Sometimes a good thing is worth keeping, and worth a little extra money in order to sustain.

I was informed last month by my health insurance agent that I could save about $300 yearly by having my prescriptions filled at a “preferred pharmacy”. Health insurance companies grant preferred status to retail outlets based on a complicated set of cost factors.

Even though $300 would make a difference to me, I decided to stay with what I have. I prefer to work with a specialized pharmacy. I’ve always liked the outstanding service they provide.

It surprises me that preferred pharmacy rules are legal. They involve health insurance corporations dictating where people should go to get their prescriptions.

Insurance industry leaders would point out that they’re saving people money. That’s a valid point up to a certain extent. The question should be asked, however, about long term impacts on a major industry that people depend upon for their well-being.

There’s a personal side to the relationship between a customer and pharmacy staff. Everyone has an individual set of health circumstances.

It helps when pharmacists and their clerks are aware of the customer’s situation. They might at times be able to offer practical advice. They can at least let people know what questions they might want to ask their family doctor.

That kind of thing can still happen at a pharmacy in a corporate retail center, but I’ve observed that it doesn’t always happen.

They’re very volume driven and money driven. They go through hundreds of transactions every day. The question becomes whether they can maintain personalized service and still meet efficiency goals. It’s a balancing act.

Some observers might say that the trend with pharmacies is a sign of the times, something that’s been taking shape in many retail sectors for more than 50 years.

It’s like what’s happened with food stores. Business districts are much less likely in the 21st century to include butcher shops and bakeries. They’re almost exclusively located in large grocery stores.

The only way a small business owner can make it in meats or baked goods is to have a niche market with customers. They have to value the products enough to make an extra shopping stop. It’s also very likely that they’ll pay higher prices.

There are some encouraging success stories; usually in larger cities, college towns, resort communities, or somewhere that offers a base of customers willing to pay more because they like the shop and the owner.

If people want a specialized shop, they most likely have to pay for that privilege. My insurance agent, a first rate locally based professional, pointed out that it’s turned into the same type of situation when it comes to prescription drugs.

Most consumers are very concerned about prices. They have to be when they live from paycheck to paycheck, in an age when polls show that the majority of people are in that situation.

I’m not wealthy, but I was able to accumulate savings over the years and have only myself to support. I have the luxury of paying a little more for prescriptions because I like the specialized service.

Everyone who wants to make that choice should be able to make it. They shouldn’t have to shop at a superstore because health insurance companies tilt the playing field. A lack of consumer choice adds up to corporatism rather than free enterprise.

Congress should seriously consider making the preferred rules illegal. Pharmacies are different from butcher shops and bakeries because they’re an essential service.

People need their prescriptions. They should be able to freely choose where to get them. It’s the best way to guarantee continued high standards in an important industry.

— Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor to the Marshall Independent