Pharmacists Re-Licensure Survey Report Final Draft 3

Microsoft Word - Pharmacists Re-Licensure Survey Report Final Draft _3_.docxBowen Research Center, Department of Family Medicine Indiana University School of Medicine
In collaboration with Indiana Area Health Education Centers Program
May 2012

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Results of 2004, 2008, and 2010 Pharmacist Re-Licensure Surveys .................................................... 5
Location of Pharmacist in Indiana ....................................................................................................... 5
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Weighting for County Level Data ......................................................................................................... 8
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Chapter 2: Responses to the 2010 Pharmacist Re-licensure Survey ............................................................. 9
Survey Response Rate ............................................................................................................................... 9
Professional Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 14
Special Skills ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 3: Comparison of Responses between the 2004, 2008, and 2010 Pharmacist Re-Licensure Surveys ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
Demographic Composition ..................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 4: Location of Pharmacists by County in Indiana ......................................................................... 24
Chapter 5: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix 2: Work Setting Groupings ........................................................................................................ 42

We would like to extend our gratitude to all the talented and dedicated individuals who provided
valuable and timely assistance to us during the project. Preparing this report required the assistance,
cooperation, and effort of many individuals and agency staff. The survey data and additional data
elements were provided by the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency and the Indiana State Department
of Health.
An advisory committee provided direction and insight to the data analysis and report generation:
Amy Hyduk, PharmD, MBA, Director of Pharmacy Clinical Services and Residency Program,
Lutheran Health Network, Lutheran Hospital of Indiana
Carriann Richey-Smith, PharmD, Director of Outreach, Butler University, College of Pharmacy and
Health Sciences
Jennifer Bruner, JD, Staff Attorney, Indiana State Department of Health
Jeremy Thain, Indiana Pharmacists Alliance
Philipp Wickizer, Director, Indiana Board of Pharmacy
The cooperation and support of the Indiana State Department of Health was instrumental in
obtaining the survey data and interpreting it. The authors are grateful for the financial support received
from the Indiana Area Health Education Centers Program to produce this report.

The 2010 Indiana pharmacist re-licensure survey was implemented through a collaborative
partnership with the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and the Indiana Professional Licensing
Agency (IPLA). All pharmacists who renewed their license electronically during the 2010 re-licensure
period were asked to complete an electronic survey. This report summarizes the responses to the survey
items to provide a detailed description of the pharmacist workforce in the state of Indiana.
Methods
The Indiana State Department of Health provided the Indiana University Bowen Research Center
a data file that contained responses to the 2010 Indiana pharmacist surveys and corresponding data
dictionaries to describe the data in each of those datasets. Data were coded using Microsoft Excel 2007®
and IBM SPSS Statistics 19 and SAS version 9.3 were used to perform the data analyses. Maps of county
level data were created using ArcGIS™ 9.3.
In 2010, a total of 10,379 pharmacists renewed their licenses in Indiana. Only those who renewed
electronically were given the opportunity to complete the survey, since it was an on-line survey. The
response rate for the pharmacists who renewed electronically and responded to at least one question on
the survey was 97.1 percent. Almost all (99.5%) of the respondents were actively working as pharmacists
in Indiana. Only those respondents who were actively working in Indiana and not employed by the
government were included in this report.
Results of 2010 Pharmacist Re-Licensure Survey
Respondents to the 2010 pharmacist re-licensure survey were predominantly white and non-
Hispanic. A slight majority of respondents were female (56.5%), and most respondents (48.6%) were
between the ages of 35 and 54. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (62.2%) held a Bachelor’s degree as
their highest credential in pharmacy. Half of respondents (50.8%) attended Purdue University’s
pharmacy program for their pharmacy training. The most common work setting was retail community
practice. Approximately one-third (30.6%) of pharmacists indicated that they worked in multiple
locations for the same employer while 11.8 percent reported working for more than one employer. Two-
thirds of respondents (67.8%) worked 40 hours or more in an average week. Nearly 30 percent (29.5%)
of respondents were trained to administer immunizations. One-quarter (26.0%) of respondents were

