CVS losing business

Started by mikejones123
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
M

mikejones123

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
For CVS pharmacists that have stores near Walgreens, have you experienced a huge drop in business after the first of the year.

I really can't explain why. I heard while CVS is spending billions buying out public companies....Walgreens has strategically made deals with private insurers and has had a surge in business. I've been with CVS for 15 years and have never experienced such a drop in business. This explains why alot of the supervisors and DMs were let go last month and why CVS executives sold over 100 million in stock last quarter. I feel CVS bought Aetna out of desperation. Company has poor management and micromanages to much which leads to them missing the big picture.
 
I have seen similar trend. Specifically with Florida blue members. We got response from our DM that they expected this since some self-funded, large clients of BCBSFL moved their membership to a network that excludes CVS from january 1st and expected to loose 164,000 scripts.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
These big chains brought this upon themselves. Patients should be able to choose whatever pharmacy they want to go to, even if there insurance company is owned by CVS. Until this is fixed, there will continue to be huge fluctuations in script numbers.
 
8turkeys said:
These big chains brought this upon themselves. Patients should be able to choose whatever pharmacy they want to go to, even if there insurance company is owned by CVS. Until this is fixed, there will continue to be huge fluctuations in script numbers.
Click to expand...

What’s the fix? All cash pay patients? Insurance reimbursing pharmacies at whatever rate the pharmacy wants?
 
My store is plenty busy and increasing script count. Tons of transfer daily from Rite Aid and Walgreens..so yeah. Busy winter months and flu pandemic is pushing script count to excessively level versus last year. I'm talking about almost a thousand more/week increase vs LYTD.
 
The only was I see independents and small chains making a big comeback is single payer healthcare. Pay the same flat dispensing fee to every Pharmacy. And makes it easier for people to start their own business because they don’t have to rely on their employer for health insurance or pay a huge premium for individual plan.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
It's the opposite in my town. We were transferring 50 scripts a day from Walgreens for the first few weeks of the year due to insurance contract changes. We were getting buried.
Click to expand...

Must depend on the state then. I'm in the northeast and we are losing scripts to walgreens. We panicked in december when they cut our hours drastically for January since historically January is one of the busiest months. But looks like they were anticipating the loss of scripts. Were the scripts you were transferring in Aetna customers??
 
ChalupaBatman86 said:
The only was I see independents and small chains making a big comeback is single payer healthcare. Pay the same flat dispensing fee to every Pharmacy. And makes it easier for people to start their own business because they don’t have to rely on their employer for health insurance or pay a huge premium for individual plan.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Click to expand...

I agree. Single payer would be a blessing for our profession long term. Single payer will also stop the scam PBM and drug manufacturers are participating in. They are colluding together to milk state and federal programs. They jack up the prices on certain drugs and then provide kickbacks to private insurers but not to federal and state programs. Basically placing the burden on taxpayers to fund their billions in profits. But the fearmongering and effective misinformation campaigns from the republicans will never let single payer happen.
 
mikejones123 said:
I agree. Single payer would be a blessing for our profession long term. Single payer will also stop the scam PBM and drug manufacturers are participating in. They are colluding together to milk state and federal programs. They jack up the prices on certain drugs and then provide kickbacks to private insurers but not to federal and state programs. Basically placing the burden on taxpayers to fund their billions in profits. But the fearmongering and effective misinformation campaigns from the republicans will never let single payer happen.
Click to expand...
L m a o.

If even 30% of our scripts were Medicaid we'd probably tank
 
mikejones123 said:
I agree. Single payer would be a blessing for our profession long term. Single payer will also stop the scam PBM and drug manufacturers are participating in. They are colluding together to milk state and federal programs. They jack up the prices on certain drugs and then provide kickbacks to private insurers but not to federal and state programs. Basically placing the burden on taxpayers to fund their billions in profits. But the fearmongering and effective misinformation campaigns from the republicans will never let single payer happen.
Click to expand...

