• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании532
      • Показать ещё
      Разное91
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации5
      Страны / Регионы38
      • Показать ещё
      Издания10
      Формат6
      Люди15
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели17
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
CVS Caremark
Выбор редакции
03 октября 2016, 17:19

Horizon Pharma, Express Scripts to Settle Rebate Litigation

Horizon (HZNP) entered into a settlement agreement and mutual release with Express Scripts (ESRX) to settle litigation pending in the Delaware Superior Court.

22 августа 2016, 16:05

How is Fidelity Select Consumer Staples Portfolio Fund (FDFAX) Performing?

Fidelity Select Consumer Staples Portfolio Fund (FDFAX) a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) was incepted in June 1990 and is managed by the Fidelity Group

02 августа 2016, 17:09

Stock Market Futures Are Down

Stock Market Futures Are Down

02 августа 2016, 16:58

Q2 Earnings Reports Come in Mixed, Futures Down Slightly

Q2 earnings season may have passed the midway point last week, but plenty of important companies are reporting earnings this morning: PFE, PG, MNT, CVS, SODA and RCL.

03 мая 2016, 16:10

CVS Health (CVS) Tops Q1 Earnings on Balanced Growth

CVS Health Corporation (CVS) reported first-quarter 2016 adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of $1.18, up 3.5% year over year.

16 января 2016, 00:57

Big CEO Pay Grab-Effects Beyond Greed!

As the New Year gets underway, the highest-paid CEOs of many large corporations have already paid themselves more than the average worker will earn in the entire year! By the end of the first week of January, the highest-paid CEOs had already made as much as their average workers will earn over 8 years. An analysis by Equilar, a consulting firm specializing in executive pay, found that on average, the 200 highest-paid CEOs make approximately $22.6 million a year, or almost $10,800 an hour, a 9.1% increase from the previous year. Meanwhile, the Census Bureau reports the average household earns approximately $53,000 a year. Over the past fifty years, the pay gap between many highly-paid CEOs and their employees has increased dramatically. In 1965, when they also liked to be rich, CEOs made approximately twenty times as much as their average employee, meaning they would earn their workers' average pay by the third week of January, and since the 1980s, the average difference and greed have increased. Highly-paid CEOs now make 303 times as much as their employees in a year, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute. Equilar notes that Discovery Communications CEO David Zaslav makes $156.1 million a year ($74,796.36 an hour), or approximately 1,951 times as much as his average employee. Doug McMillan, the CEO of Wal-Mart takes in $25.6 million ($12,266.41 an hour), 1,133 times as much as the average experienced store associate, who earns roughly $22,000. Other highly-paid CEOs include Larry Merlo, the CEO of CVS Caremark, who makes 422 times as much as CVS employee, meaning that he earns an average worker's yearly pay by 1 PM on his first work day of the new year; and Goodyear CEO Richard Kramer, who pulls in as much as an average Goodyear employee's yearly pay by 3:00 PM on January 1st. Shareholders, the owners of those companies, do not have binding power to determine the pay of their hired help--the company bosses. The wined-and-dined selected boards of directors regularly rubber stamp massive CEO pay raises. An additional consequence of CEOs pushing up their own wages is that the company's accounting, stock options and stock buybacks are often shaped to further directly enrich the corporate executives. With such a vast disparity, the impact on employee morale is not good. All of these consequences for big companies are the reason Warren Buffett takes a critical view of sky-high corporate compensation packages. As the gap between the wealthy and the working-class continues to grow, the federal minimum wage remains stagnant at $7.25 an hour, or a little more than $15,000 a year, far below the $24,000 poverty line for a family of four. Do you find this state of affairs upsetting? Economists see raising the minimum wage as an essential tool to fight income inequality, with an increase benefiting at least 35 million Americans, according to a 2015 study by the Economic Policy Institute. Unlike the soaring pay awarded to highly compensated CEOs, the minimum wage has not even kept up with inflation. Department of Labor data shows that, had minimum wage increases kept up with inflation since 1968, the minimum wage would be nearly $11 today. Instead, it has lost one-third of its purchasing power. Raising the federal minimum wage would also reduce spending on numerous social welfare programs. A 2013 study by the Center for American Progress found that by raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, the cost of enrollments in food stamp programs would decrease by $4.6 billion a year, which is why such prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Ron Unz support a long-overdue raise. On top of that, a minimum wage increase would also benefit the country's gross domestic product. A 2013 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve showed that increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour would increase the GDP by $22 billion annually. In fact, raising the minimum wage can allow companies to remain profitable. A study by the United Kingdom's Chartered Institute for Personnel Development found that when companies raised wages for their employees, the companies became more efficient, and workplace productivity increased. Costco CEO Craig Jelenik explains that "An important reason for the success of Costco's business model is the attraction and retention of great employees. Instead of minimizing wages, we know it's a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty." Raising wages means that employee turnover is reduced, meaning that companies do not have to spend as much on recruitment and training. And because of this, Costco has an $11.50 an hour starting salary and benefits. Jelenik is not the only CEO who supports raising the minimum wage. Other corporations that have started to pay a more livable wage include Aetna, The Gap and Ikea. With the New Year, seventeen states saw an increase in the minimum wage, with Massachusetts being the first state in the country with a minimum wage of $10.00 an hour. In 2015, the city of Los Angeles set forces in motion to increase their minimum wage from $9 to $15 by 2020, and San Francisco plans to go from $12.25 an hour to $15 an hour by 2018. Currently, twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia and thirty-five cities have minimum wages set higher than the $7.25 federal minimum. In the 2016 race for president, almost all of the Republican candidates are opposed to raising the minimum wage. The only Republicans who support a small wage hike are former senator Rick Santorum and Ohio Governor John Kasich. On the Democratic side, all of the candidates endorse a higher minimum wage, with Hillary Clinton supporting an increase to $12 an hour, with no set time-frame, while both Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley support a $15 an hour minimum wage by the end of the decade. As the 2016 gets started, it is important that CEOs concern themselves more with how they can stop denying their lowest-paid employees a fairer minimum wage than with how much more compensation they are going to demand for themselves over the next 351 days. Visit timeforaraise.org for more action-oriented information. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