5
most commonly spoken second language among respondents was Hindi (1.5%); 6.2 percent of
respondents were fluent in a language other than English.
Results of 2004, 2008, and 2010 Pharmacist Re-Licensure Surveys
The pharmacist workforce from 2004 to 2010 was predominantly white and non-Hispanic.
Females slightly outnumbered males each year (52.4% in 2004, 55.0% in 2008, and 56.5% in 2010). The
proportion of respondents over 55 years old rose each year (15.9% in 2004, 18.4% in 2008, and 22.4% in
2010). From 2004 to 2010 half of respondents (53.5% in 2004, 52.6% in 2008, and 50.8% in 2010)
completed their pharmacy training at Purdue University. The majority of respondents held a Bachelor’s
degree (77.4% in 2004, 67.7% in 2008, and 62.2% in 2010) as their highest credential in pharmacy, but
that majority has been shrinking each year and the proportion of respondents who had a doctorate of
pharmacy rose each year (20.0% in 2004, 29.4% in 2008, and 35.4% in 2010). The most common work
setting in each year was retail community practice. Approximately 70 percent of respondents indicated
that they worked 40 or more hours per week from 2004 to 2010. There was a large increase in the
proportion of pharmacists certified to administer immunizations from 2008 to 2010 (10.1% in 2008 and
29.5% in 2010).
Location of Pharmacist in Indiana
Counties with the largest populations tended to have the highest frequency of pharmacists. The
most populous counties were also among those with the highest ratio of pharmacists to population, but
several averagely populated counties also had a high ratio of pharmacists to population. Every county in
Indiana had at least one pharmacist.
Conclusions The pharmacist workforce in Indiana is predominantly white and non-Hispanic. Gender
distribution was relatively equal, slightly favoring females. Comparing data from 2004 to 2010 indicates
that females are entering the field at a greater rate than males and the workforce as a whole is aging. In
addition there seems to be a transition away from Bachelor’s degrees as the primary credentialing degree
held by pharmacists toward a doctorate in pharmacy. This shift is indicative of the expanding role of
pharmacists in the health care system. As well as an increasing number of pharmacists who are certified
to administer immunizations.
Chapter 1: Introduction
The use of prescription medication and other pharmaceutical services is a significant part of
health care. Pharmacists represent the health professional specifically trained to provide these services.
Therefore, having information on the demographic and professional characteristics of pharmacists
licensed in Indiana is critical to develop and manage effective programs that recruit and retain these
professionals where they are most needed in the state. Data on the supply of pharmacists being trained
and currently working in Indiana provide decision makers with information needed for appropriate and
effective health policy planning.
The Methods section of this chapter describes the sources of the datasets analyzed in this report as
well as information gathered from survey respondents. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used for the
study are also discussed. Methods of analyses, including calculation of weighting used in county level
data analysis, are included in this section.
Methods
The data used to generate this report were extracted from the 2010 Indiana Pharmacist Re-
licensure Survey dataset collected by the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and the pharmacist
license dataset maintained by the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency (IPLA). The 2011 Indiana
Pharmacist Re-licensure Survey instrument included questions current work status, principal practice
location, average hours worked, education level, location of educational training, fluency in other
languages and demographic information. The data provided by the IPLA included date of birth for all
licensed pharmacists who were practicing in Indiana at the time of the survey. The datasets were merged
in order to match the respondents’ approximate age to his survey responses. The datasets were merged by
matching the license number of each pharmacist using SAS 9.3 and age was calculated using May 30,
2010 as a reference date since surveys were completed from April of 2010 through June of 2010. The
merged dataset was then used to filter the records to include only the respondents that met the inclusion
criteria.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The merged dataset was filtered initially to include only pharmacists with an active or
probationary license and who reported an Indiana address for their primary practice location. Almost all
of the respondents (99.5%) who reported Indiana as their primary practice location held an active Indiana
license (refer to Table 1.1).

7
Table 1.1 Current License Status License Status Number Percent Active 5,796 99.5 Probation 30 0.5 Expired 0 0.0 Inactive 0 0.0 Total 5,826 100.0
The dataset was further refined by work status. Only those pharmacists who were currently
practicing in Indiana were included in the analyses. Pharmacists who were retired, temporarily inactive,
practicing outside of Indiana, or working for the government were excluded from the analyses.
Government employees were excluded because this study is meant to reflect the number of pharmacists
serving the community at large. A total of 5,453 pharmacists (94.0%) were selected for inclusion (refer to
Table 1.2).
Table 1.2 Current Work Status Work Status Number Percent Excluded from Study Temporarily inactive as a pharmacist 153 2.6 Retired from pharmacy 115 2.0 Actively working for local government 1 0.0 Actively working for state government 9 0.2 Actively working for federal government 68 1.2 Total Excluded from Study 346 6.0 Included in Study Actively working as a pharmacist in Indiana 5,453 94.0 Total Included in Study 5,453 94.0 Total licensed pharmacists in Indiana 5,799 100.0 Missing 27
*These numbers represent survey respondents only.

Weighting for County Level Data
A key component of identifying potential health profession shortage areas is determining the
number of existing professionals in each county. The estimated number of pharmacists in each county
was calculated by summing the number of respondents in each county of principal practice location, then
assigning a weight of 82.5 percent to the sum. The weight was determined by calculating the proportion
of pharmacists who renewed their license electronically and responded to at least one question (n = 8,561)
to the total number of pharmacist license renewals (n = 10,379) (refer to Table 1.3). Thus, the counts of
the pharmacists are estimates of the actual number of pharmacists in each county and not the number of
respondents in each county. The estimated number of pharmacists per county also does not necessarily
reflect the total number of practicing pharmacists, but the number of pharmacists available to serve the
community at large (excluding government employees).
Table 1.3 Weighting for County Data
Weighting for County Level Data Number Percent
Renewed electronically & responded to at least one question
8,561 82.5
Data Analysis
Frequency and cross-tabulation analyses were performed to describe the characteristics of the
pharmacists practicing within Indiana. Unless otherwise stated, the numbers presented in each table are
the exact counts of participant responses and have not been weighted to account for the pharmacists who
did not participate in the survey. However, the distribution of survey participants was assumed to be
representative of the Indiana pharmacist workforce; therefore, the percentages shown are believed to
describe all pharmacists actively practicing in Indiana. Missing responses were noted and only valid
response percentages are presented in this report
The data were coded in Microsoft Excel 2007® and analyzed using SAS 9.3 and IBM SPSS
Statistics 19. Graphic information system (GIS) maps were developed to illustrate the estimated number
of pharmacists per Indiana county, the ratio of pharmacists per 100,000 residents, and the delineation of
rural and non-rural counties. Rural counties were defined by the United States Department of Agriculture
as non-metropolitan counties and were designated by hash marks on the map. The GIS maps were
designed in ArcGIS™ 9.3.
Chapter 2: Responses to the 2010 Pharmacist Re-licensure Survey
This chapter summarizes the findings of the 2010 Indiana Pharmacist Re-licensure Survey. Each
table shows the number of valid and missing responses to each survey item and the percentage of valid
responses. The text describes the responses to the survey.
Survey Response Rate
Although only pharmacists who met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis portion of
this report, the denominator used for determining the survey response rate was based on the total number
of pharmacists who renewed their licenses electronically (refer to Table 2.1). The numerator for those
included in the response rate (renewed electronically and responded to at least one question) also included
all pharmacists who renewed electronically, not just those who were included in the analyses. The
response rate for those who had the opportunity to take the survey was 97.1 percent.
Table 2.1 Survey Response Rate
Survey Response Rate Number Percent
Renewed electronically & responded to at least one question
8,561 97.1
Demographic Composition
Table 2.2 displays the age distribution of the pharmacy survey respondents active in Indiana in
2010. Nearly half of the respondents (48.6%) were between the ages of 35 and 54. Less than one-quarter
of respondents (22.5%) were over the age of 55.
Table 2.2 Age Groups of Survey Respondents*
Age Group Number Percent
Under 35 1,566 29.0 35 to 54 2,629 48.6 55 to 64 908 16.8 65 and older 306 5.7
Total 5,409 100.0

