CVS ending cigarette sales

[opus1]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
...I am not saying they should be banned. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. But, the total cost of unpaid medical bills related to smoking ought to be tallied up and divided by the total number of cigs sold per year.
I thought that was the intent of the tobacco settlement with the Feds a while back?

 

[DBMaster]

Intent? Yes, intent. I am very doubtful that all the costs are rolled into prices. Even the costs of maintaining and cleaning smoking areas should be included. I have two coworkers who are smokers. I like them very much and they work hard. Yet, they take 10-15 minute smoke breaks every hour or so. (Because they have to go outside to a designated area)

So, in the end, they work at least an hour less than I do every day, simply because they are smokers. One of them has "allergies" and takes a sick day or "work from home" day at least twice a month. So, yes, the costs to society related to smokers is exorbitant.

Of course, so is the cost of obesity, drug use, unsafe sexual practices, etc. It's just that, due to the history of tobacco use in the world, there is still much debate of how to classify those costs.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: opus1
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
...I am not saying they should be banned. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. But, the total cost of unpaid medical bills related to smoking ought to be tallied up and divided by the total number of cigs sold per year.
I thought that was the intent of the tobacco settlement with the Feds a while back?

It sure was and the money stolen and used for anything and everything else but that.
After all if you are a dope addict you are sick, a full blown alcoholic you have a disease,
an over weight fat pig, its not your fault its those evil fast food places that did it to you, on an on.

But if your a smoke you are just a piece of shi. that deserves to get cancer and friggin die.
I smoke electronic cigs most of the time but still there was more than enough money paid to help people with the cost of getting off cigs.

Not only did the they use that money they tax smokes at $6 a pack to pay for the health care of illegal immigrant children (MA) and not to subsidize the smokers health care.
The American public has been brainwashed and hoodwinked 100% by these special interest groups into believing it is okay and correct to punish victims and applaud anything being done in the name of the cause even if that includes denial of health care.

Who is going to complain? The brainwashed non smokers who hate? Not likely
I say the State Governments owes smokers at this point 100 billion dollars that should be used on their behalf.

Quote:
So far tobacco companies have paid more than $100 billion to state governments as part of the 25-year, $246 billion settlement.

 

[andrewg]

It's a business decision. Nothing else to it.
I do however get very tired of the constant insults and attacks upon those that choose to smoke. I've watched our culture in this country change drastically in this regard to the extent that it's now accepted to bash smokers at will. But start talking about pot smokers....well then that's another story then, isn't it? Hypocrites.
Anyway...like I am saying, CVS is just making a businesses decision no matter how THEY or anybody else spins it otherwise.

 

[Vikas]

People who are advocating pricing toboco products based upon their "true cost"; are you willing to consider pricing the gasoline based upon its "true cost" (that includes all the adventures in the Middle East and all the air pollution) too?

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
People who are advocating pricing toboco products based upon their "true cost"; are you willing to consider pricing the gasoline based upon its "true cost" (that includes all the adventures in the Middle East and all the air pollution) too?


Good point.

The same could be applied to the "true cost" of alcohol.

 

[DBMaster]

YES. One of the reasons we overconsume in this country is because we rarely pay the true cost of anything.

Aside from that, I never stated that we SHOULD price tobacco products that way. It was just a way to get you thinking.

In the USA we seem to feel that it is our divine right to consume far more than we need simply because we CAN. I am not trying to start a debate, though on BITOG it is inevitable. Most of us, if we tried even a little, could find ways to use less and still be perfectly satisfied.

Take my neighbors, for example, who can't even be bothered to turn off their automatic sprinklers in the winter and end up watering dormant grass. All of our area lakes are below optimal levels and dropping. Tell me that it would be a major hardship for them to flip a switch in November. SAD!

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Now the rest of the story.
They are hoping to become a health care provider.
I knew there was more to this than good public image. I will bet money this whole thing comes down like a house of cards.

Quote:
Still, the company’s stock fell today about 1.7 percent as of 11:17 a.m. to $65.00. The move is expected to cut 6 to 9 cents of revenue per share this year, and about 17 cents annually next year.


This is going to be interesting to watch i figured this was going to happen, i don't believe it will be short term either, investors may not going to share the vision of the misguided CEO.

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/cvs_tobacco_sales_2_billion_obama_health_care.html


Thank you for the perspective. There will be wholesale "change" for sure in the providing of healthcare for those not really sick/ill. CVS is simply aligning themselves with the money!