31 декабря 2014, 04:20

Doing Good Is Good for Business -- Corporate Social Responsibility in 2015

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is no longer an obligation that corporations feel they need to take on, but has become central to the operations of many of the best companies today. In 2012, I explored the way businesses thought about philanthropy and today I will provide an update on new trends emerging and on how companies are redefining their CSR platforms. The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP), "a coalition of CEOs" from 150 of some of the world's largest companies "united in the belief that societal improvement is an essential measure of business performance," recently produced two reports: Giving in Numbers: 2014 and Giving Around the Globe: 2014. These reports provide insight into the field and highlight trends that have been driving progress over the last year. According to Michael Stroik, Manager, Research and Analytics for CECP, corporate philanthropy has become such an integral part of business that many global markets are mandating social investments as a price of doing business. Stroik provided some of the top trends in CSR: 1) linking a corporation's performance and corporate societal investments, 2) aligning philanthropic efforts with their goals for impact, 3) increasing employee engagement, and 4) increasing non-cash methods of giving. While the mechanisms of the leadership-organizational performance are complex, multi-level and multi-dimensional, top performing companies understand the important role of philanthropy and are putting passionate advocates for social change in the driver's seat. There is an undeniable dynamic link between the performance of organizational leadership and the performance of the entire organization and if done efficiently, corporate social responsibility can be an opportunity for businesses to strengthen their bottom line, do good for society, work to reverse some of the growing problems facing the world today, retain top talent, build an engaged Board of Directors and attract customers. When a company invests in their community and beyond, and empowers their employees to do the same, they can see returns across the board. Employees want to work for companies that are committed to making the world better, customers want to spend money with these companies, and can also attract board members that can truly make even more of a difference. Performance with Purpose The name of PepsiCo's CSR plan, Performance with Purpose, is one of the most significant trends in the CSR practices. Stroik explained, "The evolution of corporate societal investments is linked to business performance. Corporate giving is being used as more than a way to manage reputation and stockholders, but as a growth driver, platform for innovation and a way to drive a corporate culture." Doing good for society is good for business and positively impacts a company's bottom line. "Many companies link giving budgets to business performance--among companies giving at least 10% more since 2010, median revenues increased by 11% while revenues fell 3% for all other companies" (CECP's Giving in Numbers, 2014). In other words, companies that are giving more back to society are outperforming companies that are not. Such a profound shift in big business could mean the promise of progress for some of society's largest problems. More and more companies are improving the way they do business with passionate leadership in ready-position and a laser focus on systemic change. Indri K. Nooyi, Chairman and CEO of Pepsico, described it best, as businesses operating "under a license from society." She explains that when an organization keeps this as a focus they achieve sustained value and financial returns. Candace Mueller-Medina, Senior Director of PepsiCo North America Nutrition Communications, points out that "PepsiCo was one of the first contemporary corporations to recognize the important interdependence between corporations and society when Performance with Purpose was articulated." According to Performance with Purpose, success means "providing a wide range of foods and beverages, from treats to healthy eats; finding innovative ways to minimize our impact on the environment and lowering costs through energy and water conservation, as well as reduced use of packaging material; providing a safe and inclusive workplace for our employees globally; and respecting, supporting and investing in the local communities in which we operate." (Pepsico's Performance with Purpose). Mueller-Medina explains that, "Nourishment is part of Quaker's DNA. We continue to focus our efforts on organizations that aim to fuel healthy families through a combination of nutrition, physical activity and education. While there are many worthy organizations out there, using this lens allows us to pinpoint the ones that our business can best serve." Walmart, first on the Fortune 500 list of the world's largest companies by revenue with nearly half-a-trillion dollars in sales, is focused on sustainability at the company level and through the Walmart Foundation. According to Kathleen McLaughlin, president of the Walmart Foundation and senior vice president, Walmart sustainability, told Forbes that "business exists to serve society, in many ways," (Forbes Interview with Kathleen McLaughlin) and spoke to stakeholders this fall at a Global Sustainability Milestone Meeting about the importance of systemic change that impacts customers, society & business, celebrating Walmart's ongoing efforts to create a more sustainable, affordable, accessible, and healthy food system around the world. Focusing for Impact "Companies are applying the same management best practices to philanthropy as they do in other areas of the business, and that is translating into more strategically driven societal investments, increased measurement and evaluation of the results, and a refinement of goals and partnerships to drive efficiency," explained Stroik. Data from "Giving in Numbers: 2014 shows that individual grants are getting larger, and corporate grantmakers are working with fewer nonprofit organizations (CECP's Giving in Numbers, 2014). Aligning efforts with goals, abilities, resources, skills, and areas of expertise increases efficiency and allows individuals and corporations to best benefit those they help. Suzi Schelewitz, Director of Corporate and Community Affairs for United Airlines, described the process for developing their "Impact Plan" as a combination of assessing critical needs with what they, as a corporation, have to offer. The result of that is the inclusion of disaster relief response, hunger and delivering hope and