What constitutes a blessing for our profession? Better reimbursement? Higher wages? More scope of practice? What? I’m genuinely curious. If single payer means a 50% wage cut are we good with that? Do we believe that if PBMs disappear we are in a better position or we just get satisfaction that there isn’t a corporate pbm making money anymore? I get hating “the man” of the PBM but I struggle to understand how the profession gets BETTER if they go away. Maybe it wouldn’t get worse at as fast a pace but a drastic turn around is hard to understand.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
mikejones123 said:
Must depend on the state then. I'm in the northeast and we are losing scripts to walgreens. We panicked in december when they cut our hours drastically for January since historically January is one of the busiest months. But looks like they were anticipating the loss of scripts. Were the scripts you were transferring in Aetna customers??
Click to expand...

Also in Northeast. We have been receiving a lot of transfers from Rite Aid/Walgreens stores. "I've been using Rite Aid for years and now my insurance is making me switch!!!!"
 
CetiAlphaFive said:
L m a o.

If even 30% of our scripts were Medicaid we'd probably tank
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand my point. I'm not claiming Medicaid reimbursements are high for pharmacies. What I am saying is that the point of the collusion between PBM and drug manufacturers is to make federal and state programs pay a higher cost for drugs.
 
PharFromNormal said:
What constitutes a blessing for our profession? Better reimbursement? Higher wages? More scope of practice? What? I’m genuinely curious. If single payer means a 50% wage cut are we good with that? Do we believe that if PBMs disappear we are in a better position or we just get satisfaction that there isn’t a corporate pbm making money anymore? I get hating “the man” of the PBM but I struggle to understand how the profession gets BETTER if they go away. Maybe it wouldn’t get worse at as fast a pace but a drastic turn around is hard to understand.
Click to expand...

What constitutes a blessing for our profession? More opportunity for ownership, more control over our careers, better working conditions, stronger pharmacist lobbying power. Same reimbursements between chains and independents will result in leveling the playing field.

PBMs negotiate reimbursements very unfairly with pharmacies. Since PBMs also operate large-volume mail-order pharmacies, they have detailed information about the rebates they negotiate that reduce WAC to actual generic drug acquisition cost. They use this info to minimize pharmacy reimbursement for generic drugs thus reducing margins overall across the industry. If we had single payer that would not be the case. Medicare for all would be a huge step forward for pharmacists. The current system will lead to less pharmacist ownership, less pharmacy jobs and worsening working conditions.
 
mikejones123 said:
What constitutes a blessing for our profession? More opportunity for ownership, more control over our careers, better working conditions, stronger pharmacist lobbying power. Same reimbursements between chains and independents will result in leveling the playing field.

PBMs negotiate reimbursements very unfairly with pharmacies. Since PBMs also operate large-volume mail-order pharmacies, they have detailed information about the rebates they negotiate that reduce WAC to actual generic drug acquisition cost. They use this info to minimize pharmacy reimbursement for generic drugs thus reducing margins overall across the industry. If we had single payer that would not be the case. Medicare for all would be a huge step forward for pharmacists. The current system will lead to less pharmacist ownership, less pharmacy jobs and worsening working conditions.
Click to expand...

I’m all for leveling the reimbursement. I guess my point is what makes anyone think that the leveling will be a favorable leveling? Is there a theory out there that if everyone gets equal rates that the rates will actually improve or get lower but all equal.

On that note it seems you don’t think reimbursement should be tied to actual acquisition cost as in what the pharmacy actually paid to get the drug on the shelf after all rebates. Where is the incentive to drive down the cost of medicine? I take you as someone knowledgeable about the economics of the business, which I appreciate. You probably also can probably piece together the hospital rationale of super high list prices they show patients but few actually pay. What’s a fair gross margin for a pharmacy? Even better what’s a fair net profit margin? Do you not think the government will also try and be just as aggressive to not pay more than the “should”.
Also what does “Medicare for all” with pharmacy look like? Everyone has a Medicare D plan that’s still operated by giant PBMs? If not who’s going to be responsible for all the real time adjudication? Do we even have that or need that anymore? Where are there any real implementation ideas around this pharmacy transformation that I can educate myself on?
 
mikejones123 said:
I don't think you understand my point. I'm not claiming Medicaid reimbursements are high for pharmacies. What I am saying is that the point of the collusion between PBM and drug manufacturers is to make federal and state programs pay a higher cost for drugs.
Click to expand...

