California won't renew $54M Walgreens contract over company's abortion pill decision

[Eric]

Newsome: "Ironically, we’re the size of 21 states’ populations combined”. This guy is a fighter and I'm proud to have him representing my state, as Republicans march toward total Fascism we need more people in a position of power willing to take a stand like this.

California won't renew Walgreens contract over abortion pill decision

A group of Republican attorney generals had warned the company that it could face consequences if it sold abortion pills in their states, even if abortion is legal there.

www.nbcnews.com

A group of Republican attorney generals had warned the company that it could face consequences if it sold abortion pills in their states, even if abortion is legal there.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday that California will not renew its multimillion dollar contract with Walgreens after the company said it would not dispense medication abortion in multiple states where abortion is legal.

The California Department of General Services issued a formal notice “withdrawing a planned renewal of that agreement set to take effect on May 1, 2023” and “will explore other options for furnishing the same services,” according to a statement from Newsom’s office.

“Under this contract, Walgreens has received about $54 million from the State,” the statement said.

“California will not stand by as corporations cave to extremists and cut off critical access to reproductive care and freedom,” Newsom said. “California is on track to be the fourth largest economy in the world and we will leverage our market power to defend the right to choose.”

 

[fooferdoggie]

ya hit them in their dick wallet its all that will work.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I agree.

However, recently I heard a discussion on DeSantis war on Disney World that gave me a perspective I didn't really think of before. The people discussing it didn't agree with DeSantis reasons either but what if he had a reason my side could agree with. I think this is one of those situations I can agree with. I thought it would come in the form of something to do with gun manufacturers or fossil fuels, but this will do. Point is one man's government overreach is another man's government just cause.

On a related note, DeSantis is also costing his citizens millions by refusing to do business with lenders that have "woke" investment options. Because he won't do business with them Florida is getting charged a higher interest rate because that's all that's available to them from lenders he will do business with. Maybe the residents care. Maybe they don't. It seems the Republican party feels the only thing their voters care about is fighting woke at any cost. In this case, literal cost in interest and state debt.

 

[Herdfan]

On a related note, DeSantis is also costing his citizens millions by refusing to do business with lenders that have "woke" investment options. Because he won't do business with them Florida is getting charged a higher interest rate because that's all that's available to them from lenders he will do business with. Maybe the residents care. Maybe they don't. It seems the Republican party feels the only thing their voters care about is fighting woke at any cost. In this case, literal cost in interest and state debt.

That isn't an entirely accurate portrayal of the law.

What it does is prevents fund managers and banks from using ESG as a metric and instead requires them to use get the best possible return on the state's investments. Also prohibits banks from using "Social Credit" scores against it's customers. Options are a problem, being forced to use ESG is.

But while we are on the topic of governments doing things that might cost taxpayers money, where do you stand on SF spending 10's of millions of dollars not doing business with states that aren't liberal enough for them?

San Francisco is considering softening a ban on publicly funded contracts and travel in 30 states that don’t share its liberal values on issues such as abortion and transgender rights, as officials question whether the prohibition is having any effect beyond likely costing the city tens of millions of dollars.

 

[Eric]

That isn't an entirely accurate portrayal of the law.

What it does is prevents fund managers and banks from using ESG as a metric and instead requires them to use get the best possible return on the state's investments. Also prohibits banks from using "Social Credit" scores against it's customers. Options are a problem, being forced to use ESG is.

But while we are on the topic of governments doing things that might cost taxpayers money, where do you stand on SF spending 10's of millions of dollars not doing business with states that aren't liberal enough for them?

I'm 100% with California here, that's where I stand. Someone needs to stand up against radical Republicans and their over the top regulation of women's rights. We have the world's 4th largest economy and this is how you get things done. Just like Florida and Texas want to arm everyone and let kids get slaughtered with every protection in the world for those who would commit such acts, California can do the opposite.

States rights, thought this was a Republican principle.

 

[Cmaier]

I'm 100% with California here, that's where I stand. Someone needs to stand up against radical Republicans and their over the top regulation of women's rights. We have the world's 4th largest economy and this is how you get things done. Just like Florida and Texas want to arm everyone and let kids get slaughtered with every protection in the world for those who would commit such acts, California can do the opposite.

States rights, thought this was a Republican principle.

I had to go to the sports medicine guy today for my shoulder and they asked me if I still use the walgreen’s at the corner of X and Y and I got jolted into “oh, actually, um, no, let’s use the CVS a mile out of my way”

(Unrelated - now i have to wait 2 weeks for insurance company to decide whether i can have an MRI for my obviously broken shoulder. Thanks, republicans, for pretending private enterprise can provide better insurance than gov’t, and not even allowing a gov’t option).