10
Table 2.3 presents the gender distribution of the survey respondents. Overall, there were slightly
more females (56.5%) than males. Age grouping revealed that 64.9 percent of respondents under the age
of 55 were female and 72.4 percent of respondents over the age of 55 were male, indicating that the field
was previously a male dominated one and is shifting toward a predominately female workforce (refer to
table 2.4).
Table 2.3 Gender of Survey Respondents* Gender Number Percent Female 3,068 56.5 Male 2,363 43.5 Total 5,431 100.0 Missing 22
* These numbers represent survey respondents only.
Table 2.4 Gender by Age of Survey Respondents*
Female Male Total Age Group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Under 35 1,070 68.5 493 31.5 1,563 100.0 35 to 54 1,646 62.8 977 37.2 2,623 100.0 55 to 64 298 33.2 600 66.8 898 100.0 65 and older 34 11.2 269 88.8 303 100.0
Total 3,048 56.6 2,339 43.4 5,387 100.0
Missing 66 * These numbers represent survey respondents only.

11
Tables 2.5 and 2.6 display the racial and ethnic backgrounds of survey respondents. The majority
of respondents were white (90.8%) and non-Hispanic (98.7%).
Table 2.5 Race of Respondents*
Race Number Percent
White 4,922 90.8 Asian/Pacific Islander 227 4.2 Black/African American 172 3.2 Other 70 1.3 Multi-Racial 26 0.5 American Indian/Native American 1 0.0
Total 5,418 100.0
Table 2.6 Ethnicity of Respondents*
Ethnicity Number Percent
Total 5,418 100.0
Education and Training
Table 2.7 shows the highest degree obtained among the pharmacy survey respondents. Over
three-fifths (62.2%) of respondents held a Bachelor’s degree and over one-third (35.4%) held a Doctorate
of Pharmacy.
Highest Degree in Pharmacy Number Percent
Bachelor's 3,379 62.2 Master's 97 1.8 Doctor of Pharmacy 1,924 35.4 PhD 36 0.7
Total 5,436 100.0

12
Table 2.8 shows the location of academic institutions attended by survey respondents. Half
(50.8%) of the respondents attended Purdue University and over three-quarters of the respondents
(78.5%) indicated that they attended a pharmacy program in Indiana.
Table 2.8 Location of Pharmacy Program Attended by Survey Respondents*
Academic Institution Number Percent
Purdue University 2,763 50.8 Butler University 1,506 27.7 Other university 1,173 21.6
Total 5,442 100.0
Missing 11 * These numbers represent survey respondents only
Table 2.9 presents the immunization training status of pharmacists. Less than one-third (29.5%)
of respondents were trained to administer immunizations. However, 10.4 percent intended to become
trained to administer immunizations within the next 12 months.
Table 2.9 Survey Respondents Trained to Administer Immunizations* Immunization Trained Number Percent No 3,268 60.1 Yes 1,606 29.5 No, but I intend to become trained within the next 12 months
566 10.4

13
Table 2.10 shows the proportion of respondents who were registered to use the Indiana Scheduled
Prescription Electronic Collection and Tracking (INSPECT) program. INSPECT is a reporting system
that requires all pharmacies dispensing controlled substances to Indiana residents to submit a report once
every seven days to INSPECT. These reports detail what prescriptions were dispensed during that time
period and to whom each prescription was dispensed. The purpose of this system is two-fold: to maintain
a database of patient information for health care professionals, and to aid law enforcement in investigating
prescription drug abuse cases. Approximately one-quarter (26.0%) of respondents indicated that they
were registered to use INSPECT.
Table 2.10 Survey Respondents Trained to Use INSPECT* Registered to Use INSPECT Number Percent No 4,006 74.0 Yes 1,404 26.0 Total 5,410 100.0 Missing 43
Table 2.11 displays the proportion of survey respondents who indicated that they were members
of a National Pharmacist Response Team (NPRT). The National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) is an
emergency response protocol run through the US Department of Health and Human Services that is
comprised of different teams of individuals with specific medical skills that might be needed in case of a
large-scale medical emergency. The NPRT is one such team in the NDMS. Members are required to
complete web-based training and to stay informed on current treatments for diseases that could be used in
weapons of mass destruction. NPRT team members may be called upon to administer immunizations or
chemoprophylaxis to the general population in case of an emergency. Only 2.1 percent of respondents
indicated that they were a member of a NPRT. This low number is expected since NPRTs operate on a
regional basis and each region has a relatively small team.
Table 2.11 Survey Respondents who Are Members of a National Pharmacist Response Team*
Member of National Pharmacist Response Team Number Percent
No 5,301 97.9 Yes 115 2.1
Total 5,416 100.0