healing to Veterans and children in need. By utilizing their unique strengths and resources they can make the largest and most meaningful impact in society. According to President and CEO Larry Merlo, through CVS Caremark, their goal is to "reinvent pharmacy and focus on solutions that benefit millions of people." They have aligned that goal with three pillars of their CSR strategy, Prescription for Better World: "building healthier communities, protecting the planet; and creating economic opportunities" (CVS Caremark, Corporate Social Responsibility Report, 2013). They use their unique skills and resources to focus where they can make the most difference. Additionally, the CVS Caremark Charitable Trust collaborates with and supports countless organizations dedicated to serving children with disabilities. Through grant programs and various initiatives they focus on improving individuals' health, which includes improving their communities. As corporate funders focus efforts and dollars for more impact, they are also more concerned with measuring the outcomes of their efforts. More companies are reporting on CSR activities, realizing the importance of transparency, especially as social media becomes more prevalent. Aside from providing leaders with data to help drive decision-making, CSR reporting helps consumers make purchasing decisions. More consumers want to know what companies are doing to improve communities and want to spend their hard earned dollars with companies that do better at doing good (CECP's Infographic, 2013). Nielsen's 2014 Global Survey on Corporate Social Responsibility (Nielsen's 2014 Global Survey on Corporate Social Responsibility) "shows that 55 percent of global online consumers across 60 countries are willing to pay more for products and services from companies that are committed to positive social and environmental impact." In the airline industry, where consumers are most swayed by price points, the focus becomes keeping those loyal customers happy and proud of the choice that they make. Either way, consumers have the power to influence the way businesses operate and they are demanding more. According to the CECP results (CECP's Infographic, 2013), "two thirds of consumers say that their perception of CEOs affects their opinion of a company's reputation." That number is up from 2011 and that is a significant piece of the CSR picture. The report also found that six out of 10 consumers are willing to pay more for a product or service from a company with good values. The New Employee Engagement In today's interconnected society, employees expect more from their employers. Passionate leadership can drive a company to give back to their larger communities and that kind of dynamic culture is what many people are looking for when deciding where they want to work, especially Millennials. This younger generation wants to feel emotionally invested to causes and favors a more participatory approach to philanthropy, extending beyond a transactional donation. Employees also want to be associated with a company that places a high value on philanthropic actions. According to the CECP's report, Giving in Numbers (CECP's Giving in Numbers, 2014), "CEOs at CECP's 2014 CEO event identified employees as the most important stakeholder influencing decisions to expand community investments." Reports show that employees want to work at companies with good values. These employees are playing a large role in CSR, from matching programs to employee engagement and volunteer hours. Corporations are taking note and count employees as one of their greatest assets. Trisa Thompson, Vice President of Corporate Responsibility for Dell, explained, that employees were tapped to participate in goal setting for their current 2020 Legacy Plan and counts their 739,000 volunteer hours this year as one of the things they are most proud of. Many of the corporate social responsibility reports document an impressive number of volunteer hours, further showing just how important this aspect is to the overall platform. Companies are creative in finding ways to engage their employees and finding that employees are proactively seeking out opportunities. Hiring and retaining forward thinking, socially conscious employees in addition to fostering a culture of CSR will continue to drive needle-moving community collaborations to address our biggest challenges. Non-Cash Giving Cash giving, volunteer hours, employer-matching programs and in-kind services are just a few all are ways in which companies accelerate social impact. CECP research indicates that across various industries, companies are considering how to best utilize the skills of their staff to improve societal outcomes. Further, CECP research also indicates the percentage of companies offering paid time off for volunteering increased from 51% of companies in 2010 to 59% of companies in 2013 translating into 37% more volunteer hours in that same time period (CECP's Giving in Numbers, 2014). Matthew Pakula, Senior Manager of Corporate Social Responsibility for Tyson Foods, Inc. explains his take on this, "In addition to strategic alignment with nonprofit and cause partners, a company must approach partnership holistically by offering financial contributions, product donations, extra hands volunteers, and skills-based volunteers to help the organization make budget, build capacity and leadership, and meet its mission." The field of corporate social responsibility is a complicated one, the work immensely challenging to say the least. But will the positive correlation between a company's philanthropic efforts and their profits help to simplify it? We know this much, there are countless ways for companies to give back and if each company can focus on what they have to offer, learn from previous efforts, build on what works, increase collaboration and partnerships, we could start to see a reversal in some of the problems facing society and accelerate impact towards the world's greatest challenges.  At the 1st Common Threads Partner Summit, hosted by the Peninsula Chicago, business leaders came together for an all-day event with dialogue dedicated to collaboration and learning in order to accelerate impact and move the needle towards positive change. Back row: Jeffrey Brana, Common Threads; Holly Armstrong, United Airlines; Allison Liefer, Common Threads; Todd Traynor-Corey, United Airlines Laura Traut Coyle, Social Capital; Matt Pakula, Hillshire; Angela Arboleda, Herbalife Marissa Pines, Quaker; Kate Shillin, Social Capital; Carol May, Walmart Foundation; Stephanie Folkens, Common Threads Front row: Richard Sorensen, Peninsula; Linda O'Keefe, Common Threads; Prita Wadhwani, Barilla

