by INFORUM
Pharmacy measure won’t go on ballot
August 19, 2010 at 7:00 pm in INFORUM
Secretary of state affirms earlier rejection of petitions/strong>
BISMARCK Secretary of State Al Jaeger said Thursday that he will not put a voter initiative to repeal North Dakota’s pharmacy ownership restrictions on the November general election ballot. Continue Reading
Wow, no surprise here. If Jaeger was ever going to let something go through on a technicality, it wouldn’t be this. Well, it was a valiant effort to try and actually get this to the people. Everyone knows it will pass…too bad the powers that be are bowing to the pressures of the pharmacist lobby. Last time I checked, we were still a free-enterprise society…but for some reason this issue is an exception in ND!
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
19
Something stinks, and it’s Jaeger’s decision. The North Dakota taxpayers overwhelmingly want this issue on the ballot, so throwing out all these petitions on a technicality seems like Jaeger’s personal preference and it makes me angry.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
27
I don’t want to come off as being rude.. but I have to tell you this. This statement and all the others that I have read like yours makes ME angry. I can just hear the ignorant rambling some will be doing “oh don’t vote for Jaeger, he didn’t want the pharmacy law changed” and blah blah blah..
The man is by the book.. he is doing his job! I would like to see it on the ballot myself but I certainly will not fault Mr. Jaeger for following the procedures. Do you know what he would go through if he DIDN’T? It has nothing to do with his personal preference. If you must place blame then place it where it belongs.
It makes anyone saying this sound so ignorant… seriously… you people really expect for him to just look the other way…let it go..it’s no big deal? What if it were for something that you didn’t want?? Did any of you ever think of that? What if it were for something else and the petitions turned in actually weren’t legit? It’s his job.. get over it.
Oh well.. to each his own .. and then they cry and continue to spew the ignorant babbling.. it’s disgusting.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
22 
33
I also have learned from very knowledgeable sources close to the organization that the opposition (the independent pharmacy owners) have raised some $500,000 as a warchest to fight the pharmacy ownership measure if it gets on the ballot. Half a million dollars will buy them plenty of advertising spots on radio and television as well as newspaper ads. (You have to suspect that the majority of that money is coming fom Thrifty White Drug).
The proponents of the measure will accordingly need to be prepared to spend over a million dollars. In other words — two pro ads for every one anti ad.
The good thing is that if the measure does get certified for the ballot, then the state laws on campaign finance disclosures kicks in. That means both sides have to report ANY contribution they receive of $100 or more on their campaign finance disclosure filings.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
25
Sad that a measure that might save people money won’t be put to a vote by the people. I would think something could have been worked out to make it legal.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
18
Gee decisions like this make me wonder about things like who is lining whos pockets?
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
20
Don’t waste your time on fighting this, just make sure you do everything right next time. Get it on the ballot for next November, if North Dakotans really want this change they will sign the petition again.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
9
What I don’t understand is, if Jaeger gave them 20 days to correct the problem, and all they needed to do was list the 25 sponsors, why don’t they just correct it? What am I not seeing?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
2
I’m guessing here but I think it says it needs to be “circulated” with the 25 sponsors attached and not just that the final copy turned in has the 25 sponsors listed. Can anyone confirm if that is correct?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
It is Al Jaeger, the secretary of state’s position, that the petitions which were turned in cannot be fixed. He says the names of the 25 members of the sponsoring committee had to be attached to each petition booklet that was circulated among the public for their signatures. That is why he rejected the petitions two weeks ago.
The group that is spearheading the initiated measure effort is appealing Jaeger’s decision directly to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which is their right under the appropriate statutes. This is not an end run. North Dakota law allows for such a challenge, and the group merely is availing itself of that option.
We’ll have to see what happens…stay tuned.
Like or Dislike:
15 
13
For actually agree with GS on this one. An earlier artical said the just forgot to attach the front sheets with the sponsors. You would think all they needed to do was attach them and resubmit them. This law should have been off the books a long time ago.
But North Dakota has a long history of protecting buisness at the expence of the people.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
10
Apparently, that’s not good enough for the secretary of state. Al Jaeger really is making a mountain out of a molehill about this…but the law requires that the petitions be circulated in their entirety. Since the names of the sponsors was missing from each petition booklet, then Jaeger says the petitions are out for that reason.