Professional Characteristics
The principal work settings for survey respondents are shown in Table 2.12. The categories used
in this table aggregated survey responses into new groupings as described in Appendix 2. The most
common work setting was retail community practice (56.0%) followed by institutional practice (32.3%).
These two settings accounted for nearly 90 percent (88.3%) of all respondents.
Table 2.12 Work Setting of Survey Respondents*
Work Setting Number Percent
Retail Community Practice 3,052 56.0 Institutional Practice 1,761 32.3 Other Setting 269 4.9 Non-Patient Care/University 259 4.7 Consulting 103 1.9 Closed Door Pharmacy 9 0.2
Total 5,453 100.0

15
Table 2.13 presents the average number of hours worked by the survey respondents. Two-thirds
(67.8%) of respondents indicated that they worked 40 hours or more per week; less than one-sixth
(15.9%) of respondents worked less than 30 hours per week. Table 2.14 shows the average number of
hours worked per week by gender. Since there are more females than males in the sample it is expected
that females are the majority in nearly every category. However, it seems that males are more likely to
work 40 hours or more per week than females. Over three-quarters of males (78.7%) work 40 hours or
more per week compared with 59.3 percent of female respondents.
Table 2.13 Average Number of Hours Worked per Week by Survey Respondents*
Average Number of Hours Worked per Week Number Percent
1 - 9 174 3.2 10 - 19 239 4.4 20 - 29 450 8.3 30 - 39 892 16.4 40 - 49 3,161 58.1 50 - 59 357 6.6 60 or more 168 3.1
Total 5,441 100.0
Table 2.14 Average Number of Hours Worked per Week by Gender of Survey Respondents* Average Number of Hours Worked per Week
Female Male Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1 - 9 114 66.3 58 33.7 172 100.0 10 - 19 157 65.7 82 34.3 239 100.0 20 - 29 354 79.0 94 21.0 448 100.0 30 - 39 619 69.7 269 30.3 888 100.0 40 - 49 1,561 49.6 1,587 50.4 3,148 100.0 50 - 59 162 45.4 195 54.6 357 100.0 60 or more 92 54.8 76 45.2 168 100.0
Total 3,059 56.4 2,361 43.6 5,420 100.0

16
Table 2.15 shows the average number of weekly hours worked by survey respondents stratified
by age group. The majority of respondents were between 35 and 54 years old and, as expected, this group
had the highest percentage of respondents in each hourly category. However, more pharmacists than
expected in the 65 and older age group were working less than 20 hours per week.
Table 2.15 Average Number of Hours Worked per Week by Age Group for Survey Respondents* Average Number of Hours Worked per Week
Under 35 35 to 54 55 to 64
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1 - 9 34 19.8 82 47.7 18 10.5 10 - 19 25 10.5 127 53.1 27 11.3 20 - 29 78 17.5 249 55.8 75 16.8 30 - 39 200 22.7 450 51.0 163 18.5 40 - 49 1,048 33.4 1,483 47.3 526 16.8 50 - 59 111 31.4 157 44.4 76 21.5 60 or more 64 38.3 77 46.1 21 12.6
Total 1,560 28.9 2,625 48.6 906 16.8
Missing * These numbers represent survey respondents only.
Table 2.15 Average Number of Hours Worked per Week by Age Group for Survey Respondents (Cont’d.)* Average Number of Hours Worked per Week
65 and older Total
Number Percent Number Percent
1 - 9 38 22.1 172 100.0 10 - 19 60 25.1 239 100.0 20 - 29 44 9.9 446 100.0 30 - 39 69 7.8 882 100.0 40 - 49 80 2.6 3,137 100.0 50 - 59 10 2.8 354 100.0 60 or more 5 3.0 167 100.0
Total 306 5.7 5,397 100.0

17
Approximately one-third (30.6%) of respondents indicated they worked in more than one location
for the same employer (refer to Table 2.16). Additionally, 11.8 percent of respondents reported that they
worked for more than one employer (refer to Table 2.17).
Table 2.16 Survey Respondents who Work in Multiple Locations for One Employer*
Work Multiple Locations for One Employer Number Percent
No 3,775 69.4 Yes 1,662 30.6
Total 5,437 100.0
Table 2.17 Survey Respondents who Work for Multiple Employers* Multiple Employers Number Percent No 4,785 88.2 Yes 643 11.8 Total 5,428 100.0 Missing 25

Special Skills
Respondents who indicated they spoke a language other than English are included in Table 2.18.
Less than 10 percent (6.2%) of the participants reported speaking a second language. The most
commonly spoken second language was Hindi (1.5%) followed by Spanish (0.9%) and African languages
(0.8%).
Languages Number Percent
Hindi 82 1.5 Spanish 50 0.9 African Languages 44 0.8 Arabic 31 0.6 Chinese 19 0.3 Greek 19 0.3 German 18 0.3 Vietnamese 18 0.3 French 16 0.3 Korean 12 0.2 Polish 12 0.2 Filipino 9 0.2 Italian 7 0.1 Sign Language 6 0.1 Portuguese 4 0.1 Russian 3 0.1 Thai 3 0.1 Tagalog 2 0.0 Burmese 1 0.0 Cambodian 1 0.0 Pennsylvania Dutch 1 0.0 Speak no additional languages 5,113 93.8
Total 5,453 100.0

