Re: Bartell discussion (specific) from Seattle Times
Posted: December 1st, 2023, 11:24 pm
You are lucky, someone negotiating for your plan has stopped the forced use of CVS from happening.
Crazy about retail.
https://www.retailwatchers.com/
You are lucky, someone negotiating for your plan has stopped the forced use of CVS from happening.
The options are definitely there... overwhelmingly so. That is also part of the problem. A lot of employers are confused and overwhelmed at renewal time, there are so many options. A good broker/agent can help but they are difficult to find and even then you worry they are presenting you only what pays them the best commission and not necessarily ALL available options. Talk to multiple brokers during renewal time and it gets even more confusing.Romr123 wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2023, 7:07 am I have no direct knowledge, but employers absolutely can mix/match PBMs and claims processors. As it's time to re-sign-up for 2024 health care, I was shopping off-exchange as our plan was discontinued for next year and we were force-placed into a slightly narrower network plan for 2024. There are so many permutations of employers just within Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan: each of the big 3 auto makers had their own plan or two, the state of Michigan, various union plans, union retiree plans, Meijer employees, and on and on and on. Multiply this over 2 other big not-for-profits in Michigan (Health Alliance Plan and Priority Health) and also the for-profits (Ambetter, Molina, etc etc etc) and then mix with a dash of "ERISA self-insured plan" and you as an employer can get anything your creative heart desires written into your plan.
There are numerous non-Aetna health plans that I had to choose from at my last employer, from multiple vendors, that used Caremark and you were absolutely forced to go to CVS. You basically could only get a 7 day supply of up to 4 drugs twice a year at a non CVS location and it was so expensive you were better off finding one of those freebie services like GoodRX. The company knew how bad it was so they has a separate discount card for Walmart pharmacies unrelated to the Caremark coverage. I have seen Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Anthem, and Cigna plans that these companies cobbled together where everything prescriptions was Caremark. Very few employers use one vendor for everything now especially when they're self insured like most mega-corporations that just hire one of these companies to negotiate their costs down. It's all mix and match because nobody has a cheaper overall option to keep it all under one umbrella anymore.storewanderer wrote: ↑November 30th, 2023, 6:42 pmThis depends on the Aetna plan. There are absolutely Aetna plans that are serviced under Caremark that basically twist the user's arm into using CVS.BillyGr wrote: ↑November 30th, 2023, 9:19 am
They may own Aetna, but there is no restriction on getting your prescriptions elsewhere, as I know someone who has that insurance and gets everything from the local supermarket chain pharmacy. Some things are 30 days at a time, others are 90 days, even one that is $180 for that 90 days (one of the brand names with no generic option, I have seen prices for it over $1,000 with those "coupon" offerings).
No clue what they do with the Caremark side, but it isn't an impact for someone with Aetna.
These health plans are all different, function differently, depending on employer/group/region/state. With as many different rules and restrictions as these health insurers have and so many different plans I am sure the administrative side of all that is a big reason why the pricing is so out of control.
Bartell clearly was a bad match for Rite Aid based on this statement of most of sales being front of house. Rite Aid was focused on killing front of house sales under the last CEO with the dreadful store of the future format devoid of product.SamSpade wrote: ↑December 15th, 2023, 9:06 am Another report, more of a remembrance, really, of the Bartell Store #1. I definitely gleaned some new information from the report, though.
Seattle Times (via archive.today)
It is probably too late for Bartell. Had Rite Aid not bought them they probably would have gone under also given what has happened in Seattle as Bartell was already sounding the alarm about issues in Seattle in 2019 and then when the work from home thing happened with COVID that completely killed traffic in downtown Seattle and I am not sure Bartell could have sustained itself through that given its heavy reliance on sales volume from those downtown stores. Bartell also had some serious technology issues- for example they never upgraded to EMV Chip Card acceptance for credit/debit (that was something Rite Aid had to handle).ClownLoach wrote: ↑December 15th, 2023, 3:04 pmBartell clearly was a bad match for Rite Aid based on this statement of most of sales being front of house. Rite Aid was focused on killing front of house sales under the last CEO with the dreadful store of the future format devoid of product.SamSpade wrote: ↑December 15th, 2023, 9:06 am Another report, more of a remembrance, really, of the Bartell Store #1. I definitely gleaned some new information from the report, though.
Seattle Times (via archive.today)
Couple that with absolutely insane shrink (a drugstore shrinking a million dollars a year?!! Absolutely nuts unless that was in retail $ not cost which is unlikely). I don't recall Bartell doing much in the way of loss prevention activities like lock up cages or empty box cards outside of small electronics. Then they built a new warehouse? No wonder they were in financial trouble. Then the bad marriage with Rite Aid...
I never thought I would say this, but maybe CVS is the answer. If, and it's a big if, CVS were to apply the same approach they took with Longs Hawaii, then they would have a good chance to be successful in acquiring the Bartell stores. Longs is still carrying a different assortment with much higher front end sales in Hawaii; I wish they had kept the same approach in California but as we know they made those systemically CVS standard stores. We can all criticize them but the Longs stores still "feel different and unique" from the boring CVS assortment. The Hawaii stores still have a larger food department, local merchandising and local vendors, etc. They also demonstrate their ability to run stores where pharmacy isn't the priority including the various Las Vegas strip locations that run sans pharmacy entirely and are just branded "CVS". They would be seen as saviors instead of invaders if they came in and offered the Rite Aid buyers a fair purchase price for the entire PNW division and operated it under the Bartell banner and model. Sure, they would convert house brand and systems to CVS but so what? The front end is what made the money for Bartell and they do know how to do it right when they are pressed hard enough (again Hawaii, Vegas strip).
Given that many medium-to-large metro areas were dominated by 1 or 2 chains before the consolidation of chains went into high gear, it's not surprising that we have a duopoly. Independents have not been a factor in many metro areas in decades and even long ago, tended toward niches like home medical equipment or compounding. In some ways, it's surprising that the reimbursement system and the low margin on prescriptions hasn't changed the market more.HCal wrote: ↑November 29th, 2023, 8:03 pm There has certainly been far too much consolidation in the pharmacy business, but I think it really comes down to the state of the prescription drug industry in the US. Insurers (both private and governmental) don't pay well for a lot of drugs, meaning it's hard to make a profit. PBM's like Caremark are obviously pushing their own pharmacies. Some megaplayers like Walmart and Costco might run the entire pharmacy as a loss leader or break-even. Throw in some online pharmacies to siphon off customers, and you have a very difficult environment for all but the very largest players.
The only way out of this might be for the government to start regulating reimbursement rates paid by insurance companies to pharmacies. Without that, the smaller companies will continue to get squeezed until we have a duopoly.
Not surprising that they do good with those, since they had similar stores here in NY in several of the shopping malls years ago.ClownLoach wrote: ↑December 15th, 2023, 3:04 pm They also demonstrate their ability to run stores where pharmacy isn't the priority including the various Las Vegas strip locations that run sans pharmacy entirely and are just branded "CVS".