out of college and largely not having many responsibilities beyond deciding which bar to go to in order to try and get laid.

    Things change, not everything is meant to last forever and trapped in amber. There are local businesses worth supporting but it does not mean that every kind of business needs or should be local or should exist forever. Whenever I read someone go on a Jeremiad about a greasy spoon dinner closing it makes me think “well have they updated their menu since 1963 and why should the children be compelled to take over dad or mom’s business if they are doing other things?”

    But it seems like a lot of people have a unicorn-pony wish to live in something that is has cozy as Smurf Village or the Shire but has all the conveniences of New York City.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      The issue the OP mostly hints at is that loosing local pharmacy services in rural areas is part of a piece of a larger and frankly more difficult economic pie – namely that the consumer based economy in which we find ourselves has few incentives to keep basic services in low density population areas. Much like the loss of well respected local doctors and small local hospitals this has an effect on both rural health and commerce, and is part of what underpins the violent reactionary nature of what we are seeing politically in many of these same areas. Which is to say that rural white Americans who feel left behind/ignored by politicians and the economy as a whole look at this as yet another example of what’s being done to them, and they find that only the Fox News/Republican political center is even giving lip service much less attention to this.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H says:

        The writer comes from a state that lost a congressional seat because of population decline. There is only so much that can be done to prop up the economies of rural states. There are actually things that can be done like turn the entirety of West Virginia into a massive C.C.C. and W.P.A. site and I sympathize with those who cannot leave but after a certain point some people just become too wedded to the idea of hardscrabble poverty as a defining characteristic that it becomes a flaw. But West Virginians do not seem to want a massive C.C.C. and W.P.A. style program. They want their manly jobs with coal and black lung.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H says:

        The nice thing about democracy is that it allows citizens to determine their own interests and vote accordingly.

        The problem is it allows citizens to determine their own interests and vote accordingly.

        Right now a lot of rural citizens have made a different priority of what they want, and it isn’t stuff like broadband or jobs or healthcare.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          It isn’t those things – its to be heard and heeded. Now, a way to hear and heed them is to restore some portions of the economy that are slipping away, like hospitals and pharmacies.

          Another way is to screw minorities in cities so their lives are worse then for declining rural economies.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H says:

            It seems like a lot of people go for the second sentence.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H says:

            If that’s true then they would embrace a party which offered them affordable care, or Medicaid expansion, or even just Medicare vision and dental.

            Wait, someone’s handing me a note…Report

            • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              You know as well as I do they have been subjected to a variety of forces – mostly negative, including political propaganda. They voted Republican for a long time expecting things to change, and when things didn’t change – because they weren’t being listened to – they voted Trump and forced the GOP into submission.

              Now they think they are being listened to, and the message they are sending is hurt everyone else. Because no one they trust is telling them there is another option.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H says:

                They were always listened to.

                They never…EVER…asked for healthcare, broadband, or economic assistance of any kind.

                When they spoke, they demanded a SCOTUS that would repeal Roe and an administration that would break the unions, end affirmative action and put prayer back in schools.

                I saw a tweet showing a screengrab from Fox, where they listed some of the elements of Bidens plan- free childcare, broadband, Medicare vision and dental, etc etc.
                Except Fox was presenting it as a scary glimpse into the horrors of a Biden regime.

                But…they were at least telling the truth, that Biden really does want to give rural people all these nice things. And they know it.

                And they hate his guts.

                So, I’m viewing Trumpists the way I view the homeless I see every day. The most loving and kind thing I can do is not to pity them or think they are helpless victims.

                Don’t get me wrong- I’m happy to give them things- My tax money, a free meal, healthcare, and donations; But I don’t for a minute think that their lives can be fixed by anyone but themselves.

                They are making their choices, and I don’t have any power to stop them.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                When they spoke, they demanded a SCOTUS that would repeal Roe and an administration that would break the unions, end affirmative action and put prayer back in schools.

                the individual, rank and file voters in these areas do in fact want these things. They want economic opportunities for their kids that don’t require leaving. They want to see a doctor in their town. They want to celebrate their anniversaries and graduations in their own spaces. And they do, in fact want to be connected to the internet.