19
Chapter 3: Comparison of Responses between the 2004, 2008, and 2010
Pharmacist Re-Licensure Surveys
This chapter summarizes the responses to the 2004, 2008, and 2010 Indiana Pharmacist Re-
Licensure surveys. Each table shows the number of valid and missing responses to each survey item and
the percentage of valid responses. The text describes the responses to the survey.
Demographic Composition
Table 3.1 shows the age distribution of survey respondents for 2004, 2008, and 2010. Age
distributions for each year are similar, but the workforce seems to be aging slightly. The percentage of
respondents over age 55 was 15.9 percent in 2004 and rose to 18.4 percent in 2008 and rose again to 22.4
percent in 2010. The percentage of respondents under 35 years of age has remained constant across
years.
2004 2008 2010 Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Under 35 1,337 30.7 1,497 30.2 1,566 29.0 35 to 54 2,332 53.5 2,548 51.4 2,629 48.6 55 to 64 534 12.2 698 14.1 908 16.8 65 and older 158 3.6 216 4.4 306 5.7
Total 4,361 100.0 4,959 100.0 5,409 100.0
Missing 42 52 44 * These numbers represent survey respondents only.
The gender of survey respondents from 2004, 2008, and 2010 is displayed in Table 3.2. In each
year the gender distribution was relatively equal, but the proportion of females has grown slightly each
year (52.4% in 2004, 55.0% in 2008, and 56.5% in 2010).

20
Table 3.3 displays the racial distribution of survey respondents from 2004, 2008, and 2010.
Table 3.4 displays the ethnicity of survey respondents from 2004, 2008, and 2010. In each year the
majority of respondents were white (92.4% in 2004, 91.9% in 2008, and 90.8% in 2010) and non-
Hispanic (98.9% in 2004, 98.5% in 2008, and 98.7% in 2010). However, there has been a slight increase
in the percentage of Asian/Pacific Islanders among survey respondents (3.1% in 2004, 3.4% in 2008, and
4.2% in 2010).
2004 2008 2010 Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
White 4,034 92.4 4,564 91.9 4,922 90.8 Asian/Pacific Islander 137 3.1 169 3.4 227 4.2 Black/African American 116 2.7 134 2.7 172 3.2 Other 58 1.3 72 1.4 70 1.3 Multi-racial 20 0.5 26 0.5 26 0.5 American Indian/Native Alaskan 2 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0
Total 4,367 100.0 4,967 100.0 5,418 100.0
Table 3.4 Ethnicity of Survey Respondents*
2004 2008 2010 Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Non-Hispanic 4,320 98.9 4,883 98.5 5,350 98.7 Hispanic 47 1.1 72 1.5 68 1.3
Total 4,367 100.0 4,955 100.0 5,418 100.0

Education and Training
Table 3.5 shows the academic institution from which each survey respondent received his or her
pharmacy education. The proportion of respondents attending Purdue, Butler, and other universities has
remained relatively constant from 2004 to 2010.
Table 3.5 Location of Pharmacy Programs Attended by Survey Respondents*
2004 2008 2010 Academic Institution Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Purdue University 2,348 53.5 2,623 52.6 2,763 50.8 Butler University 1,157 26.4 1,358 27.2 1,506 27.7 Other university 883 20.1 1,003 20.1 1,173 21.6
Total 4,388 100.0 4,984 100.0 5,442 100.0
The highest degree in Pharmacy attained by survey respondents in 2004, 2008, and 2010 is
displayed in Table 3.6. Though the majority of respondents in each year (77.4% in 2004, 67.7% in 2008,
and 62.2% in 2010) held a Bachelor’s degree, that percentage has decreased each year. Conversely, the
proportion of respondents who held a Doctor of Pharmacy has increased each year (20.0% in 2004, 29.4%
in 2008, and 35.4% in 2010). In each year a marginal amount of respondents held Master’s or PhD
degrees.
Table 3.6 Highest Degree in Pharmacy of Survey Respondents*
2004 2008 2010 Highest Degree in Pharmacy Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Bachelor's 3,383 77.4 3,382 67.7 3,379 62.2 Master's 90 2.1 112 2.2 97 1.8 Doctor of Pharmacy 874 20.0 1,470 29.4 1,924 35.4 PhD 24 0.5 29 0.6 36 0.7
Total 4,371 100.0 4,993 100.0 5,436 100.0

22
Table 3.7 shows the immunization training status of respondents from 2008 and 2010
(information on this question was not collected in the 2004 survey). Beginning in 2007, pharmacists were
allowed to receive certification to administer immunizations. Therefore, there was a notable increase in
the percentage of respondents who reported be trained to administer immunizations between 2008 and
2010 (10.1% in 2008 and 29.5% in 2010). This is an indicator of the expanding role of pharmacists in the
healthcare system.
Table 3.7 Survey Respondents Trained to Administer Immunizations* 2004 2008 2010 Immunization Trained Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent No n/a n/a 4,024 81.0 3,268 60.1 Yes n/a n/a 501 10.1 1,606 29.5 No, but I intend to become trained within the next 12 months
n/a n/a 442 8.9 566 10.4