The state supreme court will now be called upon to settle this dispute.
Like or Dislike:
11 
17
“making a mountain out of a molehill” translated = DOING HIS JOB
I can’t believe people are complaining about the man doing his job!! This is a GOOD thing! Even if it doesn’t always work out in our favor. Appreciate it!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I don’t understand why so many Fargoans complain, being they can simply go accross the river if they’d like.
Funny thing is, not very many seem to do that. Probably due to the long lines, indifferent service, and questionable competency. If you want that fine, but be careful what you wish for. I’m Moorhead resident but I still use a North Fargo pharmacy for these reasons.
I do get a kick out of people complaining about the money being spent on the lobby. So much different than the retail giants trying to gain a foothold, right?
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
22
My wife and I get our prescriptions from Walmart over in Dilworth. Outside of the minor inconvenience of having to drive across town for our prescriptions; our experience with the pharmacy there has been nothing but caring and professional. The pharmacists are available to give their advice and counsel about your prescriptions as well as over the counter medications.
The service we have received has been anything but indifferent. Wendy Harmsen (the lead pharmacist at Walmart) as well as the two other pharmacists and the other members of their pharmacy team are very helpful and go out of their way to make sure their customers are completely satisfied.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
22
Sounds a lot like the Sioux nickname fight. Those in the position to protect the rights of the people are refusing to allow those very same people the opportunity to vote on something that they should have the right to do. I was getting a prescription at Thrifty White for over a year paying $68 a month, i just transferred my prescription to CVS and i now pay $22 for the very same thing. 3 blocks apart, how do you justify that? Time for our officials to quit preventing competition from getting us all the best deal we can get.
Like or Dislike:
16 
13
I switched away from CVS because they consistently gave me someone else’s subscription! If I picked it up through the driver thru, I wasn’t allowed to return it even though it wasn’t mine. They did not notify customers of safety recalls regarding eye drops, telling my mother that they just hadn’t received a new shipment of her drops when in fact they had sold her the drops–the actual batch– included in the recall. Since the change-over from Osco to CVS, they have had a 100% turn over of pharmacists and pharmacy assistants. They had a near 100% turn over within the first 12 months.
My health is worth more than $46 a month.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Obviously the people of ND want to vote on this so why is Jaeger fighting this so much? I realize we don’t want it to be so easy that a bunch of meaningless crap gets put on the ballot but this is something that will really help the people of ND. So relax Al and be part of the solution not the problem.
Like or Dislike:
12 
13
The following provision of the North Dakota Constitution now requires Al Jaeger to place the pharmacy ownership law initiative on the ballot. Now that the petitioners’ case has been filed with the high court and arguments scheduled, take notice of the following provisions in the Constitution of North Dakota:
Article III. Powers Reserved to the People:
Section 7. All decisions of the secretary of state in the petition process are subject to review by the supreme court in the exercise of original jurisdiction. If his decision is being reviewed at the time the ballot is prepared, he shall place the measure on the ballot and no court action shall invalidate the measure if it is approved at the election by a majority of the votes cast thereon.
The above provision of the Constitution effectively ties Jaeger’s hands. He is now required to include the pharmacy ownership law initiated measure on the ballot. He has until Sept. 8th to certify the statewide general election ballot and distribute it to the county auditors.
The oral arguments in the Supreme Court are set for 9 a.m. on Sept. 1st. It’s doubtful that the justices will rule the same day. Most often it takes them weeks even months to render an opinion on any given case.
So, it appears the ball is once again in North Dakotans for Lower Prescription Drug Costs’s court. Some people will argue that this is the measure’s sponsors way of making an end run around Jaeger’s decision. That is not correct. This provision of the constitution is available to any petition sponsors. The sponsors of the pharmacy ownership measure are merely availing themselves of the right to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision.
Like or Dislike:
10 
19
What ever is the big deal on this matter, I have been using a mail order pharmacy for several years. the one i use has the pharmacist call and advise on each new prescription. this firm was recommended by my ins. co.
saves them and me money. once you get set up with a mail order pharm, you can just mail your scripts in and everything goes just like going to your overpriced local pharm.
I won’t mention names, but they are out there.
In fact, if you get a prescription, you can take it to another state and have the firm use the USPS to deliver your scripts. all it takes is a phone call from there.