03 декабря 2014, 23:28

5 Reasons Companies Should Fight To Keep Older Workers Instead Of Pushing Them Out

You know how dogs do that stiff-legged resistance thing when you try to drag them through the door to see the vet? Well, older workers are apparently doing the same when it comes to retirement. They are digging in and not budging, much to the chagrin of companies that would like to be rid of them and their higher salaries. A recent Towers Watson survey of 457 U.S. companies with retirement plans found that 84 percent of them plan to increase their efforts to educate employees on saving and investing over the next two or three years. But before you jump to any conclusions about the benevolent nature of this corporate gesture, let's just get real for a minute: These companies really just want to encourage older workers to get off their payrolls sooner rather than later. The author of the report, Robyn Credico, Towers Watson's Defined Contribution Practice Leader, North America, told The Huffington Post that it's not that older workers aren't valued but more that companies want "workers to move through the work force at a reasonable pace." How does Credico, who is 56 -- yes, we asked -- define "reasonable pace?" Depending on the organization and the type of work, it's 65, she said. It can be anywhere from 62 to 67. And then there is the other reason: Companies don't want to hold back younger workers from advancing, so older workers need to move out of the way, she said. And yes, older workers are more expensive. So there you have it. As columnist Richard Eisenberg wrote in Forbes about the study, corporate kindness has little to do with companies being willing to encourage older workers to save more for retirement. "Indeed," he wrote, "the survey found that 53 percent of employers are concerned about their older workers 'deferring' retirement and 82 percent said they believe retirement readiness 'will be an issue'." Yes, retirement readiness is an "issue." It's an issue complicated by the fact that boomers are living longer, are in better shape than previous generations were at 65 in every which way except maybe financial, and we just may not want to quit work at the age our fathers did. And the desire to stay professionally engaged notwithstanding, we still like to eat. The lingering damage of the Great Recession still haunts our financial readiness. Some would say that lingering damage also haunts our adult children who still live with us. Retirement? It's just not in the cards for many -- no matter how much companies want us to save. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, 32.2 percent of Americans age 65 to 69 are in the labor force -- meaning they are working or looking for work. This is up from 21.3 percent two decades ago, so the percentage of older workers in the labor force has climbed. Which is why I'd like to reframe the discussion away from why companies may want to get rid of older workers and instead offer a few reasons why employers should be looking to keep us around: 1. We have institutional knowledge. This doesn't mean we start every sentence with "In the old days, we did it this way." It means we know what's been tried and what failed. We have experience to share. We also care about spelling, pay attention to detail, know how to write and communicate, and yes, can upload a video to YouTube. 2. We are reliable workers. We show up in the rain and snow. We have always worked hard. And we aren't going anywhere: We don't spend half the day networking for our next job because there's an excellent chance that the job we presently have will be our last. So we are focused on the task at hand. We also have been around the block a few times and know how to navigate difficult office personalities; so less drama. 3. Diversity is a beautiful thing. We need to start including age diversity in that rainbow spectrum. Just like having workers of different races and faiths provides different perspectives, so does having workers of differing ages. If your office consists of only entry-level recent college graduates, the only perspective you hear is that one voice. What about the rest of the universe? Your workforce should mirror the population you serve, not the cheapest labor you can find. 4. Age discrimination is illegal. You can't fire or not hire someone because they are too old. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. But ask any mid-lifer looking for work right now and they'll tell you how toothless the ADEA is. AARP notes that age discrimination claims have been on the rise since 1997, when 15,785 reports were filed. Last year, 21,396 claims were recorded. 5. Some companies are bucking the trend with great results. CVS Caremark transfers several hundred pharmacists and drugstore workers from Northern states to pharmacies in Florida and other warm climates. It's their own "snowbird" program that appeals to older workers who might otherwise have retired. Vita Needle, a manufacturing company in Needham, Mass., is famous for employing older workers. The median age of its workforce is 74. Why? Because older folks have a tremendous work ethic. Earlier on Huff/Post50: 

