CVS To Stop Selling Tobacco, Sacrificing $2 Billion In Sales

[AgentAnia]

I think we can all agree (well, most of us...) that it's preferable that businesses have the right to decide for themselves, rather than government telling them, what they will sell and what they won't.

I find it curious, however, assuming it's true that CVS is looking to become primarily a health-care provider instead of the pharmacy-cum-general-merchandise business it is now, that they are not stopping sales of alcohol and snack foods as well...

 

[Sundodger]

I think we can all agree (well, most of us...) that it's preferable that businesses have the right to decide for themselves, rather than government telling them, what they will sell and what they won't.

I find it curious, however, assuming it's true that CVS is looking to become primarily a health-care provider instead of the pharmacy-cum-general-merchandise business it is now, that they are not stopping sales of alcohol and snack foods as well...

I know here they sell alcohol with all those wonderful flavors that the chil'n love. Yes they should have the right to sell what they want as long as it is legal. What I don't care for is all these places getting sick people coming in while I might be picking up a prescription. Around here a lot of stores have started having "clinics" in store.

I'm not there to get sick, if people are sick they should go to a regular clinic, hospital, Dr's office, not somewhere that has people shopping for regular, daily needs.

Heck just open the clinics in the schools that way the chil'n have medical right there along with the free meals.

 

[Bill Godshall]

If CVS was truly concerned about health, it wouldn't have banned the sale of smokeless tobacco products, which are 99% less hazardous than cigarettes, and which have helped more than a million male smokers in the US quit smoking.

Brad Rodu: CVS abandons tobacco and reason
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/02/cvs-abandons-tobacco-and-reason.html

After CVS announced its decision to stop selling tobacco yesterday, CVS stocks declined on Wall Street, while Rite Aid and Walgreens stock increased.

CVS' decision will have ZERO impact on tobacco use, as CVS tobacco consumers will simply buy the products at other stores.

 

[rothenbj]

Sundodger, I think the clinic is really the business decision here and the removal of tobacco products a means of freeing space, eliminating employees and expanding their market share in the ACA business. The announcement of the removal of tobacco as a moral decision was more marketing than altruism.

When the acquired Caremark, they acquired the mail order business that was serving many of the major corporation who often work in lockstep with one another. I retired as the early stages of the core business model was taking shape which translated to out sourcing, to other large businesses, anything that turn over to a third party, they were.

I see CVS and other large pharmacies becoming the first line of defense with health issues for the general population. These stores are in many neighborhoods and I'm sure the insurance companies would rather pay for a salaried PA, rather than an MD until they have to. I would think CVS has MDs that the PAs report to, but a single MD can oversee multiple PAs in multiple locations. Very economical for the new health care model.

Remember, last year they went after their own employees.

"Under the new policy, nearly 200,000 CVS employees who obtain health insurance through the company will have to report their weight, blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol to WebMD Health Services Group, which provides benefits support to CVS.
CVS Caremark will collect the information through what it’s calling a “health screening and wellness review,” according to the Boston Herald.
But if workers refuse the screening, they will be forced to pay the $600 annual penalty. The company will collect the fines by tacking on an additional $50 each month to the existing cost of the company’s health insurance program.
Employees have until May 1 to submit to the company-sponsored wellness review."


CVS imposes health penalty if workers

 

[sonicdsl]

Sundodger, I think the clinic is really the business decision here and the removal of tobacco products a means of freeing space, eliminating employees and expanding their market share in the ACA business. The announcement of the removal of tobacco as a moral decision was more marketing than altruism.

When the acquired Caremark, they acquired the mail order business that was serving many of the major corporation who often work in lockstep with one another. I retired as the early stages of the core business model was taking shape which translated to out sourcing, to other large businesses, anything that turn over to a third party, they were.

I see CVS and other large pharmacies becoming the first line of defense with health issues for the general population. These stores are in many neighborhoods and I'm sure the insurance companies would rather pay for a salaried PA, rather than an MD until they have to. I would think CVS has MDs that the PAs report to, but a single MD can oversee multiple PAs in multiple locations. Very economical for the new health care model.

Remember, last year they went after their own employees.