Very simple solution !!!!!!!!!!!1
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
I worry about the number of people willing to sign a petition without all the proper documentation attached. Heck, a lot of people don’t even bother to read what they sign.
Like or Dislike:
18 
5
Writers of our State Constition wisely included a procedure allowing citizens initiate laws that legislatures were reluctant to tackle or opposed despite popular support. The intent was to provide voters with the power to overcome political manipulation by elected officials. The spirit and intent of the Constition is clear and should be followed.
Mr. Jaeger refused to accept petitions in another matter on July 5, 1995 because his office door was closed at 5:00 PM and he felt the petitions failed to meet the statuatory time limits for delivery. In Husebye vs Jaeger, an opinion was filed July 27th when the Supreme Court ordered Jaeger to immediately accept disputed petitions and to “pass upon” them for sufficiency.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Not to go completely off the subject, but this entire debate reminds me a lot about the arguments that flew back and forth during the debate on North Dakota’s blue laws. Before 1989, most retail businesses were shuttered on Sunday as were all bars and liquor stores. Only essential services such as gas stations, motels and hotels, bus, airline and train service, and some grocery stores were allowed to be open.
But, by golly the bingo halls were open. Picture this. The West Acres mall parking lot was barren on Sunday, but only a few blocks away at the nearest bingo hall, the lot was packed.
Pretty much the same arguments as well. “Opening on Sunday will ruin the small towns!” some said. “Sunday opening will ruin families!” others chimed in. It seems to me that most families are no better off, nor worse off some 20 years later. Most small towns are also no better off nor worse off as a direct result of Sunday shopping. It took a hundred and some years to finally allow retail businesses the option of opening on Sundays. I sure hope it doesn’t take a hundred years to get rid of this anarchaic out of date pharmacy ownership law.
But to get back to our discussion. If North Dakota’s law said no corporate pharmacies, period; I don’t think I would have a problem with that. What I do have a big problem with is that there are two large drug store chains that are allowed to operate pharmacies in the state. But good Lord everyone screams bloody murder when Kmart, Target, Walmart, Walgreens, etc. wants to level the playing field and bring some much needed competition into the marketplace.
I realize there are many of our fellow North Dakotans who are downright frightened of change. They are the folks with the mentality, “This is how we did things 30 years ago, and by golly, this is the way we shall continue to do them!” The folks that have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
If this measure were to get voted on today, I predict that it would pass. I’m guessing by at least a 60-40 percent margin. All we can do now is to let the Supreme Court do what it has to do with all due diligence and hope they make the right decision. Of course, all it takes is three of the five justices to vote to allow this to go on the ballot.
Stay tuned.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
18
What I would like to is this. How many of you have ever initiated a petition or been involved with an initiated measure campaign in any way?
Personally, I have spent a great amount of time on this particular issue. I’ve been involved with North Dakotans for Affordable Healthcare (North Dakotans for Lower Prescription Drug Prices) for over a year, strictly on a volunteer basis.
This issue of pharmacy ownership is somewhat personal for me. For those of you who don’t know this, my wife is a leukemia patient and she has to take several prescription medications as a result. We’ve found that going across the river over to Moorhead (we live in Fargo) to get our prescriptions filled does save us quite a bit of money. If North Dakota’s law were to change, we would have many choices where we could get our prescriptions within four blocks of where we live here in Fargo.
How many of you have spent a good deal of your own time – completely uncompensated – gone out and collected signatures on a petition?
How much of the processes of initiative and referendum do you all really understand?
Also, how many of you who are posting comments on this thread are just on the sidelines throwing random comments?
Accordingly, how many of you are posting with any resemblance of knowledge of what you’re talking about?
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
20
Yes, I have. We just double-checked to make sure our petitions followed ALL the regulations to the letter. It’s really not that hard.
Like or Dislike:
14 
5
Really? Well, good for you. It certainly is a good learning experience, isn’t it? May I ask which proposed ballot measure that you are/were involved with? There were eight other groups seeking to get their respective measures on the Nov. 2nd general election ballot in North Dakota this year. However, all but one of them missed the filing deadline. Thus, if that other measure is certified for the ballot, and the pharmacy ownership measure also makes it to the ballot; there will be three measures to be voted on in November.