                But for 40 years, Republican politicians and businessmen, hell bent on keeping power in the face of a browning nation of mostly women, have fed them distorted lies. Those businessmen have consolidate newspapers and TV stations to ensure message discipline. And so the good trusting people of rural America have swallowed the propaganda.

                democrats used to give them a choice. But as the party has moved ever rightward – chasing campaign contributions and pyric victories the Democrats have abandoned the rural voter as well. These folks – whom I live and work among – are tired of loosing. They are tired of fighting for what they believe they have earned (even though that earning is all based on a racist myth). And so they vote for the politicians who they THINK and BELIEVE will let them win.

                Your power to stop them lies in ensuring the economic promises made to them are kept. that’s going to be tough with neoliberals and Republicans in Washington, both serving the almighty corporation. But it is doable.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H says:

                I think this assumes a lot of facts not in evidence and people are driven mad that the GOP can win how it wins and end up blaming the Democrats paradoxically.

                I don’t really care what people say. Talk is cheap. Actions are harder. The Democratic Party has campaigned on things that will make life in the rust belt/rural areas better and possibly bring in more employment. What they have not done is state “I will wave the magic happy wand that reserves all the changes to society in the last few decades whether those changes are social, cultural, economic, technological, or ecological.” They have not promised to bring back factories belching coal smoke or to reopen coal mines because they cannot and should not.

                West Virginia voters seem more interested in being able to be manly in coal mines than things that might improve West Virginia. Plus they don’t like the party that is okay with two men kissing on screen. They might be okay with certain videos of two or more women kissing.Report

  3. Michael Cain says:

    The last few times I’ve been in rural hamlets — and it does happen — there wasn’t a local hardware store, or local grocery, or local bakery, or… Why would we expect pharmacies to be any different?Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Michael Cain says:

      I can think of some really nice independent rural bakeries on or right off charming rural roads in north Marin county, Napa County, and Sonoma county. I suppose those might not count by definitions of rural used by most people though but they are still within eyesight of working farms and ranches. Though one in Sonoma is also right near a very expensive day spa.

      Humboldt County which is four-five hours from SF does have independent bakeries though but Eureka is a weird town and has a hippie-vibe to it in parts. Real hippies who were priced out of the Bay Area.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Michael Cain says:

      It’s interesting… I live in a generally well-to-do suburban area and I’m constantly surprised to find we have all those locally owned, “old school” places… a hardware store, a toy store, a children’s book store, a regular book store, a couple pharmacies, etc. We’ve been frequenting them more and more, for various reasons, including because we have a bit more coin in our pocket and can afford the usually slightly higher prices though we also find we tend to get MUCH better service and usually higher quality.

      So there is a bit of an irony in that these places we tend to associate with small town, rural America are not sustainable there anymore because folks are largely too broke to afford them. And the places that do have them would only be considered disdainful by those rural folks. Go figure.Report

  4. Dark Matter says:

    Core problem is the law allows these “networks” and “deals”. If all levels of these network distribution chains were forced to have one advertised price for all their customers (drug companies (etc)), then we’d have markets.

    As it is we have something like central planning except every company has their central planners negotiating with other central planners.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

      Someone should force the capitalists to behave as market theory says they should.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        The only way to do that is to create more barriers to entry for competitors.

        Maybe we could have the established players write the legislation?Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        “Market theory” is irrelevant if we don’t have a market.
        And we don’t have a market mostly because the gov hasn’t allowed/created one.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

          Real capitalism has never been tried.

          (But we know it works)Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            We know it works because we have it for the HC markets which the gov hasn’t destroyed in it’s efforts to “make it fairer and cheaper”.

            Animal HC. Human Plastic Surgery. A few others.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

              The Republican Health Care Plan:

              Minor Medical: Market Rate, no max

              Major Medical: Free transportation to a farm in upstate.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Both parties “plan” starts with the core belief that they don’t want to get rid of the armies of well paid bureaucrats who only exist to fight with each other.