 

[99Saturn]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Most people probably purchase their tobacco at convenience stores, grocery stores, or Wal-Mart. Usually convenience stores have the best prices on tobacco products because they play a much bigger role in their overall sales.

This am I heard the %age of tobacco sales from all drugs stores was something like 3.5%, maybe it was 5%, but not much compared to all tobacco sales across the country.

--

I wouldn't be at all surprised if like Trav said, they want to go into the healthcare business. They are a monster in the PBM market in the US, I think number two with pretty a distant number 3. A lot of the "smaller" providers on the prescription side like United already have a semi-one stop shopping mentality with healthcare and prescription service, so why not reverse the model and start a small arm in the healthcare arena. CVS is hungrier than just making the next acquisition, and showed they were willing to shake up the model with the CVS/Caremark combination.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
^Not that I am a fan of the product, but what do you find objectionable about 5-Hour Energy?

It doesn't exactly help people on their path to better health...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2...r-energy-drink/



No but it sure as heck helps when you are driving on the interstate at 3AM and your eyes feel like lead. I don't advocate using it daily but it is a great help on long distance driving trips.

 

[strat81]

The problem with "true cost" and health costs is that we generally do not charge higher health insurance premiums for those with "risky" behavior.

Ever have to get the mini-physical for life insurance? Smoke, diabetic, overweight? You pay a higher premium.

Car insurance? Speeding, DUI, crashes... pay more.

My co-workers that smoke, are diabetic, are overweight... they're charged the same premium as the marathon runner and triathlete.

Health insurance is no longer a tool to mitigate risk. It has to be *fair*. Bad decisions no longer have consequences.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
^Not that I am a fan of the product, but what do you find objectionable about 5-Hour Energy?

It doesn't exactly help people on their path to better health...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2...r-energy-drink/



No but it sure as heck helps when you are driving on the interstate at 3AM and your eyes feel like lead. I don't advocate using it daily but it is a great help on long distance driving trips.

Maybe, but I think it would be safer for everyone on the road to pull over and get some sleep instead of drugging yourself up with this junk. Spread the driving over several days if you have to. And if you need to get somewhere fast, there are other means of transportation to do that.

 

[99Saturn]

Originally Posted By: strat81
The problem with "true cost" and health costs is that we generally do not charge higher health insurance premiums for those with "risky" behavior.

Ever have to get the mini-physical for life insurance? Smoke, diabetic, overweight? You pay a higher premium.

Car insurance? Speeding, DUI, crashes... pay more.

My co-workers that smoke, are diabetic, are overweight... they're charged the same premium as the marathon runner and triathlete.

Health insurance is no longer a tool to mitigate risk. It has to be *fair*. Bad decisions no longer have consequences.


The same thing exists already in the health insurance arena for smoking and other things.

Many plans charge members more if they are smokers... actually, I guess you get a discount if you don't smoke. Last time I checked, my gf's plan was at least double the cost is you smoked. They gave you 4 to 6 months notice to stop or you paid the higher premium next year.

It's not uncommon now to get a discount for healthier lifestyle, cash off your premium if you exercise, cash off if you lose 10lbs, reduce BMI. Smoking is being banned from many corporate locations (at least here). Less out of pocket if you have your preventative care each year... tons of possibilities.

There are savings in premiums if you take more risk as the individual as well (higher deductible, worse coverage, lower premium (just like car insurance).

I'm not saying you're paying your "true cost", but there are certainly moves to make individuals a company determines to potentially be more expensive pay more.

 

[RTexasF]

That figures......CVS is the only place I can find my smokes.

 

[SatinSilver]

Hope they don't get rid of the candy ones. Those things are good!

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: 99Saturn

The same thing exists already in the health insurance arena for smoking and other things.

Many plans charge members more if they are smokers... actually, I guess you get a discount if you don't smoke. Last time I checked, my gf's plan was at least double the cost is you smoked. They gave you 4 to 6 months notice to stop or you paid the higher premium next year.


What kind of plan is that? Invididual, group, something else?

I've been at my current employer for over eight years and I've never had to answer any questions about my health, exercise habits, smoking habits, etc. Based on the payroll deductions and insurance payments I review, every individual is charged the same premium regardless of age, smoker, etc.

Granted, this is a sample size of 1...