Professional Characteristics
Respondents’ principle work setting for 2004, 2008, and 2010 is displayed in Table 3.8. The
categories used in this table aggregated survey responses into new groupings as described in Appendix 2.
In each year, the most common work settings were retail community practice (57.0% in 2004, 57.1% in
2008, and 56.0% in 2010) and institutional practice (29.2% in 2004, 30.1% in 2008, and 32.3% in 2010).
These two categories accounted for nearly 90 percent of all respondents in each year.
Table 3.8 Principle Work Setting of Survey Respondents*
2004 2008 2010 Work Setting Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Retail Community Practice 2,482 57.0 2,848 57.1 3,052 56.0 Institutional Practice 1,270 29.2 1,501 30.1 1,761 32.3 Other Setting 158 3.6 226 4.5 269 4.9 Non-Patient Care/University 308 7.1 268 5.4 259 4.7 Consulting 87 2.0 84 1.7 103 1.9 Closed Door Pharmacy n/a n/a 4 0.1 9 0.2 Government 51 1.2 59 1.2 n/a n/a
Total 4,356 100.0 4,990 100.0 5,453 100.0
Table 3.9 shows respondents’ average weekly work hours from 2004, 2008, and 2010. Overall,
the distribution of respondents among the hourly categories remained constant from 2004 to 2010 with
approximately two-thirds of respondents (70.5% in 2004, 69.2% in 2008, 67.7% in 2010) indicating that
they worked 40 or more hours per week.
Table 3.9 Average Number of Hours Worked per Week by Survey Respondents*
2004 2008 2010 Average Hours per Week Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1 - 9 153 3.5 158 3.2 174 3.2 10 - 19 187 4.3 215 4.3 239 4.4 20 - 29 353 8.0 425 8.5 450 8.3 30 - 39 600 13.7 740 14.8 892 16.4 40 or more 3,097 70.5 3,456 69.2 3,686 67.7
Total 4,390 100.0 4,994 100.0 5,441 100.0

Chapter 4: Location of Pharmacists by County in Indiana
The following two maps display the estimated number of pharmacists in each county within the
state of Indiana in 2010. The number of pharmacists in each county was adjusted (weighted) using the
proportion of total pharmacist license renewals who responded to at least one question on the survey
(82.5%). Thus, the counts of pharmacists used in these maps are estimates of the actual number of
pharmacists in each county, and not the number of survey respondents in each county. The calculation of

25
Map 4.1 illustrates the estimated frequency of pharmacists by county. As expected the most
populous counties had the highest frequency of pharmacists. These counties include: Allen, Boone,
Delaware, Elkhart, Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, Lake, LaPorte, Madison, Marion, Monroe, Porter, St.
Joseph, Tippecanoe, Vanderburgh, and Vigo. None of the counties with the highest frequency of
pharmacists are considered rural. Every county had at least one pharmacist, but over one-quarter of all
counties had less than 10 pharmacists practicing in them. The hash marks indicate rural counties as
defined by the US Department of Agriculture as non-metropolitan counties.
Map 4.1 Estimated Number of Pharmacists by County, 2010

26
Map 4.2 presents the estimated number of pharmacists per 100,000 population by county.
Generally, more populous counties had higher ratios of pharmacists to population, but several counties of
average population also were among the counties with the highest ratios of pharmacists to population.
The counties with the highest ratios of pharmacists to population included: Allen, Bartholomew, Boone,
Daviess, Dearborn, Delaware, Floyd, Fulton, Hamilton, Hendricks, Jefferson, Knox, Lake, Marion,
Tippecanoe, Vanderburgh, Vigo, and Wayne. The hash marks indicate rural counties as defined by the
US Department of Agriculture as non-metropolitan counties.
Map 4.2 Estimated Ratio of Pharmacists to 100,000 Population by County, 2010
27
County Frequency Weighted Frequency
Population
Adams 16 19 34,387 56.4 Allen 319 387 355,329 108.8 Bartholomew 65 79 76,794 102.6 Benton 2 2 8,854 27.4 Blackford 6 7 12,766 57.0 Boone 87 105 56,640 186.2 Brown 3 4 15,242 23.9 Carroll 5 6 20,155 30.1 Cass 20 24 38,966 62.2 Clark 68 82 110,232 74.8 Clay 16 19 26,890 72.1 Clinton 16 19 33,224 58.4 Crawford 1 1 10,713 11.3 Daviess 25 30 31,648 95.8 DeKalb 19 23 50,047 46.0 Dearborn 31 38 25,740 146.0 Decatur 18 22 42,223 51.7 Delaware 94 114 117,671 96.8 Dubois 30 36 41,889 86.8 Elkhart 127 154 197,559 77.9 Fayette 17 21 24,277 84.9 Floyd 71 86 74,578 115.4 Fountain 7 8 17,240 49.2 Franklin 4 5 23,087 21.0 Fulton 17 21 20,836 98.9 Gibson 26 32 33,503 94.1 Grant 39 47 70,061 67.5 Greene 14 17 33,165 51.2 Hamilton 328 398 274,569 144.8 Hancock 49 59 70,002 84.8 Harrison 17 21 39,364 52.3 Hendricks 115 139 145,448 95.8 Henry 22 27 49,462 53.9 Howard 63 76 82,752 92.3 Huntington 21 25 37,124 68.6 Jackson 29 35 42,376 83.0 Jasper 26 32 33,478 94.1 Jay 12 15 21,253 68.4 Jefferson 28 34 32,428 104.7
28
Table 4.1 Estimated Number of Pharmacists by County, 2010 (Cont’d.)
Population

