CVS buys Target pharmacies!

[PharmacistReb]

Too bad for those who quit CVS to work for Target. Welcome back. Who is next? Ralphs? Vons?

We all know these pharmacies are not profitable. They are loss leader. Target is now getting out of the pharmacy business.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cvs-health-target-sign-agreement-110000092.html?.tsrc=applewf

When will the DOJ get involved with CVS? At some point, anti-trust laws have to be considered. When I worked independent, our patients would come in and tell us that CVS/Caremark was going to only allow them to get their 90-day supplies through the mail or at a CVS location. I worked in impoverished Southwestern Kentucky and a 20 mile drive to CVS is out of the question. They would undoubtedly show back up a month later, 6 months later, a year later. They ordered their medication but Caremark didn't send out their digoxin or their hydralazine. Then they would be begging me for free pills because they don't have the money to pay for it. They griped and complained and hated the notion of being required to use CVS or Caremark.

People use CVS because CVS is ubiquitous. Obviously, CVS has succeeded wildly at luring people into their stores. But is it because people like going to CVS? Or did they just make it appear more convenient than the rest? And is having CVS as one of the few purveyors of prescription medications a good thing?

I'm all about capitalism. But mostly competition as it relates to capitalism. Monopoly is terrible. CVS' monopoly doesn't seem to be a positive occurrence for the health of the country.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmacistReb]

"CVS and Target, which is based in Minneapolis, also plan to develop five to 10 small stores over a two-year period after the deal closes. These would be branded as TargetExpress and include a CVS pharmacy."

This is interesting

 

[Ackj]

Will be interesting to see how the OTC section is handled. That naturally goes hand in hand with pharmacy, but will Target retain that portion of the business? I can't see Target giving away both the pharmacy and several aisles of merchandise as well, considering the second is their bread and butter.

 

[Ackj]

I'm all about capitalism. But mostly competition as it relates to capitalism. Monopoly is terrible. CVS' monopoly doesn't seem to be a positive occurrence for the health of the country.

In a truly free market, capitalism naturally points toward monopoly. The big get bigger because they are already big. You can't buy as low as they can, you can't advertise as well as they can, you can't synergize with a huge PBM like they can, etc.

 

[HouTX]

Kroger isn't losing money in the pharmacy business. quote me on that

 

[panasoniku]

The key is the Minute Clinics and Target Clienteles. Young, married women with a baby. As they entered their 30s, their beauty will start to fade. These clinics will be providing cosmetic treatments like Botox, skin treatment, etc. for a reasonable price. No appointment needed.

YES. Target will then officially be my one stop shop: groceries, medications, clothes, and BOTOX!!!!! I don't have to drive all the way to my derm.

 

[BMBiology]

YES. Target will then officially be my one stop shop: groceries, medications, clothes, and BOTOX!!!!! I don't have to drive all the way to my derm.

Don't forget teeth whitening treatment too!

 

[KidMelody]

CVS should have spent the money on more tech help....or a call center for inbound phone calls like they were talking about 7 years ago

But they are too big to fail now I guess and actually investing in the stores they have is of little concern

 

[awval999]

Barring loss/injury of a loved one, can you imagine a worse way to start your day than to learn you will go from being a Target pharmacist to a CVS pharmacist.

 

[BMBiology]

Barring loss/injury of a loved one, can you imagine a worse way to start your day than to learn you will go from being a Target pharmacist to a CVS pharmacist.

Yeah but that is better than learning Target will close all of their pharmacies which has always been a possibility = /

 

[northkorea]

sad news for the pharmacy world.

 

[waiter]

if you're a target pharmacist this is bad news lol

 

[PharFromNormal]

When will the DOJ get involved with CVS? At some point, anti-trust laws have to be considered. When I worked independent, our patients would come in and tell us that CVS/Caremark was going to only allow them to get their 90-day supplies through the mail or at a CVS location. I worked in impoverished Southwestern Kentucky and a 20 mile drive to CVS is out of the question. They would undoubtedly show back up a month later, 6 months later, a year later. They ordered their medication but Caremark didn't send out their digoxin or their hydralazine. Then they would be begging me for free pills because they don't have the money to pay for it. They griped and complained and hated the notion of being required to use CVS or Caremark.

