“Pharmacy desert”: social consequences of reducing pharmacies in Ukraine
“Pharmacy desert”: Social consequences of reducing the number of pharmacies in Ukraine
30.10.2025
Article published on the unn.ua website
The proposal to reduce the number of pharmacies in Ukraine could lead to the creation of “pharmacy deserts” and serious economic losses, resulting in higher drug prices and more difficult physical access to them.
For some time now, there has been talk at various levels in Ukraine about cutting the number of pharmacies in the country. Instead of promoting healthy competition, the proposal is to reduce the number of facilities to one per district (or town), or to only allow pharmacists to open pharmacies, while also limiting the number of pharmacies that can be managed by a single owner. The latter in itself would result in a reduction of facilities. The UNN has examined the likely impact of implementing such measures.
One pharmacy and no other alternatives
The concept of a “pharmacy desert” has long been discussed by many countries, i.e. an area where it takes longer to get to a pharmacy than it does to a supermarket. Even a developed country like the United States found that this year, 17.7% of its population were living in these “deserts”, with another 8.9% relying on a single pharmacy.
Currently, 89% of villages in Ukraine lack onsite pharmacies, which means that millions are already living in these “deserts”. How many will be created in towns if there is only one pharmacy left in the district?
Every “blank spot” on the pharmacy map results in problems of access to vital medicines and potential interruptions to people’s treatment. Countries such as the US and the UK are well aware of this and are making attempts to rectify the situation.
But in Ukraine, it appears the only people who understand this are the ordinary citizens. The UNN conducted a survey of Kyiv residents who reacted very negatively when asked how they felt about the proposal to cut the number of pharmacies. They realise that this not only means a longer journey to the pharmacy, which could come at a cost to their health, or even their lives, but also result in less competition, higher prices, poorer service and a reduced range of products.
This view has been confirmed by sociological studies. Seventy-one per cent of respondents said that the more pharmacies there are, the easier it is to get hold of the necessary medicines. 66.8% were also of the opinion that having more pharmacies would help people find cheaper prices for the drugs they need.
Local monopolies
Ukraine has already lost approximately 25% of its pharmacy market as a result of the war. Most of the losses have been in temporarily occupied and frontline areas, but now the “devastation” could spread to relatively peaceful territories – not only rural areas where there is already limited access to drugs but also large cities.
The implementation of the “one pharmacy per district” concept will turn the “chosen” pharmacy into a monopoly that will dictate terms to local consumers: if you don’t like our prices, go to another district; if you have any complaints about medicine storage conditions, look elsewhere. The quality of service and the development of additional support in such circumstances is also questionable.
Economic impacts
A major cut in the number of pharmacies will inevitably lead to economic losses in the form of reduced tax revenues to the State exchequer. Just five major players in the pharmacy retail sector paid 4.5 billion hryvnia in taxes to the national budget last year. Overall, tax revenues from retail sales of pharmaceuticals have been estimated at around 7.5 billion. In other words, we are talking about billions in lost income, as well as a significant fall in the number of jobs, not only among pharmacists but also, for example, those who provide logistics support. Other related industries that benefit economically from the pharmacy chain will also be affected.
As a result, a reduction in the number of pharmacies will have an unfortunate snowball effect: from rising drug prices and more difficult physical access to them to job and budget losses.