What I'm about to say is gonna sound rude, but I really don't mean it that way.

I don't think you understand how AWPs work or how they affect reimbursement.
 
PharFromNormal said:
What constitutes a blessing for our profession? Better reimbursement? Higher wages? More scope of practice? What? I’m genuinely curious. If single payer means a 50% wage cut are we good with that? Do we believe that if PBMs disappear we are in a better position or we just get satisfaction that there isn’t a corporate pbm making money anymore? I get hating “the man” of the PBM but I struggle to understand how the profession gets BETTER if they go away. Maybe it wouldn’t get worse at as fast a pace but a drastic turn around is hard to understand.
Click to expand...

Better reimbursements = better wages. A single health payer means that. Canadian Pharmacists do pretty well for themselves.

Right now the system is killing us. CVS and a lot of insurances pay a lot of drugs at a loss. At this rate, most independents will be out of business especially since most brand name drugs (where we make the money) have gone generic.

50 cent profit for Amoxicillin is break even after label, vial, processing fee. Loses on test strips, birth control, where we get reimburse below cost etc
 
Aznfarmerboi said:
Better reimbursements = better wages. A single health payer means that. Canadian Pharmacists do pretty well for themselves.

Right now the system is killing us. CVS and a lot of insurances pay a lot of drugs at a loss. At this rate, most independents will be out of business especially since most brand name drugs (where we make the money) have gone generic.

50 cent profit for Amoxicillin is break even after label, vial, processing fee. Loses on test strips, birth control, where we get reimburse below cost etc
Click to expand...

You believe a single payer system = better reimbursements? Are you talking top line or bottom line? Increasing margin as a % doesn’t help that much if top line is slashed. When people talk about medications in other countries costing a pennies on the dollar... that’s what you need to base your improved reimbursement off of. If you can provide any resources/references on Canadian and any other single payer rph salary that’s on a constant currency basis (converted to USD) that’d be awesome. I’m genuinely curious.
 
CetiAlphaFive said:
What I'm about to say is gonna sound rude, but I really don't mean it that way.

I don't think you understand how AWPs work or how they affect reimbursement.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand my point at all. PBMs are the main culprit in why reimbursements are going down. They do this in two ways.

1. They work with drug manufacturers to artificially increase the cost of a drug. PBMs actually inflate prices because the rebates they negotiate get factored into the initial cost of the drug.

2. They negotiate plans for Medicaid programs where they drastically slash reimbursements.

Medicaid spending has doubled over the last 5 years, yet pharmacies face sweeping cuts. Where did the money go???

PBMs

Single payer is the only way to get rid of this crap.
 
mikejones123 said:
I don't think you understand my point at all. PBMs are the main culprit in why reimbursements are going down. They do this in two ways.

1. They work with drug manufacturers to artificially increase the cost of a drug. PBMs actually inflate prices because the rebates they negotiate get factored into the initial cost of the drug.

2. They negotiate plans for Medicaid programs where they drastically slash reimbursements.

Medicaid spending has doubled over the last 5 years, yet pharmacies face sweeping cuts. Where did the money go???

PBMs

Single payer is the only way to get rid of this crap.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you understand mine. Of course PBMs are the reason why drug reimbursement is going down. That is their value proposition in the marketplace to payers that have less scale than them. A single patient or an employer or a health plan has much less leverage on their own than a pool of them. Single payer, as I understand the current thinking related to pharmacy, would essentially further combine that purchasing power of all the PBMs into essentially one national government run PBM that would slash reimbursement even more. Again please look for pharmacy wages in other countries. A quick search yielded me Canadian rphs average 80k a year AND the median wage of all residents was higher than the US. Meaning pharmacists make less and are even closer to the median salary than the US. So sure they are doing fine but by the numbers US rph are still doing much better. If you really want a laugh look at European salaries. 40-60k/year. Sure no evil PBMs but your making 1/3-1/2 the amount in salary. Bottom line: continue to hate the PBMs and the system we have but make sure you understand all the unintended consequences of the alternative system you think is better.
 
mikejones123 said:
1. They work with drug manufacturers to artificially increase the cost of a drug. PBMs actually inflate prices because the rebates they negotiate get factored into the initial cost of the drug.
Click to expand...