People use CVS because CVS is ubiquitous. Obviously, CVS has succeeded wildly at luring people into their stores. But is it because people like going to CVS? Or did they just make it appear more convenient than the rest? And is having CVS as one of the few purveyors of prescription medications a good thing?

There seems to be a big lack of understanding how managed care works by a lot of community pharmacists. Whomever is managing the benefits of your customers (sometimes even the customer themselves) is ultimately managing the network in which they can get their prescriptions filled.

If your insurance is provided by your employer take it up with your employer not to enroll you (or provide you options that aren't) in prescription plans that have narrow networks. If you feel like that doesn't work, drop employer coverage and find something on the exchange market. If it really means THAT much to you and nothing else works, drop coverage altogether, pay the fine and pay for healthcare out of pocket. You are entitled to that.

Express Scripts and Wags have a similar 90 day benefit. There are other PBMs that have restricted networks that exclude CVS's pharmacies. Instead of just complaining about what you think is a problem how about looking to help? How do we as an industry incentivize driving down the cost of care?

The drug acquisition costs are moderately flat to increasing, the script reimbursment is dropping due to payors trying to stay competitive with their payors, and God forbid don't talk about our hours being cut or our wages decreasing/not increasing with standard of living (cost of goods sold).

I mean sure you can purpose the good old MTM song and dance where we demand MORE money, while keeping everything else the same of course, but we really haven't been that good at showing REAL (not academically funded/reported) ROI.

Whether or not you agree with the tactics, the big boys are trying things, not complaining. They have deep pockets and heavy influence. You aren't without weapons though, you have no shareholders and the ability to change strategy on a dime. What's your move?

 

[PharFromNormal]

Barring loss/injury of a loved one, can you imagine a worse way to start your day than to learn you will go from being a Target pharmacist to a CVS pharmacist.

Being fired for an obscure policy violation, finding out your store is closing, finding out the whole department is not being converted but just selling their prescription files to another chain, finding out your partner was cooking the narc books under your name and you have no proof...I can think of a lot.

 

[Eichhoernchen]

My friend from Target said their HR told him CVS will offer a comparable salary/bonus and benefits. So I don't think they would be screwed unless their volume goes through the roof?

 

[HouTX]

My friend from Target said their HR told him CVS will offer a comparable salary/bonus and benefits. So I don't think they would be screwed unless their volume goes through the roof?

HR didn't tell them about CVS culture

 

[JMUDuke]

From what I've overheard from discussions between PIC and managers and talks I've had with my PICs, the Kroger pharmacies I have worked in were big money makers for the store. Real Big

 

[hye345]

I spoke to a resident who had an offer from Target before this all went down. He said it's a positive, because CVS has larger support/drug aquisition/distribution resources, which will translate to the Target (soon-to-be CVS) pharmacies becoming more profitable. He also mentioned that his bonus structure would greatly improve

 

[ChalupaBatman86]

I spoke to a resident who had an offer from Target before this all went down. He said it's a positive, because CVS has larger support/drug aquisition/distribution resources, which will translate to the Target (soon-to-be CVS) pharmacies becoming more profitable. He also mentioned that his bonus structure would greatly improve

Yes and Kim Jong-un gives all the children lollipops on their birthdays.

 

[maria1oh]

Kroger has more 24/7 pharmacies in the central ohio area than walgreens does. Cvs still has more 24/7 locations than both of them combined though in central ohio.

 

[hye345]

Yes and Kim Jong-un gives all the children lollipops on their birthdays.

Hehe that's actually funny. No need to shoot the messenger though, just giving someone else's perspective.

I can think of 3 positive (I don't work for either company anymore , so correct me if I'm wrong):

One, at least Target still won't get drive -thru.

Two, the resident mentioned that at CVS, your (direct) management is a pharmacist, whereas at Target pharmacy, it's just the store manager. Better to have someone who can actually understand the grievances you have (even if they can't always help with it), as opposed to someone who thinks you are speaking technical jargon, right?

