Reply to thread

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.