I think what you mean to say here is that manufacturers, knowing the net price of the drug will be much lower, have artificially higher list prices (AWP) than what the drug ultimately gets acquired through the supply chain at and what gets reimbursed at the pharmacy for. While list price inflation is definitely real, the net acquisition and reimbursement trend is much different. Much depends on what’s important to you. Total profit $ or profit as a % of revenue. 20% on $100 < 15% on $200. OMG 5% margin erosion!!! But gross profit dollars are up... again what do you want. Higher % or higher total dollars?
 
PharFromNormal said:
I don’t think you understand mine. Of course PBMs are the reason why drug reimbursement is going down. That is their value proposition in the marketplace to payers that have less scale than them. A single patient or an employer or a health plan has much less leverage on their own than a pool of them. Single payer, as I understand the current thinking related to pharmacy, would essentially further combine that purchasing power of all the PBMs into essentially one national government run PBM that would slash reimbursement even more. Again please look for pharmacy wages in other countries. A quick search yielded me Canadian rphs average 80k a year AND the median wage of all residents was higher than the US. Meaning pharmacists make less and are even closer to the median salary than the US. So sure they are doing fine but by the numbers US rph are still doing much better. If you really want a laugh look at European salaries. 40-60k/year. Sure no evil PBMs but your making 1/3-1/2 the amount in salary. Bottom line: continue to hate the PBMs and the system we have but make sure you understand all the unintended consequences of the alternative system you think is better.
Click to expand...


1. You fail to account for the lower cost of living in canada

2. You fail to account for the considerably lower cost of health care spending per capita in Canada compared to here

3.
http://bionj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/drug-costs-driven-by-rebates.pdf

Explain to me what are the unintended consequences of single payer that are worse than the current scam PBMs are conducting on taxpayers and the overall healthcare system
 
mikejones123 said:
1. You fail to account for the lower cost of living in canada

2. You fail to account for the considerably lower cost of health care spending per capita in Canada compared to here

3.
http://bionj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/drug-costs-driven-by-rebates.pdf

Explain to me what are the unintended consequences of single payer that are worse than the current scam PBMs are conducting on taxpayers and the overall healthcare system
Click to expand...

Insurers pass back a significant amount of rebates back to their payers. It’s going to be a never ending argument over what is or isn’t happening. I totally understand your perspective. Maybe to say it bluntly, I agree with you that a single payer system could provide a tremendous opportunity to take a huge amount of revenues out of the healthcare system. From a tax payer perspective and someone who considers themselves conservative from a financial sense this is very clear to me. Again however my question remains that as a pharmacist do you really understand the impact of single payer on your business and business model. It’s not wrong to think that the pros of single payer outweigh the cons that come of a change of massive magnitude to our healthcare system. With a significant GDP and job exposure to our curry fragmented healthcare system, the impact of changing to single payer would be much much much broader than just being happy that “the man” who has constantly been pinching pennies from us now has what’s been coming to them. Going back to my first question it seems as a profession as whole there hasn’t been a “right” answer to the question of what’s best for the profession. “Better Reimbursement” is often quoted but even with your rationale, better reimbursement (via govt payers like Medicaid) comes at the cost of the taxpayer who is also us. I fully agree with you that it’s a big shuffle of revenue with non-transparent costs and reimbursements and rebates in today’s system. While every stakeholder is making claim to trying to serve the altruistic purpose of better patient outcomes at lower payer costs with as high of patient access as possible... many, if not all, stakeholders have a benefit when in favorable arrangements where there are worse patient outcomes, higher payer costs or limited patient access. Pharmacists and dispensing pharmacy businesses are not immune to that. The sicker the patient, the more meds they are on, the more revenue they are bringing into your business. A higher margin for pharmacy means the payer is spending even more than it has to when it comes to true net cost of medication and dispensing (true acquisition + operating cost). By your same logic of the taxpayer taking on the cost of Medicaid, it’s hard to not realize if we took less of a salary and got comfortable making less profit, the cost to Medicaid could decrease and our liability as a taxpayer could also decrease. It’s ok to say single payer is a better system but then we should also be comfortable making less profit as a business and in turn less salary as a pharmacist.
 