One is a constitutional amendment that was proposed by last year’s legislative session. The other citizen initiated measure has to do with a change in hunting regulations, then of course the pharmacy ownership measure.
Like or Dislike:
7 
14
It is certainly not surprising that Wayne Stenehjem wants to argue this case himself. A good part of his duties as attorney general is that he serves as the chief legal counsel to all state government officials and departments. Most everyone commonly thinks of the attorney general as being the state’s top law enforcement officer, as well as the state’s chief criminal prosecutor.
Which leads me to the following:
What other initiated measure organization has gone as far as Tammy Ibach and her team at North Dakotans for Lower Prescription Drug Prices did with the secretary of state’s office? They with the drafting of the petition title, coordinated efforts to find 25 North Dakota voters who were willing to be included as part of the sponsoring committee and completing the paperwork to get this done including a notarized document? Did you know that all of the petitions needed to be notarized?
No one is making excurses for the mistake that has happened. I believe Tammy Ibach has gone far above and beyond the call of duty in this regard.
However, the amount of work that is involved in getting the paperwork completed and then the massive amount of time it takes to collect qualified signatures is just that. Massive.
Remember there were nearly nine organizations that made an attempt to initiate a measure and today only one is going on the ballot that we know about. Hopefully, the state Supreme Court will rule in the petitioner’s favor and will allow the pharmacy ownership law initiative to appear on the Nov. 2nd general election ballot.
That should tell us all something.
Like or Dislike:
8 
17
Blame the petition leaders. They should know the rules or learn them. It isn’t anybody else’s fault. The will of the people is a lame excuse for ignoring the rules. As others have said, bring it back and do it right this time!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
6
Tammy Ibach and her team at North Dakotans for Lower Prescription Drug Costs worked extensively with the secretary of state’s office throughout the process. It seems to me that the secretary of state’s staff needs to share some of the blame here. At no time did anyone from the secretary of state’s office mention that it was essential that the names of the 25 sponsors be included on each petition set that was circulated to the general public.
Because of this lack of clear direction from the secretary of state’s staff; this resulted in the miscommunication which led to the names of the sponsors being left off the petitions.
It is unfortunate that Al Jaeger, as secretary of state as the head of his department, hasn’t acknowledged at least some of the blame here. He is steadfastly standing on the statutory requirement that the names of the sponsors be attached to each petition booklet.
It should also be noted that no other ballot measure organization worked as closely with the secretary of state’s office throughout the process to make sure they got it right. In fact, LeeAnn Oliver, the elections supervisor at the secretary of state’s office remarked about how impressed she was with Tammy Ibach and the organization for their thoroughness. Ibach and Oliver were in touch with each other throughout the process. Thus, it’s amazing that since it seemed that all the i’s were being dotted and all the t’s crossed that the names of the sponsors got left off the petition booklets. But they did. This is why we find ourselves where we are today.
North Dakotans for Lower Prescription Drug Costs complied with all other constitutional and statutory requirements. The failure to include the sponsors names as required obviously resulted from miscommunication between the campaign organization and the secretary of state’s office.
Hopefully, the state Supreme Court will take this into consideration when it is deciding this case.
Like or Dislike:
6 
15
I think this is shifting the blame and I am no supporter of the Secretary of State but if I were running the petition effort, I would print out a copy of the state laws that regulated such petitions and take on the responsibility myself. How do we know that the SOS didn’t provide the info and the group forgot? My guess is all of the info is on line. There is no excuse for the error. People have to take responsibility for their own errors.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
That is true, and the group which spearheaded the initiated measure petition drive has already acknowledged their mistakes. However, I believe the group had no choice but to ask for the Supreme Court review of Al Jaeger’s decision.
I believe this boils down to the fundamental rights that are granted to the people in our state Constitution relative to initiating law and placing acts of the Legislature onto the ballot through referendum. I would concur with the argument that bottom line the right of the people to vote on this measure as granted them in the Constitution of North Dakota trumps the technical requirements of the statute which Jaeger used to deny the people the right to vote on this measure.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11
Rick Olson, what is your association with this petition and group? ND for Affordable Healthcare has continued to spew garbage cans full of mis-truths about pharmacy practice in this state and disheartening anecdotes.
