OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of supply and demand factors on filled positions for pharmacists and pharmacist extenders (pharmacist technicians and aides) and assess differences across states through analysis of state-level pharmacist labor market data. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: State-level counts of filled pharmacist and pharmacist-extender positions, wages, and various available demographic, health, policy, and other factors related to the pharmacist labor market. RESULTS: Across states, the total population and the number of community pharmacy prescriptions were very accurate predictors (R2 = 0.99) of the number of pharmacist and pharmacist-extender positions, and all other variables were insignificant after these two variables were controlled for. Pharmacists and pharmacist-extenders were positively correlated, and the ratio of the two was not related to observable policy-related variables. Outlying states, in terms of simple pharmacist-to-population ratios, were difficult to categorize. CONCLUSION: Future changes in prescriptions are likely to affect the pharmacist and pharmacist-extender labor markets. Across states, pharmacists and extenders relate as complements rather than substitutes. The number of pharmacist graduates and state-level regulations regarding technician-to-pharmacist ratios appears to have a small effect on filled positions across states.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of supply and demand factors on filled positions for pharmacists and pharmacist extenders (pharmacist technicians and aides) and assess differences across states through analysis of state-level pharmacist labor market data. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: State-level counts of filled pharmacist and pharmacist-extender positions, wages, and various available demographic, health, policy, and other factors related to the pharmacist labor market. RESULTS: Across states, the total population and the number of community pharmacy prescriptions were very accurate predictors (R2 = 0.99) of the number of pharmacist and pharmacist-extender positions, and all other variables were insignificant after these two variables were controlled for. Pharmacists and pharmacist-extenders were positively correlated, and the ratio of the two was not related to observable policy-related variables. Outlying states, in terms of simple pharmacist-to-population ratios, were difficult to categorize. CONCLUSION: Future changes in prescriptions are likely to affect the pharmacist and pharmacist-extender labor markets. Across states, pharmacists and extenders relate as complements rather than substitutes. The number of pharmacist graduates and state-level regulations regarding technician-to-pharmacist ratios appears to have a small effect on filled positions across states.