resolving macro

[CP2]

ok. can you back up a bit. what is the best way to get the value counts from drug1 assuming we know the var_lst ? your second proc sql from your original post is creating separate variable. Is there quick step to get a list of values from separate variables? I got the list for the expected values but it took a few steps to get each value then concatenate them into a column and then used proc sql with into: to get the list. Originally when I got to the step where I needed to determine the condition (actual < expected) I was getting the actual variable by variable. Your newest proc sql sounds like what I need but I first need to get the full list of actuals. 

[Astounding]

I'm not certain that creating a list of actual values is necessary.  But if it is, here is a way it can be done.  Assuming that macro variables already exist as detailed earlier (&VARCount=3, &VAR_LST=age gender type, plus &AGE, &GENDER, and &TYPE holding actual counts):

%local actual_counts;

%do k=1 %to &varCount;

   %let next_name = %scan(&var_lst, &k);

   %let actual_counts = &actual_counts &&&next_name;

%end;

[CP2]

only the expected variable list and expected values exist (the actual variable list starts out equal to the expected variable list in this example). The actual number of distinct values/levels for each variable in the drug1 dataset needs to be created. If a condition is met (actual < expected) for that variable then the associated variable needs to be removed from the original list. 

[Astounding]

Here's an approach that skips part of the list creation.  It builds a smaller list ... just those variable names that have actual values less than expected values.  Start with your original 3 %LET statements.  Then ...

%local less_than_expected;

proc sql;

   %do k=1 %to &varCount;

     select count(distinct %scan(&var_lst, &k)) into : actual from drug1;

     %if &actual < %scan(&expected, &k) %then %let less_than_expected = &less_than_expected %scan(&var_lst, &k);

   %end;

quit;

I'm not sure if I'm helping by showing this or not.  Basically, the SELECT statement in SQL executes immediately, and so &ACTUAL is immediately available for use in the next statement.  It doesn't work that way when you switch from SQL to a DATA step, however.

Are we getting closer to the target here?  I realize we still need to utilize &LESS_THAN_EXPECTED.