 

[Win]

Really, at the retail level, there is just not a lot of profit on a pack of smokes.

It's hardly worth fooling with. If not for the rebates, promotions, kickbacks, whatever you want to call it, that the manufacturers run, and the other products people buy when they come in for smokes, it wouldn't be. And it barely is even with that. The ridiculous price of a pack is almost all taxes.

This could be just a simple decision to go with selling some other product that is less regulated, less taxed, and has a better ROI, with window dressing on it to give the smoking haters something to pat themselves on the back over, and feel even more self righteous about.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted By: strat81
Originally Posted By: 99Saturn

The same thing exists already in the health insurance arena for smoking and other things.

Many plans charge members more if they are smokers... actually, I guess you get a discount if you don't smoke. Last time I checked, my gf's plan was at least double the cost is you smoked. They gave you 4 to 6 months notice to stop or you paid the higher premium next year.


What kind of plan is that? Invididual, group, something else?

I've been at my current employer for over eight years and I've never had to answer any questions about my health, exercise habits, smoking habits, etc. Based on the payroll deductions and insurance payments I review, every individual is charged the same premium regardless of age, smoker, etc.

Granted, this is a sample size of 1...



My employer started adding a monthly surcharge for tobacco users about three years ago. They also started doing annual "health screenings." They measure weight, BMI, cholesterol, blood sugar, BP, triglycerides, etc. I knew that there was an ulterior motive behind it. This year we learned that starting with the 2015 benefit year they would be looking for "improvements" in any of those figures that were "outside the norms." If no improvement is seen it will be reflected in our health premiums.

It is interesting to me that Obamacare eliminates pricing based upon preexisting conditions yet employers have found ways around it. This is further argument to me that healthcare needs to be completely divorced from the workplace. I have been saying it ever since my first job and stand by the statement.

 

[99Saturn]

Originally Posted By: strat81
Originally Posted By: 99Saturn

The same thing exists already in the health insurance arena for smoking and other things.

Many plans charge members more if they are smokers... actually, I guess you get a discount if you don't smoke. Last time I checked, my gf's plan was at least double the cost is you smoked. They gave you 4 to 6 months notice to stop or you paid the higher premium next year.


What kind of plan is that? Invididual, group, something else?

I've been at my current employer for over eight years and I've never had to answer any questions about my health, exercise habits, smoking habits, etc. Based on the payroll deductions and insurance payments I review, every individual is charged the same premium regardless of age, smoker, etc.

Granted, this is a sample size of 1...


That the setup at a fairly large corporation in the NY/NJ area.

Just to be clear, the company never said you must tell us anything about your health or personal habits (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.). The company organized the benefits so that your cost every paycheck is X, but if you say you are not a smoker, it's X/2, or X-Y. There was nothing sold as individual employees are forced to pay more, but those that engage in this type of program pay less (granted IMO it's evident that some calculation was done that smokers cost more to insure on average then non-smokers so the company baked in some additional cost to a premium to then provide the discount to some portion of the workforce).

Honestly though this is one among many out there that I have seen.
- I know one company that lowered your deductible every year you went though preventative healthcare appointments (yes your deductible eventually went to zero).
- Health screenings for stuff like cholesterol, BMI, etc. - typically what I have seen is a lower premium if you engage in getting the test, though I know at least 1 company that will have it reflect in premiums in the future. (Pretty much spot on to what DBMaster outlined above.)
- "Sharing the risk" with the type of plan (PPO, HMO, HDHP) the last two companies I have been at engaged in that.
- Reflection in cheaper premiums, credits to an HSA, or credits to the employee for engaging in wellness activities (heat walks, gym membership, weight watchers, etc.).

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster


My employer started adding a monthly surcharge for tobacco users about three years ago. They also started doing annual "health screenings." They measure weight, BMI, cholesterol, blood sugar, BP, triglycerides, etc. I knew that there was an ulterior motive behind it. This year we learned that starting with the 2015 benefit year they would be looking for "improvements" in any of those figures that were "outside the norms." If no improvement is seen it will be reflected in our health premiums.


Interesting. A few years ago my company started doing the screenings, just free clinics; they also hand out flu shots at the same time. Ding ding ding, what you pointed out makes sense: my company self-insures, so it would make sense to get an idea how the employees are doing. I'll be interested now to see if the future brings about what you mentioned.