Many European countries require pharmacies to be owned by a pharmacist and some don’t allow chains. More likely you would be a business owner instead of an employee.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
mikejones123 said:
Explain to me what are the unintended consequences of single payer that are worse than the current scam PBMs are conducting on taxpayers and the overall healthcare system
Click to expand...

You are a pharmacist that is dependent on dollars that are paid by what you are also... a taxpayer.

Maybe to summarize the question I’m trying to ask is: What concern is greater? Your concerns as a taxpayer? Or you concern as a pharmacist?

Resolving concerns of you as a pharmacist requires additional concerning actions to the tax payer.

Resolving concerns of you as a taxpayer requires additional concerning actions to the pharmacy business.
 
Apparently my pharmacy was such a **** show that they are "pre-flexing" (literally the term they used) our demand hours because we are so far over expected script count. If you've been in low tech hour misery thus far this year, look for your store to get more hours in a few weeks.

And this stands to reason that there will be another "flex" of said hours for all of the other stores, I guess.

That said, this pretty much confirms my theory that they just cut everyone's hours to hell, made some people work in misery for a month and change to figure out who actually "needs" the help, then adjusted accordingly.
 
PharFromNormal said:
Insurers pass back a significant amount of rebates back to their payers. It’s going to be a never ending argument over what is or isn’t happening. I totally understand your perspective. Maybe to say it bluntly, I agree with you that a single payer system could provide a tremendous opportunity to take a huge amount of revenues out of the healthcare system. From a tax payer perspective and someone who considers themselves conservative from a financial sense this is very clear to me. Again however my question remains that as a pharmacist do you really understand the impact of single payer on your business and business model. It’s not wrong to think that the pros of single payer outweigh the cons that come of a change of massive magnitude to our healthcare system. With a significant GDP and job exposure to our curry fragmented healthcare system, the impact of changing to single payer would be much much much broader than just being happy that “the man” who has constantly been pinching pennies from us now has what’s been coming to them. Going back to my first question it seems as a profession as whole there hasn’t been a “right” answer to the question of what’s best for the profession. “Better Reimbursement” is often quoted but even with your rationale, better reimbursement (via govt payers like Medicaid) comes at the cost of the taxpayer who is also us. I fully agree with you that it’s a big shuffle of revenue with non-transparent costs and reimbursements and rebates in today’s system. While every stakeholder is making claim to trying to serve the altruistic purpose of better patient outcomes at lower payer costs with as high of patient access as possible... many, if not all, stakeholders have a benefit when in favorable arrangements where there are worse patient outcomes, higher payer costs or limited patient access. Pharmacists and dispensing pharmacy businesses are not immune to that. The sicker the patient, the more meds they are on, the more revenue they are bringing into your business. A higher margin for pharmacy means the payer is spending even more than it has to when it comes to true net cost of medication and dispensing (true acquisition + operating cost). By your same logic of the taxpayer taking on the cost of Medicaid, it’s hard to not realize if we took less of a salary and got comfortable making less profit, the cost to Medicaid could decrease and our liability as a taxpayer could also decrease. It’s ok to say single payer is a better system but then we should also be comfortable making less profit as a business and in turn less salary as a pharmacist.
Click to expand...


Why do you assume in a single payer system that profits and salary will decrease??

PBMs are an unnecessary middle man. They were created in the 60s because insurance companies couldn't keep up with processing claims because of a surge in prescriptions. They were supposed to be the middle man between insurers, pharmacies, and manufacturers. They have clearly abused their position for profit.

Getting rid of PBMs will help pharmacists AND the taxpayer because we will finally have transparency. PBMs keep pharmacies in the dark.

All I'm arguing is that single payer will get rid of PBMs and that is a positive step for our healthcare system and profession.