Finally, people seem to think that CVS (and walgreens) customers are the worst. I think a big part of this is that no one goes to either location out of want, it's more out of local convenience, to buy last-minute items who's quality is pretty consistent from place to place. Hence, there isnt much for a customer to do but sit and wait for their RX. At Target, people actually go there to legit shop for stuff, so their clientelle is generally more patient with wait times, since they can shop for a larger selection of items while they wait.

 

[Dred Pirate]

Hehe that's actually funny. No need to shoot the messenger though, just giving someone else's perspective.

I can think of 3 positive (I don't work for either company anymore , so correct me if I'm wrong):

One, at least Target still won't get drive -thru.

Two, the resident mentioned that at CVS, your (direct) management is a pharmacist, whereas at Target pharmacy, it's just the store manager. Better to have someone who can actually understand the grievances you have (even if they can't always help with it), as opposed to someone who thinks you are speaking technical jargon, right?

Finally, people seem to think that CVS (and walgreens) customers are the worst. I think a big part of this is that no one goes to either location out of want, it's more out of local convenience, to buy last-minute items who's quality is pretty consistent from place to place. Hence, there isnt much for a customer to do but sit and wait for their RX. At Target, people actually go there to legit shop for stuff, so their clientelle is generally more patient with wait times, since they can shop for a larger selection of items while they wait.

1. Don't put it past them, I worked at a grocery store where they put in this stupid closed circuit TV drive through thing because we were not on an outside wall. Huge long tube system. Worst thing ever. But I wouldn't be suprised if Targer made that part of the deal that they can't put them in

2. Sometimes having a non-pharmacist direct boss is great. I have had a RN be my boss - they knew I knew more about the world of pharmacy and left me alone and supported me whenever I needed it. So this one could go either way, good or bad.

3. - agree completely with you

 

[BMBiology]

Having seen CVS take over Sav-on Drugs and Long Drugs, this is how CVS will take over Target:

First, Target middle management will be the first to go. Your supervisors, district managers, vice presidents....gone! They will be replaced with CVS middle management.

Second, CVS will start with replacing Target computer with CVS computer and then CVS pharmacists will start working at Target and "train" the Target staff. Some OTC products will be replaced with CVS brands.

Third, some Target pharmacists will be hired while others will be asked to relocate or work at a bad CVS store. Most will accept because they don't have any other choice. Some will be pushed out. Some Target pharmacies will close. CVS will signal their intention at this point because they would rather have you leave on your free will so they don't have to pay for unemployment benefits.

In the meantime, CVS will reassure everyone things will be OK and they are not going to make any major chances. They will also emphasize the "benefits" of working for CVS. Anyone who says bad things about this will be called "negative" and "not a team player". That is just a way for them to tell you to shut the hell up as they cut your budget and let your tech go.

No winners here for pharmacists even if you don't work for CVS or Target. This will cause other companies to merge just to compete with CVS and their buying power. But yet, nothing from the APhA. Nothing at all except a FB post telling people of the news.

 

[BF7]

There seems to be a big lack of understanding how managed care works by a lot of community pharmacists. Whomever is managing the benefits of your customers (sometimes even the customer themselves) is ultimately managing the network in which they can get their prescriptions filled.

If your insurance is provided by your employer take it up with your employer not to enroll you (or provide you options that aren't) in prescription plans that have narrow networks. If you feel like that doesn't work, drop employer coverage and find something on the exchange market. If it really means THAT much to you and nothing else works, drop coverage altogether, pay the fine and pay for healthcare out of pocket. You are entitled to that.

Express Scripts and Wags have a similar 90 day benefit. There are other PBMs that have restricted networks that exclude CVS's pharmacies. Instead of just complaining about what you think is a problem how about looking to help? How do we as an industry incentivize driving down the cost of care?

The drug acquisition costs are moderately flat to increasing, the script reimbursment is dropping due to payors trying to stay competitive with their payors, and God forbid don't talk about our hours being cut or our wages decreasing/not increasing with standard of living (cost of goods sold).

I mean sure you can purpose the good old MTM song and dance where we demand MORE money, while keeping everything else the same of course, but we really haven't been that good at showing REAL (not academically funded/reported) ROI.