If you want lower prescription prices, then you WANT to live in North Dakota. It has been shown that drug prices in North Dakota are considerably lower than the national average (a national average that includes these large corporations). I beg you to dispute this with hard facts, not personal stories. Instead, ND for Affordable Healthcare promises these “magical” $4 prescriptions. The drugs from Walmart, etc. are not related to Jack’s beanstock beans, I’ve checked. My 30 tablets of Simvastatin for $4 from Walmart planted in the backyard have not sprouted yet. We are not a greedy people, we have continued to provide service, both rural and urban, while providing low cost prescriptions. These large corporations will no doubt destroy this.
These corporations could certainly put pharmacies in their stores, as long as they allowed a ND licensed pharmacist to control 51% of the operations – as the pharmacist does know best. Unfortunately, providing pharmacy services is not their primary motive. I say, let North Dakotans continue to benefit from the current law: quality, service, and low prescription prices.
Like or Dislike:
15 
6
Ovbiously this is an issue that you and I will never agree about. However, to answer your question, I am an uncompensated volunteer who has been helping North Dakotans for Affordable Healthcare (North Dakotans for Lower Prescription Drug Prices) with such things as petition signature gathering. Other than that, I have no vested interest one way or another in this issue.
If I may ask a question. Just why are you independent pharmacists so afraid of a little bit of honest competition coming into the marketplace? It seems to me that if the so-called “big box” stores were to enter the pharmacy marketplace in North Dakota; isn’t that going to force the independent pharmacy owners to clean up their own businesses and become more competitive than they are in order to keep their share of the market?
If North Dakota has lower prescription drug prices than elsewhere in the country as you people continue to claim, then you really have nothing to worry about if Kmart, Target, Walmart, Walgreens, etc. were to enter the pharmacy business. There’s every reason you will retain your present clientele if you continue offering your good service at a fair price. There would be no reason for people to change, am I correct?
The bottom line here is clear. You people are so arrogant and you’re willing to do anything to keep this from happening. You’re worried that you are in a position of losing your cherished government protection against significant competition. Why is it that pharmacies deserve this protection against competition anyway? Most every business owner in this state would love similar government protection for their own businesses.
I think you independent pharmacist owners also need to come clean with the people of this state. I think you need to tell the people of this state outright the real reason why you are fighting this so hard? Thrifty White Drug by virtue of its corporate structure is free to expand at will in North Dakota. CVS Pharmacy is locked into the six original Osco Drug location that CVS purchased in the merger between CVS and Osco Drug.
As older pharmacist owners retire, there are few if any people they can legally sell their pharmacies to because of the pharmacist ownership requirement. Young pharmacists and pharmacy graduates really don’t want to move to small town North Dakota to purchase the local drug store. Thus, the older pharmacist’s only choice is to sell to the corporate giant Thrifty White Drug.
Again, we’re probably not going to agree on this issue and that is just fine with me. If the status quo prevails should this measure go on the ballot, I’ll be disappointed certainly; but I’ll live with it.
I think rather than a bunch of rhetoric about this issue getting spewed out, I think there needs to be a full and fair debate of this issue and let the people decide.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
At the risk of being dragged into uncivil discourse, I’d like to respond. It seems to me that your definition of “honest competition” would be like calling the Yankees honest competition with the Redhawks. One side has unlimited resources, the other does not. How is that even a competition. Another sticking point for me going along with you on this, Rick, is that the big stores are welcome to open pharmacies in this state. The only thing stopping them is they won’t give 51% control to an actual pharmacist, right? Third, if we are concerned with increasing competition, I think having a few hundred independently-owned pharmacies would create more competition than having a few chain stores. I am not a pharmacist, nor do I know any on a personal basis. I have no dog in this fight, but I do enjoy the idea of young pharmacy graduates who have more options than just going to work under a corporate environment.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
This is exactly why this outdated and archaic law needs to go. There are many NDSU pharmacy graduates who have been unable to find jobs as pharmacists in North Dakota and have been forced to go elsewhere in the country to practice their profession.
Most of the “big box” chains have at least two or three full time pharmacists at each of their store locations, in addition to a handful of pharmacy technicians/pharmacy sales associates.
Do the math.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
What you are saying is for the most part correct. However, in the business model of most of the large retailers, giving up the required 51 percent control of a single department — in this case the pharmacy counter — to a licensed pharmacist is an invitation to some very unwanted potential legal problems.