You haven't articulated an adequate reason to why that is not the case.
 
mikejones123 said:
Why do you assume in a single payer system that profits and salary will decrease??

PBMs are an unnecessary middle man. They were created in the 60s because insurance companies couldn't keep up with processing claims because of a surge in prescriptions. They were supposed to be the middle man between insurers, pharmacies, and manufacturers. They have clearly abused their position for profit.

Getting rid of PBMs will help pharmacists AND the taxpayer because we will finally have transparency. PBMs keep pharmacies in the dark.

All I'm arguing is that single payer will get rid of PBMs and that is a positive step for our healthcare system and profession.

You haven't articulated an adequate reason to why that is not the case.
Click to expand...

I am in favor of single payer personally but let me ask you this: If we had single payer healthcare what would stop the single payer from using there incredible leverage/buying power from driving reimbursement even lower than it is now? The government has no profit motive but it does have an interest in keep costs as low as possible and has significantly more power to do so than any single PBM. Why do you think the government will be a better payer than private companies?
 
owlegrad said:
I am in favor of single payer personally but let me ask you this: If we had single payer healthcare what would stop the single payer from using there incredible leverage/buying power from driving reimbursement even lower than it is now? The government has no profit motive but it does have an interest in keep costs as low as possible and has significantly more power to do so than any single PBM. Why do you think the government will be a better payer than private companies?
Click to expand...


If the government wants to cut costs it will focus on using its leverage to drive down the cost of drugs not cutting already low reimbursements. The pressure will be felt on drug manufacturers.

Why do you think the government will be a better payer than private companies?

Standardization and more Transparency
 
mikejones123 said:
If the government wants to cut costs it will focus on using its leverage to drive down the cost of drugs not cutting already low reimbursements. The pressure will be felt on drug manufacturers.

Why do you think the government will be a better payer than private companies?

Standardization and more Transparency
Click to expand...

Driving down the costs of medication to the government = driving down the reimbursements to you.

So maybe the biggest question is: In your world of single payer is the government buying drug product to put on your shelf or is the government reimbursing for what you dispense?

Yes they want the manufacturers to decrease cost because that would mean you could acquire for cheaper and they can pay you less. They could act just as a PBM and decide they won’t pay for a manufacturer or a drug because it’s too expensive. If they get the manufacturer to lower their costs, do you think they’ll want to keep what they are paying you at the same higher rate?
If I’m a taxpayer and we eliminate PBMs I would say, well what were pharmacies accepting as reimbursement from the PBMs.. that’s my starting ceiling as max reimbursement. If we want to take as much cost out of the system why should we keep some around? Although they are complaining a lot they are still finding a way to get the job done at these rates. If they all the sudden don’t want to take the rates they’ve been accepting there’s still 100,000 pharmacies out there that will. It gets to an overall theme of: you can eliminate the “PBM” but you’ll never eliminate the role or force that the PBM exerts. It would just shift to a single entity (govt) that has a considerably more amount of leverage. Single payer means pharmacies have a single buyer. If they ain’t buying from you, you are in a much worse situation than be excluded from a handful of networks or non-preferred in a few others.
 
mikejones123 said:
Why do you assume in a single payer system that profits and salary will decrease??

PBMs are an unnecessary middle man. They were created in the 60s because insurance companies couldn't keep up with processing claims because of a surge in prescriptions. They were supposed to be the middle man between insurers, pharmacies, and manufacturers. They have clearly abused their position for profit.

Getting rid of PBMs will help pharmacists AND the taxpayer because we will finally have transparency. PBMs keep pharmacies in the dark.

All I'm arguing is that single payer will get rid of PBMs and that is a positive step for our healthcare system and profession.

You haven't articulated an adequate reason to why that is not the case.
Click to expand...

On your last few comments... I think my posts have been trying to understand how you think that this increased transparency will help reimbursement? Sure there’s common opinion amongst most that we are getting screwed in the dark on reimbursement. I am struggling to understand how turning the light switch on will stop us from getting pounded in the... what I fear is if anything, turning on the light might bring a bigger stronger person that pounds harder.
 