03 декабря 2014, 23:28

5 Reasons Companies Should Fight To Keep Older Workers Instead Of Pushing Them Out

You know how dogs do that stiff-legged resistance thing when you try to drag them through the door to see the vet? Well, older workers are apparently doing the same when it comes to retirement. They are digging in and not budging, much to the chagrin of companies that would like to be rid of them and their higher salaries. A recent Towers Watson survey of 457 U.S. companies with retirement plans found that 84 percent of them plan to increase their efforts to educate employees on saving and investing over the next two or three years. But before you jump to any conclusions about the benevolent nature of this corporate gesture, let's just get real for a minute: These companies really just want to encourage older workers to get off their payrolls sooner rather than later. The author of the report, Robyn Credico, Towers Watson's Defined Contribution Practice Leader, North America, told The Huffington Post that it's not that older workers aren't valued but more that companies want "workers to move through the work force at a reasonable pace." How does Credico, who is 56 -- yes, we asked -- define "reasonable pace?" Depending on the organization and the type of work, it's 65, she said. It can be anywhere from 62 to 67. And then there is the other reason: Companies don't want to hold back younger workers from advancing, so older workers need to move out of the way, she said. And yes, older workers are more expensive. So there you have it. As columnist Richard Eisenberg wrote in Forbes about the study, corporate kindness has little to do with companies being willing to encourage older workers to save more for retirement. "Indeed," he wrote, "the survey found that 53 percent of employers are concerned about their older workers 'deferring' retirement and 82 percent said they believe retirement readiness 'will be an issue'." Yes, retirement readiness is an "issue." It's an issue complicated by the fact that boomers are living longer, are in better shape than previous generations were at 65 in every which way except maybe financial, and we just may not want to quit work at the age our fathers did. And the desire to stay professionally engaged notwithstanding, we still like to eat. The lingering damage of the Great Recession still haunts our financial readiness. Some would say that lingering damage also haunts our adult children who still live with us. Retirement? It's just not in the cards for many -- no matter how much companies want us to save. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, 32.2 percent of Americans age 65 to 69 are in the labor force -- meaning they are working or looking for work. This is up from 21.3 percent two decades ago, so the percentage of older workers in the labor force has climbed. Which is why I'd like to reframe the discussion away from why companies may want to get rid of older workers and instead offer a few reasons why employers should be looking to keep us around: 1. We have institutional knowledge. This doesn't mean we start every sentence with "In the old days, we did it this way." It means we know what's been tried and what failed. We have experience to share. We also care about spelling, pay attention to detail, know how to write and communicate, and yes, can upload a video to YouTube. 2. We are reliable workers. We show up in the rain and snow. We have always worked hard. And we aren't going anywhere: We don't spend half the day networking for our next job because there's an excellent chance that the job we presently have will be our last. So we are focused on the task at hand. We also have been around the block a few times and know how to navigate difficult office personalities; so less drama. 3. Diversity is a beautiful thing. We need to start including age diversity in that rainbow spectrum. Just like having workers of different races and faiths provides different perspectives, so does having workers of differing ages. If your office consists of only entry-level recent college graduates, the only perspective you hear is that one voice. What about the rest of the universe? Your workforce should mirror the population you serve, not the cheapest labor you can find. 4. Age discrimination is illegal. You can't fire or not hire someone because they are too old. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. But ask any mid-lifer looking for work right now and they'll tell you how toothless the ADEA is. AARP notes that age discrimination claims have been on the rise since 1997, when 15,785 reports were filed. Last year, 21,396 claims were recorded. 5. Some companies are bucking the trend with great results. CVS Caremark transfers several hundred pharmacists and drugstore workers from Northern states to pharmacies in Florida and other warm climates. It's their own "snowbird" program that appeals to older workers who might otherwise have retired. Vita Needle, a manufacturing company in Needham, Mass., is famous for employing older workers. The median age of its workforce is 74. Why? Because older folks have a tremendous work ethic. Earlier on Huff/Post50: 

22 октября 2014, 23:35

California City Becomes First In State To Ban Tobacco Sales To Anyone Under 21

A Northern California city has become the first in the state to approve raising the minimum age for tobacco purchases. Healdsburg, California's city council voted 4-1 Monday to raise the age threshold required for tobacco purchases from 18 to 21. (California state law mandates that no tobacco products or paraphernalia are sold to anyone under 18.) Healdsburg, a popular Sonoma County wine country destination, will require individuals purchasing cigarettes, chewing tobacco or other tobacco products to be 21 years of age or older. Electronic cigarettes are also included in the ban. Pending a second city council vote, the ordinance is set to take effect in early December. "This is about trying to save people's lives -- prevent disease," Healdsburg Mayor Jim Wood said, according to the Press Democrat. "I see more young people than ever before smoking. It's distressing." The legislation's proponents, including the American Lung Association, hope that the new regulations will discourage young people from picking up a tobacco habit. According to a U.S. Surgeon General's report released earlier this year, 88 percent of adults who use tobacco began smoking before they were 18 years old. And if the current smoking rate persists nationally, an estimated 5.6 million Americans who are currently younger than 18 will die of a smoking-related illness. Last year, New York City became the first major American city to raise the legal tobacco purchase age from 18 to 21. While California legislators considered a similar move in 2002, the effort ultimately failed. No other city in the Golden State has succeeded in passing a similar ban. The Healdsburg ordinance will ban pharmacies, as well as supermarkets like Safeway that have pharmacies, from selling cigarettes -- a practice that began six years ago in nearby San Francisco. Earlier this year, CVS Caremark Corp announced it would stop selling tobacco products at its 7,600 stores across the country, and has put pressure on other pharmacies to follow suit. The Healdsburg legislation also requires that retailers obtain a new city license for tobacco sales, with an estimated $450 annual fee to help enforce the new regulations. City Councilman Gary Plass, who cast the only dissenting vote against the ordinance, argued that the law could easily be skirted by underage smokers willing to drive a few miles to buy cigarettes in another town, and would put local retailers at an economic disadvantage. "The four miles of Healdsburg has no business doing what no other city in California has done ... not even San Francisco," he said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Advocates for the ban, however, argued that Healdsburg could be a trendsetter and inspire other California cities to adopt similar regulations. "Anything we can do to turn the tide on smoking, we have an obligation to do," Councilman Tom Chambers said.