You are correct that Kmart, Target or whoever could provide for pharmacy services in their stores in North Dakota provided that the pharmacy was owned at least 51 percent by a licensed pharmacist.
Let’s say for example if that were the standard operation in a large retail store. Joe Customer comes in with his prescription and the pharmacist fills it incorrectly. Joe gets very ill as a result and maybe even dies. You know it’s not the pharmacist who filled the prescription that’s going to be sued, it’s would be large retail corporation that Joe filled the prescription in their store. Law School 101 “Always go for the deepest pockets” would definitely apply here.
Therefore, it would seem that the large “big box” retailers in North Dakota don’t offer pharmacies in their stores for just that reason. It is too much of a legal nightmare if something were to go badly wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
I’m sorry, I thought you were arguing for big stores to have pharmacies. How would having full control of the pharmacy make them safer from lawsuits? Also, 98 percent of the 2009 grads (who responded to a survey) found employment in pharmacy at a 100k+ salary range. I don’t see how being “forced” to move elsewhere is relevant since supply has to go where the demand is. If there is not enough demand for pharmacists in ND, how will opening chain store pharmacies create more demand or jobs? If we accept that a chain store would choke local independent pharmacists, won’t the job creation be a net negative gain? Sorry to have so many questions in a short space.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Hmmm….sounds like the people who defended horses against cars, trains against planes, radio against television. Stop living in the past and being so arrogant. If you provide good service, you’ll survive and thrive. Why are you afraid?
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
Well put Pharma. I think another benefit of local control is if pharmacists want to offer new services or products, they can do it. If they work for a chain store, depending on chain management, it can get messy. Will a large chain take on a new service that won’t make them money company wide. Independent stores know what their customers need and can provide it. I am not a pharmacist myself, but I play one on TV.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
I have been to several pharmacies in the area over the past 10 yrs I have lived here and I can not say I have ever been given some special, extra caring, local owned treatment lol It’s all been pretty standard so far.. they collect all my info; insurance, allergies, address ect. I take scripts in and I wait….. they call me up or I go up if I left and came back and they ask if I have taken the drug before and if I have any questions.. I check a box saying I have no questions, check a box that I received the drug and I pay and I leave… pretty standard.
I have had the great caring service they claim to have here because of this ND law.. but this service was in Ohio.. his name was Joe, he had no assistants, he took your script and he filled it and he would bring it around the counter right to you where you were in this small shop that the pharm was located in.. he would go over it with you and then have a conversation with you and you would feel comfortable to ask him any question and that is why people drove from other towns to that pharmacy.. My point is… if that does exsist here.. this law changing won’t change the people who receive that kind of service.. they will keep going back.. 20 yrs later I still remember Joe’s name.. I couldn’t tell you the name of 1 that I have been to here over a 10 yr period (and I have 4 kids- that’s a lot of meds)
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
I’ve found a pharmacy I’ll never leave right here in Fargo, regardless of what kind of real or imagined savings there would be from a big chain. Go visit Medical Pharmacy South, tucked in the corner of Hornbacher’s. They bend over backwards to make sure you get what you need, even when your insurance company doesn’t want to cooperate or you have a concern or question not answered clearly enough in their own literature. She takes the time to get answers for you!
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
If it makes a difference, I am a hospital pharmacist.
Some good things are worth fighting for, and this law provides for the greater interests of North Dakota’s unique landscape. We have better competition for low prescription drugs because of the number of independent owners in this state. Walmart, and Target, etc. are known to provide anything but “healthy” competition.
Whether the law changes or not, I’m content having the facts on the side of independent store owners. These opposing groups have not given a shred of evidence that this measure will save patients money, yet their case would be stronger for it! It is sad to hear of the minority of individuals with conditions requiring expensive medications, as NDRX.org so numerously provides – but they are not the norm, and the facts give North Dakota’s law the leading edge. Let Walmart, Target, and the like do what they do best, sell consumer goods. Let your local independent pharmacy do what it does best.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
This law was orignally put into place to keep Doctors from owning Pharmacies and then writing extra prescriptions to line their own pockets. The fact that it keeps chains out of the state was not a factor and the chains that were grandfathered in, are they causing problems? No, they are pushing to keep the law since it artificially keeps compeditors from entering the state.