Whether or not you agree with the tactics, the big boys are trying things, not complaining. They have deep pockets and heavy influence. You aren't without weapons though, you have no shareholders and the ability to change strategy on a dime. What's your move?

Patients /employees don't have enough understanding of even the simple changes that occur to their pharmacy benefits on a year to year basis yet you expect them to 1) take the initiative to research their own insurance on the government marketplace 2) have an understanding to compare their employer's offering with the options on the marketplace and 3) accept a higher monthly premium to be able to utilize the pharmacy provider of their choice when the COST of medications are roughly the same by 1-3%?

That's an incredibly uninformed position to take and it fails to realize the anti competitive practices that are taking place at the BROKER level in which they are easily influenced by PBM lobbyists.

In terms of the ROI of pharmacist clinical services, I whole heartedly agree with you. It's fools gold. There is nothing to stop a specially trained nurse from doing what a clinical pharmacist can do and for 1/2 to 2/3rds the cost. We need to defend dispensing and we need to lobby for a federally mandated dispense fee of at least $8 per RX.

Pharmacy related costs can and should come down; but the wasted expense to the Anerican healthcare system is mostly on the manufacturer side. Without government price controls our system is doomed.

FYI-- average gross profit per RX is roughly $10.50 and decreasing

 

[MatCauthon]

Wow, if Target can't make a profit it makes me wonder about all the other grocery store chains out there. I have friends that work at Kroger and it seems that their model is still profitable. Some of the grocery store chains are probably more marginal. Other chains like Costco make a ton of money from OTC sales so they probably have less to worry about right now.

 

[BF7]

Wow, if Target can't make a profit it makes me wonder about all the other grocery store chains out there. I have friends that work at Kroger and it seems that their model is still profitable. Some of the grocery store chains are probably more marginal. Other chains like Costco make a ton of money from OTC sales so they probably have less to worry about right now.

That's not true at all.. They had $4.2 BILLION in sales; the average INDY makes 20-22% GP/ the average chain 28-30%. Back when box box retailers first got into pharmacy business they were turning profits of 40%+; the target CEO sees the anticompetitive nature of our profession ( limited access to patient lives, DIR fees, etc) and realizes as a publicly traded company that makes close to 40% GP selling other retail items, pharmacy is trending DOWN in profitability terms and its a laggard in relation to other store departments on a percentage basis. This way he gets the benefit of foot traffic without the shrinking reimbursement profit percentage. CVS Caremark can absorb it because they make up for the decrease in GP in their pharmacy deparent by playing the shell game with their very profitable PBM operation. If I could collect rebates and PBM management processing fees to charge employers I too COuld make my pharmacy the " least expensive option"


For example :
BF7 drug store/PBM -- employer charged $100 -- pharmacy gets $15 PBM fee $85

competitor pharmacy-- they get $25

I get still get $85 as the PBM as my standard process fee

That competitor pharmacy is more expensive than mine by $10.

I hire lobbyists and a sales team and I use this example to win major employer contracts all under the guise of " cost savings"

 

[PharFromNormal]

Patients /employees don't have enough understanding of even the simple changes that occur to their pharmacy benefits on a year to year basis yet you expect them to 1) take the initiative to research their own insurance on the government marketplace 2) have an understanding to compare their employer's offering with the options on the marketplace and 3) accept a higher monthly premium to be able to utilize the pharmacy provider of their choice when the COST of medications are roughly the same by 1-3%?

That's an incredibly uninformed position to take and it fails to realize the anti competitive practices that are taking place at the BROKER level in which they are easily influenced by PBM lobbyists.

In terms of the ROI of pharmacist clinical services, I whole heartedly agree with you. It's fools gold. There is nothing to stop a specially trained nurse from doing what a clinical pharmacist can do and for 1/2 to 2/3rds the cost. We need to defend dispensing and we need to lobby for a federally mandated dispense fee of at least $8 per RX.

Pharmacy related costs can and should come down; but the wasted expense to the Anerican healthcare system is mostly on the manufacturer side. Without government price controls our system is doomed.