"Under the new policy, nearly 200,000 CVS employees who obtain health insurance through the company will have to report their weight, blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol to WebMD Health Services Group, which provides benefits support to CVS.
CVS Caremark will collect the information through what it’s calling a “health screening and wellness review,” according to the Boston Herald.
But if workers refuse the screening, they will be forced to pay the $600 annual penalty. The company will collect the fines by tacking on an additional $50 each month to the existing cost of the company’s health insurance program.
Employees have until May 1 to submit to the company-sponsored wellness review."


CVS imposes health penalty if workers

8-o

Sent while Moderating ECF via Tapatalk 4

 

[navigator2011]

"Under the new policy, nearly 200,000 CVS employees who obtain health insurance through the company will have to report their weight, blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol to WebMD Health Services Group, which provides benefits support to CVS.
CVS Caremark will collect the information through what it’s calling a “health screening and wellness review,” according to the Boston Herald.
But if workers refuse the screening, they will be forced to pay the $600 annual penalty. The company will collect the fines by tacking on an additional $50 each month to the existing cost of the company’s health insurance program.
Employees have until May 1 to submit to the company-sponsored wellness review."

I find this horrifying. The beginning of a Gattaca/1984 style society apparently has already begun.

 

[fogging_katrider]

Government imposed personal health information data mining is in everyones future once obamacare's tyrany kicks into full swing folks.

Next in the "progressive" health care model, after the powers that be assemble all the personal health data mining information...

???

( the full service suicide booth ala futurama comes to mind )

 

[Kryyptyk]

Tobacco is not the problem, it's smoking.

If CVS was truly concerned about health, it wouldn't have banned the sale of smokeless tobacco products, which are 99% less hazardous than cigarettes...

Tell that to my uncle, who has half a jaw and a gaping hole where the other half was. He got jaw and mouth cancer from using snuff, and later snus. He never smoked a day in his life.

 

[Kryyptyk]

It's very disturbing to see people having this kind of fascist mindset against consumer products in what should be a free country.
I dont think our legislators or our so called progressive thinking people have any business sticking their fascist hands in the free choices of "we the people".

Way too many people these days, believe in "banning" whatever they dont like.... and that really "sucks" !

Ah, there you are. I was wondering when you would show up.

Firstly, I'm not a 'fascist'. This word gets tossed around so much, but I don't think any of you know what it really means. I am a realist, and it is simply unacceptable to stand there believing that a product confirmed to be the 3rd largest contributor to death in the 21st century has any right to be on the shelves of our stores. Free market or not, tens of millions of people are smoking, and those same tens of millions will die without intervention. If you really believe they should be allowed to commit what is, in effect, slow suicide, then there is something seriously wrong.

Secondly, our legislators have -every- right to introduce new bills and amendments, that's what they were elected for. That's their job. Nuff said.

Thirdly, while I do agree that frivolous banning isn't the way, this simply isn't the case here. As much as I hate what tobacco is doing, I also must acknowledge that a boardwide ban would likely target vaping as well. This isn't a case of our government banning -anything- (or indeed, has nothing to do with the government at all), this is CVS taking a stand against tobacco, for whatever agenda they have. Nobody else made this decision. So really, your entire reply is null and void.

...which makes this reply null and void...

Why am I here again?

 

[Sundodger]

Sundodger, I think the clinic is really the business decision here and the removal of tobacco products a means of freeing space, eliminating employees and expanding their market share in the ACA business. The announcement of the removal of tobacco as a moral decision was more marketing than altruism.

When the acquired Caremark, they acquired the mail order business that was serving many of the major corporation who often work in lockstep with one another. I retired as the early stages of the core business model was taking shape which translated to out sourcing, to other large businesses, anything that turn over to a third party, they were.

I see CVS and other large pharmacies becoming the first line of defense with health issues for the general population. These stores are in many neighborhoods and I'm sure the insurance companies would rather pay for a salaried PA, rather than an MD until they have to. I would think CVS has MDs that the PAs report to, but a single MD can oversee multiple PAs in multiple locations. Very economical for the new health care model.

Remember, last year they went after their own employees.