As to evidence that it will save people money, BCBS released a study when this went before the legislature a few years ago and stated Millions of dollars would be saved if the law were repealed.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
You are correct. The original premise or purpose of the law when it was enacted way back in 1963 was to keep physicians from owning pharmacies and selling prescriptioin medications.
Keeping chain stores from operating pharmacies in the state was not a consideration back then. The two large pharmacy chains which were in business when the law took effect, Osco Drug (which since was acquired by CVS Pharmacies) and Thrifty White Drug seem to be pushing to keep the present law since it does artificually keep competitors from entering the state.
Thrifty White by virtue of the fact that the company is employee owned, is able to demonstrate that each of their locations is at least 51 percent controlled by licensed pharmacists. Therefore, Thrifty White is able to expand pretty much at will anywhere they would like to in North Dakota. In fact, they are the only corporate entity which is authorized by North Dakota law to purchase a pharmacy.
Thrifty White has purchased a number of privately owned drug stores over the years in North Dakota when the older pharmacist-owners were looking to retire. Finding their options limited as to who they could sell their businesses to, they turned to Thrifty White.
Meanwhile, CVS is limited to the six original locations that Osco Drug was operating at when the merger between the two companies took place. In theory, one would think that CVS would want the North Dakota law on pharmacy ownership to change so they could expand in the state.
In fact, when CVS Pharmacies applied to the state Board of Pharmacy to officially acquire the six Osco Drug pharmacy licenses following the closing of the merger; the board almost denied CVS’s application because of the pharmacy ownership law. The board chose to approve CVS’s acquisition of the six Osco Drug pharmacy licenses instead.
Therefore, there is precedent for the state Board of Pharmacy allowing a non-pharmacist controlled company having approved pharmacy licenses in the state to CVS Pharmacies, despite the law which otherwise would not allow the board to do so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Your all just anxious to go shopping at the Wal-mart run and owned pharmacy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
That’s not necessarily true. Additionally, whoever made this into a “Walmart issue” is badly mistaken. While it is certainly true that the large national companies like Kmart, Target, Walmart, Walgreens, etc. would like to be able to offer pharmacy services in their stores; this is a campaign which has had no direct representation by the national companies.
North Dakotans for Affordable Healthcare/North Dakotans for Lower Prescription Drug Prices is entirely a grass roots organization. To me, this is not a “Walmart issue.” Rather, this is a people issue.
Given the state Supreme Court’s ruling which affirmed Secretary of State Al Jaeger’s decision that the petitions submitted were insufficient, the measure will not appear on the Nov. 2nd general election ballot.
I suspect this is a subject that won’t go away quietly. Quite likely, it will probably reappear during the 2011 legislative session. I’m sure the organization can find a sympathetic legislator or two that would be willing to introduce another bill on the subject of pharmacy ownership.
If by some stroke of luck that bill were to make it all the way through and be signed into law by the governor, I would hazard a guess that an opposition group will likely form to try and put the bill up on a referendum.
If the bill doesn’t pass in the Legislature, look for another initiated measure campaign for the 2012 election cycle. Either way, the people will likely have the final say on this subject at the ballot box in 2012.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The question was raised: “What happens if the Supreme Court issues a decision before the ballots are printed and Mr. Traynor asks for a reconsideration of the decision-I believe the appellate rules allows him up to 14 days to do this unless the time frame is shorted by the court-this would take it past the ballot printing date then what?”
Article III, Section 7 of the Constitution of North Dakota declares: “All decisions of the secretary of state in the petition process are subject to review by the supreme court in the exercise of original jurisdiction. If his decision is being reviewed at the time the ballot is prepared, he shall place the measure on the ballot and no court action shall invalidate the measure if it is approved at the election by a majority of the votes cast thereon.”
When giving this section a literal read, it appears to me that since the Supreme Court now has this case “under advisement,” meaning, the justices are reviewing the case and preparing their decision; it appears to me that the secretary of state’s hands are tied.
If the justices are still reviewing the case and have not issued their decision by Sept. 8th, which is the deadline for the secretary of state to release the ballots to the county auditors; then that ties Al Jaeger’s hands in this case. The pharmacy ownership law must be included on the ballot.
If the supreme court has rendered its decision before then, of course that will determine whether or not the measure will go on the ballot or not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1