FYI-- average gross profit per RX is roughly $10.50 and decreasing

We agree on some and disagree on some. I don't see ignorance to how the system works as a cop out. If patients are inconvienced enough they will find a way to change and that might mean asking several different people several different way until they finally get it. If pharmacy providers have an utter amount of patients (customers) being lost and coming to them they should educate them in order to keep them.

We both agree in competition that's good. I agree with it on the micro level just like you, as well as the macro, B2B side, which it seems like you don't, which I guess is ok. I'm sure you'll spin it towards you are pro competition here and you want to make it so you can compete but the fact is you are competing and just losing. Not showing up to the race because you didn't read about it, shouldn't get you a trophy just because.

That's great on gross profit, tell me your net numbers.

 

[BF7]

We agree on some and disagree on some. I don't see ignorance to how the system works as a cop out. If patients are inconvienced enough they will find a way to change and that might mean asking several different people several different way until they finally get it. If pharmacy providers have an utter amount of patients (customers) being lost and coming to them they should educate them in order to keep them.

We both agree in competition that's good. I agree with it on the micro level just like you, as well as the macro, B2B side, which it seems like you don't, which I guess is ok. I'm sure you'll spin it towards you are pro competition here and you want to make it so you can compete but the fact is you are competing and just losing. Not showing up to the race because you didn't read about it, shouldn't get you a trophy just because.

That's great on gross profit, tell me your net numbers.

The FTC's sole purpose is to protect the consumer largely because of " ignorance".. It's not a cop out; its big business operating in a fashion that makes market conditions so that patients and competitors have to deal with them in some form or fashion. CVS health is incredibly close to being able to call their shot. If they acquire a wholesaler they will be there.

 

[BF7]

We agree on some and disagree on some. I don't see ignorance to how the system works as a cop out. If patients are inconvienced enough they will find a way to change and that might mean asking several different people several different way until they finally get it. If pharmacy providers have an utter amount of patients (customers) being lost and coming to them they should educate them in order to keep them.

We both agree in competition that's good. I agree with it on the micro level just like you, as well as the macro, B2B side, which it seems like you don't, which I guess is ok. I'm sure you'll spin it towards you are pro competition here and you want to make it so you can compete but the fact is you are competing and just losing. Not showing up to the race because you didn't read about it, shouldn't get you a trophy just because.

That's great on gross profit, tell me your net numbers.

Ideally my net would be ZERO. If you owned your own pharmacy you'd know its GROSS PROFIT that matters

 

[BidAsk]

Personally I believe that no matter how big cvs is or is appearing to be, the writing is on the wall about the profitability of the pharmacy business as we know it, mostly due to the corporate influence of PBMs. I think all this is a good ole kicking of the can down the road until the ultimate implosion of all these corporations trying to corner pharmacy. I still believe the independent pharmacy will rise once again from the ashes when **** hits the fan.....I'm waiting.

 

[zelman]

...CVS health is incredibly close to being able to call their shot. If they acquire a wholesaler they will be there.

Skip that. Just buy a generic manufacturer.

 

[8turkeys]

I just talked with my friend that works at target pharmacy, he said that they will keep there jobs but they have assurance as to whether or not they will be able to keep their pay. Target starts their pharmacist at about 128k whereas cvs is much lower, I see pay cuts coming to the pharmacy community.

 

[BMBiology]

I just talked with my friend that works at target pharmacy, he said that they will keep there jobs but they have assurance as to whether or not they will be able to keep their pay. Target starts their pharmacist at about 128k whereas cvs is much lower, I see pay cuts coming to the pharmacy community.

See below. It is in the CVS "I am going to screw you over" handbook:

In the meantime, CVS will reassure everyone things will be OK and they are not going to make any major changes.

 

[Stilltrying1288]

I actually sat down with my DM not too long ago to see how the pharmacies were doing in my area, whether or not they were hiring or if I should look elsewhere, and that topic came up. So, no I do not have access to any hard data that supports my claim, I will just have to rely on the people that are privy to that info.

Which I guess includes you somehow.

I heard the same thing.