"Under the new policy, nearly 200,000 CVS employees who obtain health insurance through the company will have to report their weight, blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol to WebMD Health Services Group, which provides benefits support to CVS.
CVS Caremark will collect the information through what it’s calling a “health screening and wellness review,” according to the Boston Herald.
But if workers refuse the screening, they will be forced to pay the $600 annual penalty. The company will collect the fines by tacking on an additional $50 each month to the existing cost of the company’s health insurance program.
Employees have until May 1 to submit to the company-sponsored wellness review."


CVS imposes health penalty if workers

Oh I understand this 100%. My point is that while shopping at a Walmart or Shopko (here in the mid-west) or other like box/retail store, or Drug store to pick up a prescription, I don't need to be subjected to tens of sick people seeking the cheapest/easiest medical care.

I understand going to a drug store may subject me to other sick people, but I don't expect the majority to have a contagious virus most of the time.

If I'm sick I go to a clinic or Dr's office or hospital, not go hacking through the cart area, past the children's toys and food isle to get to the back of the store where the pharmacy and little clinic is set up. Nor do I like others doing it.

Plain and simple, put a health clinic in your retail store and you lose my business, I don't care what the motive is for them, it's MY motive that counts to me.

 

[Jman8]

I am a realist, and it is simply unacceptable to stand there believing that a product confirmed to be the 3rd largest contributor to death in the 21st century has any right to be on the shelves of our stores. Free market or not, tens of millions of people are smoking, and those same tens of millions will die without intervention. If you really believe they should be allowed to commit what is, in effect, slow suicide, then there is something seriously wrong.

We already have interventionists around and their message / propaganda permeates the culture. Thus, free market is influenced by this. The step of removing tobacco products from the shelf is part of free market decision making. On the surface, it is fine and dandy. Yet, if it is later shown to be part of an agenda tied to government mandated health insurance and those who seek to be (financially) rewarded thru that system, then it is disingenuous. Especially if same business is selling alcohol and candy which are blatantly obvious contributors to health and societal costs.

I currently can't think of a product available anywhere on this planet that is not, in its own way, contributing to slow suicide of all beings on this planet. While even I internally debate that point, the gist of it is accurate I think within context of this discussion.

Heavy smoking / abuse of cigarettes is suicidal. Moderate use of cigarettes is challenging to see as suicidal except within context of previous paragraph. Apart from that sort of reasoning and from position that argues some things are more helpful than others, well moderate smoking is more helpful than abusive smoking and less helpful than drinking say 4 cups of water a day. But comparing really anything to drinking 4 cups of water would be likely deemed more harmful. At any rate, we've already had someone on this thread (or perhaps another just like this) within last few days confirm that their doctor says smoking less than 4 cigarettes a day does negligible harm to a human body. I currently smoke less than one a day on average. Thus the 'slow suicide' supposition does very little to suggest that an all out ban on smoking is a wise thing, considering it would still be available on a black market, thus health costs would still be there and societal cost could arguably go up.

It would seem to me that a realist would consider that, whereas a fascist would not. In my understanding of fascism, the desire would be to seek control/eradication foremost, and then be very willing to engage in a war that's goal is eradication, by any means necessary with strong willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure, for a perceived greater good (i.e. a world where no tobacco production exists).

As all that seems extreme to me in a thread about CVS making a decision to remove tobacco products from its shelves, then the simple point of seeing that as good while they continue to sell other blatantly obvious health detractors (i.e. alcohol and heavy sugar products) seems like the easy counterpoint to make. If CVS is making move to become health conscious, they'd go a long ways if they chose to remove all other products that are for sure violators of good health, and take bold steps to remove questionable products. Of which I don't have an example off hand, but would result in a CVS that looks less like a convenient store and more like a health nut distribution center.

Instead, it looks like yet another move in the not so secret war against tobacco products and a move to ban them from the market, even if current law (under TCA) expressly forbids that.

 

[AgentAnia]

....Plain and simple, put a health clinic in your retail store and you lose my business, I don't care what the motive is for them, it's MY motive that counts to me.

^^^ What Sundodger says. ^^^

 

[Kryyptyk]

Stuff

I understand what you're saying. But also consider that part of a free market is allowing vendors to choose which products they sell. In the long run allowing vendors to choose for themselves whether they sell tobacco products or not will not ultimately effect the legal status of vaping. I would much rather have vendors going through these channels to effect change in tobacco sales, rather than going the political route and endangering the growth and well-being of the vaping industry with an umbrella ban.