22 октября 2014, 23:35

California City Becomes First In State To Ban Tobacco Sales To Anyone Under 21

A Northern California city has become the first in the state to approve raising the minimum age for tobacco purchases. Healdsburg, California's city council voted 4-1 Monday to raise the age threshold required for tobacco purchases from 18 to 21. (California state law mandates that no tobacco products or paraphernalia are sold to anyone under 18.) Healdsburg, a popular Sonoma County wine country destination, will require individuals purchasing cigarettes, chewing tobacco or other tobacco products to be 21 years of age or older. Electronic cigarettes are also included in the ban. Pending a second city council vote, the ordinance is set to take effect in early December. "This is about trying to save people's lives -- prevent disease," Healdsburg Mayor Jim Wood said, according to the Press Democrat. "I see more young people than ever before smoking. It's distressing." The legislation's proponents, including the American Lung Association, hope that the new regulations will discourage young people from picking up a tobacco habit. According to a U.S. Surgeon General's report released earlier this year, 88 percent of adults who use tobacco began smoking before they were 18 years old. And if the current smoking rate persists nationally, an estimated 5.6 million Americans who are currently younger than 18 will die of a smoking-related illness. Last year, New York City became the first major American city to raise the legal tobacco purchase age from 18 to 21. While California legislators considered a similar move in 2002, the effort ultimately failed. No other city in the Golden State has succeeded in passing a similar ban. The Healdsburg ordinance will ban pharmacies, as well as supermarkets like Safeway that have pharmacies, from selling cigarettes -- a practice that began six years ago in nearby San Francisco. Earlier this year, CVS Caremark Corp announced it would stop selling tobacco products at its 7,600 stores across the country, and has put pressure on other pharmacies to follow suit. The Healdsburg legislation also requires that retailers obtain a new city license for tobacco sales, with an estimated $450 annual fee to help enforce the new regulations. City Councilman Gary Plass, who cast the only dissenting vote against the ordinance, argued that the law could easily be skirted by underage smokers willing to drive a few miles to buy cigarettes in another town, and would put local retailers at an economic disadvantage. "The four miles of Healdsburg has no business doing what no other city in California has done ... not even San Francisco," he said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Advocates for the ban, however, argued that Healdsburg could be a trendsetter and inspire other California cities to adopt similar regulations. "Anything we can do to turn the tide on smoking, we have an obligation to do," Councilman Tom Chambers said.

10 октября 2014, 21:43

CVS Considered Banning Candy And Soda On Top Of Cigarettes

NEW YORK -- When CVS made the decision to stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products in February, it was a pretty radical move. But the company almost went further. CVS also considered scrapping soda and candy, chief executive Larry Merlo revealed on Thursday. Appearing at a corporate responsibility conference in Manhattan, Merlo was asked how he “could rationalize” selling sugary food products that come with serious health risks like obesity and diabetes. “That’s a great question, and that was part of the healthy debate that we had with our management team in terms of well, what about these other products?” Merlo said, adding that CVS executives actually discussed with health experts the medical risks inherent in consuming large amounts of sugar. Eventually, Merlo said, the company decided that because consuming moderate amounts of junk food isn’t considered dangerous by medical experts, those products could stay on CVS shelves. “The feedback that we got quite comfortable with was, if you talk to a nutritionist, a dietician or your physician, you know, they will tell you that occasional use, taken in moderation, has not been proved to cause medical harm,” Merlo said. “But the same can’t be said about tobacco.” "We decided to remove tobacco because unlike those other products, there is no amount of tobacco use that is safe," CVS said in a statement. There’s little debate that cigarettes are more dangerous than sugar. Cigarette smoke is a poisonous mix of more than 7,000 chemicals, and harms nearly every organ in the body. Every year, 480,000 Americans die from smoking-related reasons -- that’s about one of every five U.S. deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Though not as deadly as cigarettes, sugar still poses several serious health risks and is considered more dangerous than previously thought. Diets high in sugar can lead to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Heart disease is the No. 1 killer of Americans, and sugary drinks are the biggest source of added sugar in Americans’ diets. If CVS had gone ahead and blocked sales of sugary food and drinks in its 7,600 U.S. stores, the backlash would probably have been severe. When Michael Bloomberg, then the mayor of New York City, introduced a plan in 2012 to ban sodas larger than 16 ounces, he faced staunch opposition from powerful trade associations, unions and minority groups, who slammed him for creating “a nanny state.” The law was later struck down by a state Supreme Court judge, who called it “arbitrary and capricious.” So what is a “moderate” amount of soda to drink? The American Heart Association says that you shouldn’t consume more than 450 calories of sugar-sweetened beverages a week -- which is the equivalent of about three 12-ounce cans of the stuff. Unfortunately, many Americans consume much more than that. Earlier this year, CVS said that it decided to stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products because doing so contradicted its goal of providing health care services for millions of Americans. Last month, it changed its name from CVS Caremark to CVS Health, citing its “broader health care commitment.” Though refusing to sell tobacco will cost CVS about $2 billion in lost sales annually, that’s not all that much for a company that generated $126.7 billion in sales last fiscal year. In any case, CVS may make up the lost revenue in other ways. It hopes to translate the positive publicity into valuable new partnerships with insurers, hospitals and physician practices, who will see CVS as a leader in its field. "This removes a barrier to forging new partnerships, which will create new growth for company," Merlo said Thursday. "They’ll emerge over the next 12, 18, 24 months or so. We will look back at this and say, 'This opened up new avenues for us to grow as a company.'" Plus, health care spending is projected to grow 5.6 percent this year compared to 2013, and to increase by 6 percent from 2015-2023, according to projections by federal auditors. CVS is poised to earn a greater share of that money as it ramps up its health care offerings. The company now has 900 “Minute Clinics” nationwide, where people can come to have simple medical services performed, like getting a flu vaccine or their blood pressure checked. As for the calls for CVS to get rid of its overly sweetened drinks and jumbo-size bags of candy, those will have to wait. In the meantime, the company plans to encourage customers to eat healthier snacks. “In coming months, you’ll see more information at the point of purchase, in terms of working to provide more education for consumers, and pointing out healthier alternatives,” Merlo said. 