                The only person pushing for price transparency was Trump. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/15/779707609/trump-wants-insurers-and-hospitals-to-show-real-prices-to-patients

                No clue what happened to that idea, my expectation is it will die quietly now that he’s left office.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                The Democrats built the ACA on the skeleton of the Heritage Foundation’s plans that were developed to push back on Hillary in the 1990’s. Democrats did that in the vain hope that Republicans would support it. The plan a the time was billed as an interim step to both rein in HC costs and move partially to better access but not go as far as single payer.

                It was never a leftist proposal.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                The ACA, as proposed by Heritage and as implemented by the Left, was insurance reform, not HC reform. I.e. it was an effort to leave all the bureaucrats in place and expand access via yet another layer of bureaucrats.

                If we want to reduce costs we need more market and less central planning. Markets have a long history of firing people and reducing costs, gov really doesn’t.

                The theoretical alternative is that the gov will take over HC and destroy millions of well paid jobs with single payer. This assumes that Congress has the political will to burn down multiple GDP points of the economy because they’re misused resources.

                Congress has done this sort of thing twice. Once after WW2 when we told the returning soldiers they needed to find new jobs. The second would be when we freed the slaves.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter says:

                The theoretical alternative is that the gov will take over HC and destroy millions of well paid jobs with single payer.

                I said, and say, that an adept politicians could run on this.

                “We’re going to put the people in charge of denying your insurance claims out of work! ALL OF THEM!”Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Single payer is not government run healthcare, and it would reduce costs.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                Single payer… would reduce costs.

                We’d have the usual problems that central planning has, i.e. no price feedback so mismatch of supply and demand.

                Now would we also reduce prices? If we lay off millions of people, then yes.

                If instead our brave politicians can’t bring themselves to do that and instead we have one more set of bureaucrats to fight with everyone, then no.

                My expectation is what we get are promises to lower prices, no one get fired, and excess is greatly expanded… and the focus will be on the last two of those things.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                We’d have the usual problems that central planning has, i.e. no price feedback

                Why would we want to?

                The reason group health insurance works is that the demand for health care is astoundingly predictable and isn’t subject to market forces.

                The human body ages in extremely predictable ways, and the most common ailments can be predicted with amazing accuracy.

                This is why insurance companies know the probability that a 49 year old woman will get breast cancer or a 59 year old man will need bifocals or a 15 year old girl will get HPV.

                A middle aged man might suddenly get the consumer demand to buy a sports car, but nobody suddenly gets the consumer demand for diabetes.Report

  5. Oscar Gordon says:

    Let’s see, pretty much every Wal-Mart/Target/etc. has a pharmacy (toss in Walgreens/CVS/etc.), and rumor has it those killed off main street by being local and cheaper, so I would think the degree of convenience hasn’t moved all that much. Likewise, how many companies are offering Rx by mail (for that matter, how many health plans require Rx by mail whenever reasonable)?

    I also have to wonder about the metric of “a 15 minute drive”. When I was growing up, a 15 minute drive to get anywhere was optimistic, usually it was 30+ minutes, yet somehow it wasn’t a crisis for the farming families and other rural residents. I’d like to see the percentage that has to drive 1+ hours to get an Rx filled, I’m betting it’s a small number that can be served by Rx by mail.

    Who are the people most affected by the shuttering of corner drug stores? Those who want to age in their home (rather than a facility), where that home is out in the small towns. Which I can appreciate, but these people gotta stop pretending that their lives are free from making trade-offs*. If they want to age in their home, they may need to find a home closer to a drug store, or figure out how to use Rx by mail. Hell, even my father, whose greatest sin was pride, swallowed that pride, sold his house out in the boonies, and moved to a nearby town so he could be close to medical services.

    * And pieces like this need to stop selling them on the idea that making such trade-offs is somehow unfair.Report