29
Table 4.1 Estimated Number of Pharmacists by County, 2010 (Cont’d.)
Population
Tippecanoe 159 193 172,780 111.5 Tipton 9 11 15,936 68.5 Union 2 2 7,516 32.3 Vanderburgh 209 253 179,703 141.0 Vermillion 9 11 16,212 67.3 Vigo 93 113 107,848 104.5 Wabash 18 22 32,888 66.3 Warren 1 1 8,508 14.2 Warrick 40 48 59,689 81.2 Washington 9 11 28,262 38.6 Wayne 54 65 68,917 95.0 Wells 14 17 27,636 61.4 White 15 18 24,643 73.8 Whitley 14 17 33,292 51.0
30
The respondents to the 2010 pharmacist re-licensure survey were predominantly white and non-
Hispanic. Although the workforce is currently over 90 percent white, the percentage of minority
respondents has slowly risen in the past several years. The most commonly spoken language other than
English was Hindi (1.5% of respondents). This contrasts with previous reports where Spanish has been
the most commonly spoken second language (Spanish was the second most commonly spoken language
with 0.9 percent of respondents indicating they were speakers). Slightly more than half of the
respondents were female, but there was a notable difference in gender distribution between older and
younger respondents. Females accounted for 64.9 percent of respondents under the age of 55 and males
accounted for 72.4 percent of respondents over 55 years old. This difference in gender distribution
indicates that the formerly male dominated field may be transitioning to predominantly female. The
majority of respondents held a Bachelor’s degree as their highest credential in pharmacy, and over half of
all respondents attended Purdue University for their pharmacy degree.
The most common work setting among the 2010 survey respondents was pharmacy chains. Two-
thirds of respondents reported that, on average, they worked 40 hours or more per week. Approximately
one-third of respondents worked in multiple locations for their employer, and roughly 10 percent of
respondents worked for multiple employers in a pharmacy position. Almost one-third of respondents
reported being certified to administer immunizations and another 10 percent stated they planned to be
certified within the next year. One-quarter of respondents reported being registered to use the Indiana
Scheduled Prescription Electronic Collection and Tracking (INSPECT). Since each pharmacy in Indiana
that dispenses controlled substances to Indiana residents must report its distribution to INSPECT on a
weekly basis, it is assumed that the low percentage of pharmacists who reported being registered to use
INSPECT is due to each pharmacy having a limited number of its employees registered to use the service.
In addition, not all pharmacists who participated in the survey work in a pharmacy and thereby would not
be required to register with INSPECT. The professional information collected from respondents indicates
that pharmacists are filling an expanding role in the health care system. In addition to dispensing
medication to Indiana residents, pharmacists are contributing to and maintaining a database (INSPECT)
of medication distributed to each patient in Indiana and are beginning to provide basic immunization
services to their communities.
31
Comparing survey response data from 2004, 2008, and 2010 provides insight into the trends
within the pharmacy workforce. Since 2004, respondents have been predominantly white and non-
Hispanic. Though the workforce has been over 90 percent white (92.4% in 2004, 91.9% in 2008, and
90.8% in 2010) there has been a slight decrease in the proportion of respondents who were white and a
slight increase in respondents of Asian/Pacific Islander descent (3.1% in 2004, 3.4% in 2008, and 4.2% in
2010). The gender distribution of the pharmacist workforce has been relatively evenly split between men
and women in each year, but the percentage of female respondents has risen slightly since 2004 (52.4% in
2004, 55.0% in 2008, and 56.5% in 2010).
Approximately one-half of all respondents from 2004 to 2010 indicated that they received their
pharmacy training at Purdue University. The majority of respondents held a Bachelor’s degree in
pharmacy, but that proportion has fallen each year (77.4% in 2004, 67.7% in 2008, and 62.2% in 2010).
The fall in the proportion of respondents who held a Bachelor’s degree as their highest credential has
been accompanied by a rise in the proportion of respondents who held a doctorate of pharmacy (20.0% in
2004, 29.4% in 2008, and 35.4% in 2010). This increased level of education reflects the expanding role
of pharmacists in the health care system.
The most common work setting for pharmacists from 2004 to 2010 was pharmacy chains. There
has been little change in the average number of weekly hours worked by pharmacists since 2004. In each
year about 70 percent of respondents stated that they worked 40 hours or more per week. Between 2008
and 2010 there was a substantial increase in the proportion of pharmacists who reported having the
certification required to administer immunizations. That proportion is expected to continue to rise since
10 percent of respondents to the 2010 survey indicated that they planned to become certified to administer
immunizations within the next year.
The county level data collected from respondents to the 2010 pharmacist re-licensure survey
revealed that the most populous counties in Indiana also had the highest number of practicing pharmacists
in them. None of the counties with the highest frequency of pharmacists were considered rural.
Additionally, every county in Indiana had at least one pharmacist, but over one-quarter of Indiana
counties had less than 10 pharmacists in them. Counties with the largest ratio of pharmacists to
population included some of the most populous counties, but also included counties of average population
in which the high ratio likely reflects a lower population than an abnormally high concentration of
pharmacists.
Appendix 1-A: 2010 Indiana Pharmacist Re-Licensure E-Survey
Your answers to these questions will help the Indiana State Department of Health to respond to emergencies and to identify health professional shortages and geographic shortage areas. The survey is voluntary and will not affect the status of your license or your renewal. Thanks for your help. 1. What is your current professional work status? Please choose only one. DROP-DOWN LIST Actively working as a pharmacist Retired as a pharmacist Temporarily inactive as a pharmacist 2. If you are actively working in your profession, please type the 5-digit zip code for your work location in the box next to this question. If you are retired or temporarily inactive, please type the zip code of your mailing address in the box. TEXT BOX 3. Would you be willing to provide services in case of a bio-terrorism event or other public health emergency? If you answer “Yes”, we may contact you using your PLA contact information. DROP-DOWN LIST Yes No 4. Are you trained to administer immunizations? DROP-DOWN LIST Yes No No, but I intend to become trained within the next 12 months 5. Are you currently a member of a National Pharmacist Response Team? DROP-DOWN LIST Yes No 6. Are you fluent in any of the following languages? Please select all that apply. DROP-DOWN LIST African languages
Arabic Burmese
Cambodian Chinese
33
Filipino French German Greek Hindi Italian Japanese Korean Pennsylvania Dutch Polish Portuguese Russian Sign language Spanish Tagalog Thai Turkish Vietnamese 7. If you are actively employed in your profession, please select the type of setting you work in from the list. Please choose only one. If you are retired or inactive in your profession, please do not answer this question and skip to Question 12. DROP-DOWN LIST Assisted living facility pharmacy Community health center Hospital-based pharmacy Hospital-based education department Independent community pharmacy Industry Internet pharmacy Long term care acute care facility pharmacy Long term care extended care facility pharmacy Managed care pharmacy Pharmacy chain Pharmacy within a retail setting (e.g. grocery store) University or community college Federal government State government Local government Other setting 8. How many hours per week on average do you spend in ALL activities in your profession? Please