 

[txpharmguy]

Skip that. Just buy a generic manufacturer.

Walgreens already has a 7% stake in Amerisource and whatever wholesale business Boots owns.

 

[kalove07]

Bye bye lunch breaks. I'm thankful now I didnt get a job from Target. God was looking out for the best opportunity after I left CVS.

 

[Bubba98]

One good thing to come of this is one less player that believes in giving out free prescriptions. Something that's free has no value including the time and labor spent filling that rx.

 

[Lnsean]

Having seen CVS take over Sav-on Drugs and Long Drugs, this is how CVS will take over Target:

First, Target middle management will be the first to go. Your supervisors, district managers, vice presidents....gone! They will be replaced with CVS middle management.

Second, CVS will start with replacing Target computer with CVS computer and then CVS pharmacists will start working at Target and "train" the Target staff. Some OTC products will be replaced with CVS brands.

Third, some Target pharmacists will be hired while others will be asked to relocate or work at a bad CVS store. Most will accept because they don't have any other choice. Some will be pushed out. Some Target pharmacies will close. CVS will signal their intention at this point because they would rather have you leave on your free will so they don't have to pay for unemployment benefits.

In the meantime, CVS will reassure everyone things will be OK and they are not going to make any major chances. They will also emphasize the "benefits" of working for CVS. Anyone who says bad things about this will be called "negative" and "not a team player". That is just a way for them to tell you to shut the hell up as they cut your budget and let your tech go.

No winners here for pharmacists even if you don't work for CVS or Target. This will cause other companies to merge just to compete with CVS and their buying power. But yet, nothing from the APhA. Nothing at all except a FB post telling people of the news.

It's also baffling to me that one of my friends (who's a pharmacist for CVS) is so happy about this news. I mean some people drink that koolaid until just the ice remains. I mean what do you have to gain from all this? It's a loss to consumers and pharmacists alike. The only winners are CVS and Target and big corporations.

Although, deep down, I feel like he was jealous of Target pharmacists not doing much. So, I guess he's happy that they're going to feel the wrath of CVS.

 

[297point1]

Although, deep down, I feel like he was jealous of Target pharmacists not doing much. So, I guess he's happy that they're going to feel the wrath of CVS.

I've noticed some shadenfraude as well.

I don't understand why.

 

[PharmacistReb]

There seems to be a big lack of understanding how managed care works by a lot of community pharmacists. Whomever is managing the benefits of your customers (sometimes even the customer themselves) is ultimately managing the network in which they can get their prescriptions filled.

If your insurance is provided by your employer take it up with your employer not to enroll you (or provide you options that aren't) in prescription plans that have narrow networks. If you feel like that doesn't work, drop employer coverage and find something on the exchange market. If it really means THAT much to you and nothing else works, drop coverage altogether, pay the fine and pay for healthcare out of pocket. You are entitled to that.

Express Scripts and Wags have a similar 90 day benefit. There are other PBMs that have restricted networks that exclude CVS's pharmacies. Instead of just complaining about what you think is a problem how about looking to help? How do we as an industry incentivize driving down the cost of care?

The drug acquisition costs are moderately flat to increasing, the script reimbursment is dropping due to payors trying to stay competitive with their payors, and God forbid don't talk about our hours being cut or our wages decreasing/not increasing with standard of living (cost of goods sold).

I mean sure you can purpose the good old MTM song and dance where we demand MORE money, while keeping everything else the same of course, but we really haven't been that good at showing REAL (not academically funded/reported) ROI.

Whether or not you agree with the tactics, the big boys are trying things, not complaining. They have deep pockets and heavy influence. You aren't without weapons though, you have no shareholders and the ability to change strategy on a dime. What's your move?

Surely you are joking with these inane things you said.

If your insurance is provided by your employer take it up with your employer not to enroll you (or provide you options that aren't) in prescription plans that have narrow networks. If you feel like that doesn't work, drop employer coverage and find something on the exchange market. If it really means THAT much to you and nothing else works, drop coverage altogether, pay the fine and pay for healthcare out of pocket. You are entitled to that.