 

[Eric]

I had to go to the sports medicine guy today for my shoulder and they asked me if I still use the walgreen’s at the corner of X and Y and I got jolted into “oh, actually, um, no, let’s use the CVS a mile out of my way”

(Unrelated - now i have to wait 2 weeks for insurance company to decide whether i can have an MRI for my obviously broken shoulder. Thanks, republicans, for pretending private enterprise can provide better insurance than gov’t, and not even allowing a gov’t option).

They love America, they just hate most of the people in it. If they could just pretend humans were as precious as guns.

 

[Herdfan]

States rights, thought this was a Republican principle.

It absolutely is. And if the residents are OK with spending more tax dollars on contracts and travel to avoid doing business with certain states then they can do it.

But it also looks like SF may repeal the ban.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

That isn't an entirely accurate portrayal of the law.

What it does is prevents fund managers and banks from using ESG as a metric and instead requires them to use get the best possible return on the state's investments. Also prohibits banks from using "Social Credit" scores against it's customers. Options are a problem, being forced to use ESG is.

But while we are on the topic of governments doing things that might cost taxpayers money, where do you stand on SF spending 10's of millions of dollars not doing business with states that aren't liberal enough for them?

Not meant to deflect from your question, but how do you know more about a city 45 minutes from me than I do? To be fair I probably know more about what is going on in Florida than my own city.

 

[Eric]

Not meant to deflect from your question, but how do you know more about a city 45 minutes from me than I do? To be fair I probably know more about what is going on in Florida than my own city.

He likely only knows what right wing media chooses to talk about. There are a lot of complexities, as those of who are from the area know, but they'll never get that. Right now it's convenient for them to use the city as a strawman argument because there is pushback from normally liberal people over crime, etc., including myself.

However, yeah it gets pretty old to hear the same old talking points from people who know nothing else of the area, it's really obvious when they attempt to discuss it.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

He likely only knows what right wing media chooses to talk about. There are a lot of complexities, as those of who are from the area know, but they'll never get that. Right now it's convenient for them to use the city as a strawman argument because there is pushback from normally liberal people over crime, etc., including myself.

However, yeah it gets pretty old to hear the same old talking points from people who know nothing else of the area, it's really obvious when they attempt to discuss it.

It is kind of interesting to find out what the other side is focusing on and in fairness like you said about crime in CA it’s not all “Democrats/Progressives are right 100% of the time!” We have voters of those persuasions that aren’t always on board and see legitimate issues with just blindly towing the party line at all times.

 

[AG_PhamD]

ya hit them in their dick wallet its all that will work.

Walgreens has an annual revenue of over $130B per year. $54m is about 0.05% of that. And if it involves public health reimbursement then it’s probably a wash. So I assume their calculus is taking a hit from CA is far less impactful than being for example, banned from such Republican states entirely- or even defending themselves from litigation from these red states.

Personally, I am of the opinion non-medically warranted abortion is a societal necessity, despite my concurrent belief it should be avoided in the first place whenever possible (ie contraception). So I disagree with all this red state anti-abortion nonsense. At the same time, I’m not sure it’s right for states to punish companies based on the legal standards held by another state if all they’re trying to do is follow the law. A private company ends up being collateral damage in a culture war. As I understand Walgreens isn’t being punished for not selling certain drugs in CA, they’re being punished by CA for not selling certain drugs in other states.

But believe me when I say I think Walgreens (and CVS, and all the other major retail pharmacy and PBM players) are unethical institutions. So it pains me to give them any sort of empathy.

I can’t imagine Walgreens is the only pharmacy with a contract in CA and operating in these Republican states who are also under threat of being sued. So it will be interesting how this plays out with other national pharmacy chains and this could easily spill over into the insurance market and perhaps beyond healthcare entirely.

 

[Eric]

Walgreens has an annual revenue of over $130B per year. $54m is about 0.05% of that. And if it involves public health reimbursement then it’s probably a wash. So I assume their calculus is taking a hit from CA is far less impactful than being for example, banned from such Republican states entirely- or even defending themselves from litigation from these red states.

Personally, I am of the opinion non-medically warranted abortion is a societal necessity, despite my concurrent belief it should be avoided in the first place whenever possible (ie contraception). So I disagree with all this red state anti-abortion nonsense. At the same time, I’m not sure it’s right for states to punish companies based on the legal standards held by another state if all they’re trying to do is follow the law. A private company ends up being collateral damage in a culture war. As I understand Walgreens isn’t being punished for not selling certain drugs in CA, they’re being punished by CA for not selling certain drugs in other states.

But believe me when I say I think Walgreens (and CVS, and all the other major retail pharmacy and PBM players) are unethical institutions. So it pains me to give them any sort of empathy.

I can’t imagine Walgreens is the only pharmacy with a contract in CA and operating in these Republican states who are also under threat of being sued. So it will be interesting how this plays out with other national pharmacy chains and this could easily spill over into the insurance market and perhaps beyond healthcare entirely.