34

Appendix 1-B: 2008 Indiana Pharmacist Re-Licensure E-Survey
Your answers to these questions will help the Indiana State Department of Health to respond to emergencies and to identify health professional shortages and geographic shortage areas. The survey is voluntary and will not affect the status of your license or your renewal. Thanks for your help. 1. What is your current professional work status? Please choose only one. DROP-DOWN LIST Actively working as a pharmacist Retired as a pharmacist Temporarily inactive as a pharmacist 2. If you are actively working in your profession, please type the 5-digit zip code for your work
location in the box next to this question. If you are retired or temporarily inactive, please type the zip code of your mailing address in the box.
TEXT BOX 3. Would you be willing to provide services in case of a bio-terrorism event or other public health

37
French German Greek Hindi Italian Japanese Korean Pennsylvania Dutch Polish Portuguese Russian Sign language Spanish Tagalog Thai Turkish 7. If you are actively employed in your profession, please select the type of setting you work in from
the list. Please choose only one. If you are retired or inactive in your profession, please do not answer this question and skip to Question 9.

38

Appendix 1-C: 2004 Indiana Pharmacist Re-Licensure E-Survey
Your answers to these questions will help the Indiana State Department of Health to respond to emergencies and to identify health professional shortages and geographic shortage areas. The survey is voluntary and will not affect the status of your license.
Thanks for your help.
1. What is your current work status? Please choose only one. DROP-DOWN LIST.
Actively working as a pharmacist (including pharmaceutical care, administration, teaching, or research)
Retired as a pharmacist Temporarily inactive as a pharmacist 2. If you are actively working as a pharmacist in pharmaceutical care, administration, teaching or
research, please type the 5-digit zip code where you work in the box below and then continue to questions 3-15. If you are retired or temporarily inactive, please type the zip code of your mailing address in the box below and then proceed to questions 6-15. Text box.
3. How many hours per week on average do you spend in ALL activities as a pharmacist? Please
choose only one. DROP-DOWN LIST
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40 or more

40
Pharmacy within another type of retail setting (e.g. grocery store) University Federal government State government Local government Other setting 6. Would you like to receive information on the Indiana Medical Reserve Corps? MRCs will
coordinate the skills of practicing and retired physicians, nurses, and other health professionals who volunteer during emergency situations. If you answer “Yes,” we may contact you using your HPB address information.
Yes No
7. Would you be willing to provide volunteer services in case of a bio-terrorism event or other
public health emergency? If you answer “Yes,” we may contact you using your HPB address information.
Yes No
8. Are you currently a member of a National Pharmacist Response Team? Yes No 9. Are you fluent in Spanish? Yes No 10. Are you fluent in any Asian languages? Yes No 11. What is your highest degree in pharmacy? Please choose only one. DROP-DOWN LIST Bachelor’s Master’s Doctor of Pharmacy PhD 12. Where did you receive your highest degree in pharmacy? Please choose only one. DROP-DOWN LIST Butler University—Indiana Purdue University—Indiana Other university 13. What is your sex?
Female Male
41
14. Which of the following best describes your race? Please choose only one. DROP-DOWN LIST White Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander American Indiana/Native Alaskan Multi-racial Other 15. Are you of Hispanic origin?
Yes No
Appendix 2: Work Setting Groupings
The “work setting” categories used in Tables 2.12 and 3.8 are aggregated groupings of survey
responses. These categories were used to create a more meaningful analysis. The aggregated categories
and their constituent survey responses are presented below.
Retail Community Practice
Independent Community Pharmacy
Assisted Living Pharmacy

Documents

Pharmacists Re-Licensure Survey Report Final Draft 3