 

[AgentAnia]

Brad Rodu's comment on the CVS decision: http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/02/cvs-abandons-tobacco-and-reason.html

....As CVS CEO Larry Merlo put it: “We've come to the conclusion that cigarettes have no place in a setting where health care is being delivered.”

But why stop selling smokeless tobacco, and why not offer e-cigarettes? These products are effective harm reduction alternatives for current smokers, and sales of both are increasing. The CVS decision is not simply about health or profits, but rather, about joining a moral crusade that is hooked exclusively on the promotion of pharmaceutical nicotine. (CVS is suggesting that those products may get more exposure at the checkout counter.)

 

[Jman8]

I understand what you're saying. But also consider that part of a free market is allowing vendors to choose which products they sell.

Post #51 considers this in its first paragraph.

In the long run allowing vendors to choose for themselves whether they sell tobacco products or not will not ultimately effect the legal status of vaping. I would much rather have vendors going through these channels to effect change in tobacco sales, rather than going the political route and endangering the growth and well-being of the vaping industry with an umbrella ban.

I think this is quite plausibly a political move that will possibly be made evident in time. I think it is fairly obvious now as post #51 was saying that unless they remove other products that are as obvious health detractors, then it is entirely reasonable to see this as a political move strictly against tobacco. Vaping is a tobacco product, not a cessation product. Hard to say for certain now, but I feel fairly confident that CVS will make a blanket ban of selling anything vaping in its stores under same logic employed for ban of tobacco products in its stores.

I further think CEO of CVS is being pressured to do this with idea that while they'll lose a small $2 billion dollars in revenue, there is a promise in the works to help make that up given the next chapter of the war that is soon to be written and delivered unto the general population.

 

[Kryyptyk]

I think this is quite plausibly a political move that will possibly be made evident in time. I think it is fairly obvious now as post #51 was saying that unless they remove other products that are as obvious health detractors, then it is entirely reasonable to see this as a political move strictly against tobacco.

I agree with this, to a point. The action itself is pretty ambiguous. If, for example, Best Buy stopped selling washers and dryers, I don't think most people would see it as a political move against laundry appliances.

Vaping is a tobacco product, not a cessation product.

Mmm, this is more of a technicality than an actual definition. Most nicotine liquids are indeed derived from tobacco, but does this make it a 'tobacco product'? This is the question that's been holding back the FDA approval. They would rather integrate e-cigs into the existing taxation and regulation structure used on tobacco cigarettes than address the actual issue of a formal definition and approval for smoking cessation. I know many people who only vape synthetic nicotine for this very reason.

Hard to say for certain now, but I feel fairly confident that CVS will make a blanket ban of selling anything vaping in its stores under same logic employed for ban of tobacco products in its stores.

Its a possibility! However, since apparently CVS got this question a lot after their announcement, they did put out a response.
Smoke break: what tobacco-free drug stores mean for e-cigarettes | The Verge
There are a few other threads covering this, so I won't go into it here. However I think that given the FDA say-so, even a little one, and CVS will probably leap at the chance to include vapes on its NRT shelves.

 

[rothenbj]

"I know many people who only vape synthetic nicotine for this very reason."

Who's selling synth nic e liquid?

 

[Jimi D.]

My local CVS carries e-cigs. I'll let you know if they pull them off the shelves.

 

[Steamix]

Voluntarily giving up on a presumably profitable line of goods ?

As they're business and businesses are businesses and not charities, somethin's on their agenda.

I smell a rat....

 

[AgentAnia]

Voluntarily giving up on a presumably profitable line of goods ?

As they're business and businesses are businesses and not charities, somethin's on their agenda.

I smell a rat....

The CVS Powers That Be are obviously assured of making up for that lost revenue, otherwise they know they'd have a shareholder revolt on their hands. I'm thinking two things are at work here: someone, or several someones, in the head office has a personal agenda at work; and no doubt Big Pharma (and likely a few alphabets as well, and probably even some health insurance carriers) have been pushing for just such a move. That the ANTZ are in the mix somewhere is beyond question, IMO. A perfect storm of agendas, if you will...