Express Scripts and Wags have a similar 90 day benefit. There are other PBMs that have restricted networks that exclude CVS's pharmacies. Instead of just complaining about what you think is a problem how about looking to help? How do we as an industry incentivize driving down the cost of care?

First of all, I do not think it is useful to have a pharmacy and a PBM in bed together. I think PBM's, in general, are a wonderful entity that helps in cost containment. A PBM is the entity that keeps pharmacies from charging outrageous prices for cheap medications. What happens when the PBM and the pharmacy are the same entity? How does that benefit anyone? When your PBM mandates that you utilize the parent company's pharmacy, I don't see that as useful.

Secondly, most employer-based coverage is cheaper for the actual employee (maybe not always for the employer, however) relative to private coverage -- even with Affordable Care Act subsidies. The people who are receiving the largest amount in subsidies don't have an option for employer coverage to begin with. How can you possibly say that it's the responsibility of the consumer to drop their employer coverage just to opt out of a certain PBM? That is so narrow-minded and specious.

"How do you incentivize driving down costs?" -- Please explain to me how a PBM mandating you use a certain pharmacy is helping to drive down costs? The PBM is the entity paying for the medications. They dictate the price once you're enrolled. If a PBM had a completely open network allowing all pharmacies, then it wouldn't even matter what pharmacy you use -- if the pharmacy refuses to fill the medications because of low reimbursement, then that's their perogative. The only thing Caremark is trying to incentivize is using their parent company's pharmacy so that the bottom line will be larger. There is nothing about CVS/Caremark being in bed together that incentivizes cost control or makes the patient healthier.

 

[BenJammin]

Will target pharmacist benefits reset? So the employees who have worked there for 20 years will start all over right?

 

[trailerpark]

I laugh at the losers in my class who thought they got lucky getting a job with Target. During my interview day Target pre-screened candidates and said they have one of the most rigorous interview processes and now all these uppity folks are now with CVS who takes anyone with a pulse LOL!!!!!!!!!

 

[PharmacistReb]

Will target pharmacist benefits reset? So the employees who have worked there for 20 years will start all over right?

I'm sure there will be some agreement between HR at Target and CVS that allows those over a certain number of years to not have their benefits reset. My guess at least.

 

[BMBiology]

I laugh at the losers in my class who thought they got lucky getting a job with Target. During my interview day Target pre-screened candidates and said they have one of the most rigorous interview processes and now all these uppity folks are now with CVS who takes anyone with a pulse LOL!!!!!!!!!

Don't they also require you to take a personality test? Yeah they only wanted to hire certain people. They were kinda like Abercrombie and Fitch of pharmacy.

 

[BMBiology]

Will target pharmacist benefits reset? So the employees who have worked there for 20 years will start all over right?

It didn't happen when they purchased Sav-On drugs. I think the pharmacists still got some benefits but they were not grandfathered in and some pharmacists ended up leaving. But that was in 2006 when there was still a huge shortage of pharmacists.

 

[Dred Pirate]

It didn't happen when they purchased Sav-On drugs. I think the pharmacists still got some benefits but they were not grandfathered in and some pharmacists ended up leaving. But that was in 2006 when there was still a huge shortage of pharmacists.

benefits are resetting from what I heard from a current Target Rph

 

[Bubba98]

Surely you are joking with these inane things you said.



First of all, I do not think it is useful to have a pharmacy and a PBM in bed together. I think PBM's, in general, are a wonderful entity that helps in cost containment. A PBM is the entity that keeps pharmacies from charging outrageous prices for cheap medications. What happens when the PBM and the pharmacy are the same entity? How does that benefit anyone? When your PBM mandates that you utilize the parent company's pharmacy, I don't see that as useful.

Secondly, most employer-based coverage is cheaper for the actual employee (maybe not always for the employer, however) relative to private coverage -- even with Affordable Care Act subsidies. The people who are receiving the largest amount in subsidies don't have an option for employer coverage to begin with. How can you possibly say that it's the responsibility of the consumer to drop their employer coverage just to opt out of a certain PBM? That is so narrow-minded and specious.