First you defend Russia and now Walgreens, you're on a roll today! If Walgreens wants to become the Hobby Lobby of Republican prescriptions then I say let them, the state is making the right choice and a statement. I don't think any company would ever simply dismiss $54 million as chump change, it will not only hit them in the wallet but the court of public opinion.

The trouble with Walgreens and mifepristone

When the company bowed to Republican pressure and said it wouldn’t provide abortion pills in 20 states — even states where the abortion pill is legal — all hell broke loose. Then California made a shock announcement. Holly Baxter reports

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Roller]

Walgreens has an annual revenue of over $130B per year. $54m is about 0.05% of that. And if it involves public health reimbursement then it’s probably a wash. So I assume their calculus is taking a hit from CA is far less impactful than being for example, banned from such Republican states entirely- or even defending themselves from litigation from these red states.

Personally, I am of the opinion non-medically warranted abortion is a societal necessity, despite my concurrent belief it should be avoided in the first place whenever possible (ie contraception). So I disagree with all this red state anti-abortion nonsense. At the same time, I’m not sure it’s right for states to punish companies based on the legal standards held by another state if all they’re trying to do is follow the law. A private company ends up being collateral damage in a culture war. As I understand Walgreens isn’t being punished for not selling certain drugs in CA, they’re being punished by CA for not selling certain drugs in other states.

But believe me when I say I think Walgreens (and CVS, and all the other major retail pharmacy and PBM players) are unethical institutions. So it pains me to give them any sort of empathy.

I can’t imagine Walgreens is the only pharmacy with a contract in CA and operating in these Republican states who are also under threat of being sued. So it will be interesting how this plays out with other national pharmacy chains and this could easily spill over into the insurance market and perhaps beyond healthcare entirely.

Walgreens is not just declining to sell mifepristone in states that have declared it illegal (notwithstanding that whether they have the legal right to do so is open to debate). The drug will also not be offered by them in places where no such prohibition exists. Alaska is a case-in-point.

And, while you may characterize this as a "culture war," it materially affects the lives of millions of Americans, including in ways that go beyond early pregnancy termination. In your professional capacity, surely you are aware that mifepristone is an accepted treatment for miscarriage. I don't know if you've ever worked directly with patients who've experienced first-trimester pregnancy loss, but I have. It's devastating, and anything reasonable that can be done to ease their suffering is in keeping with the tenets of modern medicine.

Your back-of-the-envelope calculation regarding the financial hit Walgreens may suffer as a result of their decision doesn't account for repetitional harm and boycotts in states not directly affected by its decision. I have no way of knowing the fiscal ramifications, but you don't either.

You say it pains you to give Walgreens and other retail pharmacies empathy, despite characterizing them as unethical. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Herdfan]

He likely only knows what right wing media chooses to talk about. There are a lot of complexities, as those of who are from the area know, but they'll never get that. Right now it's convenient for them to use the city as a strawman argument because there is pushback from normally liberal people over crime, etc., including myself.

However, yeah it gets pretty old to hear the same old talking points from people who know nothing else of the area, it's really obvious when they attempt to discuss it.

I think I saw it on Politico. Given the size of the CA economy and its effects on the rest of the country, what happens there is covered by news outlets all over the country. I mean, almost every product I buy has a warning that it is known to the state of CA to cause cancer. CA is not a bubble, so when they enact or retract policies that affect other states, it is news in those states.

 

[Eric]

I think I saw it on Politico. Given the size of the CA economy and its effects on the rest of the country, what happens there is covered by news outlets all over the country. I mean, almost every product I buy has a warning that it is known to the state of CA to cause cancer. CA is not a bubble, so when they enact or retract policies that affect other states, it is news in those states.

Wait, so you prefer not to know if an item causes cancer? Just want to be sure I understand you correctly here.

 

[Herdfan]

Wait, so you prefer not to know if an item causes cancer? Just want to be sure I understand you correctly here.

Well, do I really need to know that the screws I buy for work can cause cancer if I ingest them? No I really don't need to know that because reports to the contrary, I am smart enough to know NOT to eat them.

 

[AG_PhamD]

First you defend Russia and now Walgreens, you're on a roll today! If Walgreens wants to become the Hobby Lobby of Republican prescriptions then I say let them, the state is making the right choice and a statement. I don't think any company would ever simply dismiss $54 million as chump change, it will not only hit them in the wallet but the court of public opinion.

The trouble with Walgreens and mifepristone

When the company bowed to Republican pressure and said it wouldn’t provide abortion pills in 20 states — even states where the abortion pill is legal — all hell broke loose. Then California made a shock announcement. Holly Baxter reports

www.independent.co.uk

I think you are vastly misunderstanding my sentiments.

How did I defend Russia?