PharFromNormal said:
All for it, is there a way to stop payers from reimbursing so low on an open network that forces pharmacies to choose to not participate in the open networks?
Click to expand...

Nope, but presumable a payer that reimburses that low won't be able to find any pharmacies that are willing to be in their network and will have to raise reimbursements accordingly. Let the invisible hand do it's work. Capitalism wins again!
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Apparently my pharmacy was such a **** show that they are "pre-flexing" (literally the term they used) our demand hours because we are so far over expected script count. If you've been in low tech hour misery thus far this year, look for your store to get more hours in a few weeks.

And this stands to reason that there will be another "flex" of said hours for all of the other stores, I guess.

That said, this pretty much confirms my theory that they just cut everyone's hours to hell, made some people work in misery for a month and change to figure out who actually "needs" the help, then adjusted accordingly.
Click to expand...

Next time, talk with your PIC. Flex the moment you notice your stores are trending up in scripts. Monday budget is 800, you do 900, flex up in hours accordingly that week. MySchedule isn't flexible enough with real time flexing for customer needs. Any knowledgeable district leader would understand why you will be over hours if you are truly crushing scripts.
 
Single payer would decimate independent pharmacies. If you want CVS to be your next corporate overlord, support single payer.
 
doublehh03 said:
Next time, talk with your PIC. Flex the moment you notice your stores are trending up in scripts. Monday budget is 800, you do 900, flex up in hours accordingly that week. MySchedule isn't flexible enough with real time flexing for customer needs. Any knowledgeable district leader would understand why you will be over hours if you are truly crushing scripts.
Click to expand...

Did that. New dude got mad. Oh well.
 
I live near the border in Canada and it is amazing the number of Canadians that come down for health care here even though it is single payer there. Tends to be wealthy Canadians. Then again, world leaders from all over come for the health care here in my state which says a lot their health care system. I live in MN btw which is home to the Mayo Clinic.
 
msweph said:
Yea idk if what he said is true... I did a pharmacy admin rotation with a CVS district manager and he called a store PIC for being 1 tech hour over ... He even said he felt bad because they were over expected script count that week but he called every store that went over every time

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
that is just stupid, don't they realize that the time they waste calling for situations like that ultimately costs them more money due to lost productivity
 
Last edited:
8turkeys said:
that is just stupid, don't they realize that when they time they waste time calling for situations like that ultimately costs them more money due to lost productivity
Click to expand...

They must not because any time a sup makes a store visit, they pull the rph(s) and techs away for 30+min to talk about stupid metrics while everything turns red. The biggest disruption happens when the sup comes to berate the staff about not meeting metrics, talk about ironic.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
WVUPharm2007 said:
That said, this pretty much confirms my theory that they just cut everyone's hours to hell, made some people work in misery for a month and change to figure out who actually "needs" the help, then adjusted accordingly.
Click to expand...

Honestly, this was pretty obvious ahead of time. You just have to think like a greedy corporate person
 
knight on horse said:
Well, you know.. Indian medications did have problems
Mexico is a failed state. You should think about whether you are a mouthbreather yourself
Click to expand...
Are you sure you understand the definition of that term?
I don't think you realize that you're embarrassing yourself.

A corrupt state is not necessarily a failed state.
 
CetiAlphaFive said:
Are you sure you understand the definition of that term?
I don't think you realize that you're embarrassing yourself.

A corrupt state is not necessarily a failed state.
Click to expand...

You speak of yourself. Mexican cartels have compromised American factories. Who is going to police them, you? The confidence of the ignorant

Lol @ your 120 iq self. Your thinking is the utopian naivete that got tricked into this mess

"Why don't we have cheap laborers" applies also to pharmacy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Multiple suicides among CVS employees in Pennsylvania
Replies
9
Views
4K
bluc
B
owlegrad
CVS sucks now
Replies
6
Views
6K
clarkbar
C
D
Cvs rx connect question
Replies
1
Views
3K
Old Timer
Old Timer
P
CVS 401k Match Contribution Date
Replies
1
Views
3K
RxPreceptor
RxPreceptor
P
CVS Walkout
2
Replies
73
Views
13K
knight on horse
knight on horse