"How do you incentivize driving down costs?" -- Please explain to me how a PBM mandating you use a certain pharmacy is helping to drive down costs? The PBM is the entity paying for the medications. They dictate the price once you're enrolled. If a PBM had a completely open network allowing all pharmacies, then it wouldn't even matter what pharmacy you use -- if the pharmacy refuses to fill the medications because of low reimbursement, then that's their perogative. The only thing Caremark is trying to incentivize is using their parent company's pharmacy so that the bottom line will be larger. There is nothing about CVS/Caremark being in bed together that incentivizes cost control or makes the patient healthier.

Competition keeps pharmacies from charging outrageous prices not pbms. Employer based plans are cheaper to the employee because they are heavily subsidized by the employer but more costly overall due to pbms exaggerating their cost containment abilities to large employers. That tab has been growing over the years ( pbms failed? ). A narrow network pbm conceivably charges a lower premium and deductible to the consumer which obviously would be a popular feature. A pharmacy like Walmart would accept lower reimbursements to capitalize on the foot traffic. Win-win-win to those who can agree to those terms and healthcare costs are driven down overall.

 

[BMBiology]

benefits are resetting from what I heard from a current Target Rph

If benefits are resetting then that sucks for Target pharmacists especially those who left CVS for Target. I figure they would get what they would have gotten if they had worked at CVS.

I think that is what they did with Sav-on. For example, someone who has worked at Sav-on for 10 years would get the same benefits as someone who had worked 10 years at CVS.

 

[PharFromNormal]

Surely you are joking with these inane things you said.



First of all, I do not think it is useful to have a pharmacy and a PBM in bed together. I think PBM's, in general, are a wonderful entity that helps in cost containment. A PBM is the entity that keeps pharmacies from charging outrageous prices for cheap medications. What happens when the PBM and the pharmacy are the same entity? How does that benefit anyone? When your PBM mandates that you utilize the parent company's pharmacy, I don't see that as useful.

Secondly, most employer-based coverage is cheaper for the actual employee (maybe not always for the employer, however) relative to private coverage -- even with Affordable Care Act subsidies. The people who are receiving the largest amount in subsidies don't have an option for employer coverage to begin with. How can you possibly say that it's the responsibility of the consumer to drop their employer coverage just to opt out of a certain PBM? That is so narrow-minded and specious.

"How do you incentivize driving down costs?" -- Please explain to me how a PBM mandating you use a certain pharmacy is helping to drive down costs? The PBM is the entity paying for the medications. They dictate the price once you're enrolled. If a PBM had a completely open network allowing all pharmacies, then it wouldn't even matter what pharmacy you use -- if the pharmacy refuses to fill the medications because of low reimbursement, then that's their perogative. The only thing Caremark is trying to incentivize is using their parent company's pharmacy so that the bottom line will be larger. There is nothing about CVS/Caremark being in bed together that incentivizes cost control or makes the patient healthier.

You missed the middle section where I say, provide an alternative, not just complain about the current but I see you couldn't do that. If choice of pharmacy REALLY means that much to a person (over additional cost and effort) they will find a way to use the pharmacy they want. Now granted I believe cash is king so I doubt many people make this decision but it speaks to what really matters, money.

You are correct the PBM is the director payor to the pharmacy, but surely you are smart enough to understand the PBMs have a customer too. The PBMs compete with each other to drive down cost for their customers (the health plans). If they aren't competitive, they fail. The health plans also have a customer, which brings this all back full circle which try to meet the needs of their customer.

When you stop looking at everything as wrong vs. right and understand as much of the picture as possible you realize there isn't right or wrong. Different organizations employ different strategies in effort to gain the best position they can in the marketplace. Everyone has someone higher on the food chain and lower on the food chain.

 

[Dred Pirate]

If benefits are resetting then that sucks for Target pharmacists especially those who left CVS for Target. I figure they would get what they would have gotten if they had worked at CVS.

I think that is what they did with Sav-on. For example, someone who has worked at Sav-on for 10 years would get the same benefits as someone who had worked 10 years at CVS.

It is absolutely crappy (to be nice). This person told me they get paid out for what vacation they have already accumulated and then go back to zero.