Maybe not. The methodologically nudninky DMCB notes the Asheville data ( here , here and here again ) seem to be based on more than a fair share of suspect pre-post study designs and use approaches that aren't necessarily generalizable to all community/retail settings. The DMCB also worries that:
Next to physicians, pharmacists are among the most expensive health care professionals. Education can be done more cheaply by other highly trained, credentialed non physicians.
Despite the logic of using retail setting, setting up a separate window or a cubicle between the foot insole displays and the reading glasses tower isn't really conducive to patient engagement
It may be that the DMCB is wrong. It may be that retail pharmacies are retooling for a new wave of disruptive innovation , that there are generalizable and prospective randomized trials that have been overlooked and that, when the DMCB went to its community pharmacy window, joked about getting some educatin' and the pharmacists chuckled along, it misread things.