“I believe if there was any time for such a compromise, it was a year ago. Any concessions now, especially beyond the 2014 borders would be a tremendous victory for Russia over Ukraine and the West and would signal to other bad actors that they can conquer whatever land they want so long as they hold out long enough.”

And this is after advocating for more aid for Ukraine. But we can discuss that elsewhere.

And no, I’m not defending Walgreens in particular. I’m defending every company big or small being used as pawns in political games played by state governments to get what they want.

In an ideal world I would prefer that Walgreens chose just not to do business in states that threaten to sue them for providing FDA approved medications and inhibiting a women’s ability to get an abortion.

The problem with that though is that thanks to the policies of our politicians and the lobbying and market power of WAG and CVS, they have all created an environment where it is not financially possible for independent pharmacies to stay in business. So if Walgreens chooses not to do business in anti-abortion red states, you will have millions of people unable to purchase any of their medications- including people who have nothing to do with this. And I don’t think that fair. Neither is what these red states are doing IMO. Withholding medications in any context is ethically as wrong as it gets.

If you haven’t noticed, I think considering the context and practical terms of issues is essential. It’s easy to voice a strong opinion without considering the realities involved.

 

[rdrr]

Walgreens has an annual revenue of over $130B per year. $54m is about 0.05% of that. And if it involves public health reimbursement then it’s probably a wash. So I assume their calculus is taking a hit from CA is far less impactful than being for example, banned from such Republican states entirely- or even defending themselves from litigation from these red states.

Personally, I am of the opinion non-medically warranted abortion is a societal necessity, despite my concurrent belief it should be avoided in the first place whenever possible (ie contraception). So I disagree with all this red state anti-abortion nonsense. At the same time, I’m not sure it’s right for states to punish companies based on the legal standards held by another state if all they’re trying to do is follow the law. A private company ends up being collateral damage in a culture war. As I understand Walgreens isn’t being punished for not selling certain drugs in CA, they’re being punished by CA for not selling certain drugs in other states.

But believe me when I say I think Walgreens (and CVS, and all the other major retail pharmacy and PBM players) are unethical institutions. So it pains me to give them any sort of empathy.

I can’t imagine Walgreens is the only pharmacy with a contract in CA and operating in these Republican states who are also under threat of being sued. So it will be interesting how this plays out with other national pharmacy chains and this could easily spill over into the insurance market and perhaps beyond healthcare entirely.

Yeah they might have had revenues of 132 billion, but the cost of those goods was 104 billion, leaving something like 28 billion. But when you factor in operating costs like employee salaries and benefits, facilities costs, and nagging things like utilizes. After all that a deficit of 54 million starts to actually matter.

 

[AG_PhamD]

Yeah they might have had revenues of 132 billion, but the cost of those goods was 104 billion, leaving something like 28 billion. But when you factor in operating costs like employee salaries and benefits, facilities costs, and nagging things like utilizes. After all that a deficit of 54 million starts to actually matter.

And if it’s $54m of state funded health insurance (I believe it’s prisoner healthcare), you can guarantee minimal profit.

Indeed, I’m sure WAG would prefer to have $54m in their pocket. But the question is how much will whatever the anti-abortion states are threatening cost them in real money and litigation? If the alternative was cheaper, I’m pretty sure they’d go with that.

But at the end of the day, it won't be Walgreens paying the price. It will be their customers/patients who ultimately do so.

I don't know what these states are specifically threatening for selling these medications, but based on how these states view abortion and how pharmacies are handled that sell drugs illegally by the state, the only alternative I see is Walgreens will be denied the ability to operate and their employees could presumably be arrested or sued or have their professional licenses revoked.

Likely Walgreens is not the only one affected here. CVS and every other pharmacy- chain, independent, or hospital will presumably be affected by this- they just may not have contracts with the CA state government that are so easily pulled. And its worth asking how this will play out with other healthcare entities, like health insurers. Are they going to shut down every health insurer that pays for abortion. There is no federal law that mandates elective abortion coverage. So should California go after every insurer that fails to cover abortion in these red states? Or any business that operates in these states? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like this situation in the slightest, I’m merely pointing out issues.

So my question is what your recommendation for Walgreens to do here?

Personally, as a PharmD, it’s my general recommendation avoid using CVS or Walgreens. If you think this is evidence that they (meaning their corporate structure, not necessarily their pharmacy staff) put money above patients health, this is merely a drop in the bucket. Let’s not forget these are companies that once incentivized filling prescriptions as fast as possible (and still do today, just in a less explicit way) and has single pharmacists working 14hr shifts without, until recently, so much as a lunch break. Or charging poor, uninsured/underinsured patients 5-10-20x… up to 700x (I kid you not) the wholesale cost of medications (on top of the premium Americans already pay for prescription medications). These are not “healthcare” companies if you ask me and should not be considered as much. Ironically, CVS’s full name is technically CVS Health, not CVS Healthcare.