Выбор редакции
07 октября 2014, 18:00

Like It Or Not, Obamacare Is Reshaping The Healthcare Industry

Investors should eep a keen eye on everything from CVS Caremark's foray into health care delivery to the merger wave among hospitals.

Выбор редакции
06 октября 2014, 17:34

Living Your Brand: CVS' Bold Move to Align Behavior With Brand

In February, CVS Caremark announced that it would stop selling cigarettes in all of its 7,700 stores and 900 walk-in clinics, effective October 1. The company implemented the change a month ahead of schedule and changed its name to CVS Health to align its brand and purpose of “helping people [...]

Выбор редакции
24 сентября 2014, 21:50

CVS Caremark declares $0.275 dividend

CVS Health (NYSE:CVS) declares $0.275/share quarterly dividend, in line with previous.Forward yield 1.36%Payable Nov. 3; for shareholders of record Oct. 23; ex-div Oct. 21. Post your comment!

24 сентября 2014, 20:50

CVS Caught Illegally Charging Women For Birth Control

CVS has been illegally charging women for birth control, violating an Obamacare provision that forces insurers to cover generic contraceptives at no cost to women. Since learning of a price-coding error that erroneously charged approximately 11,000 women unlawful copays, CVS has moved to fix the problem and refund affected customers. The issue was brought to public light by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) after one of her staffers was charged a $20 copay when trying to buy generic birth control at a CVS in Washington, D.C. Such a copay is illegal under the Affordable Care Act. Speier wrote a letter to Larry Merlo, the CEO of CVS, earlier this month. "Although my staff member's issue was eventually resolved a week and numerous phone calls and pharmacy visits later, I am concerned that most women who are likely not familiar with their rights under the ACA may go without this essential family planning service that is supposed to be guaranteed to them under law," Speier wrote in a letter dated September 9. On September 19, Sol J. Ross, CVS's head of federal affairs, responded to Speier, saying that the company was handling the issue. "Refund checks will be [sent] to affected plan members by September 26," Ross wrote. "In fact, refund checks have already started to go out and all should be received by October 1." CVS told The Huffington Post Wednesday that it had identified the glitch before receiving Speier's letter. "We are committed to assuring that our customers receive the pharmacy benefits that are available to them and apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused," a CVS spokesperson wrote in an email. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of women no longer have to pay for preventative health services and screenings, like an annual check-up, pap-smears and generic birth control. According to a recent study from the Guttmacher Institute, the percentage of privately insured women who no longer have to pay out-of-pocket costs for birth control is growing quickly. In fall 2012, before Obamacare went into affect, only 15 percent of insured women got free birth control pills. Today, that number is nearly 70 percent. The reason not all women today have health insurance that includes no-cost birth control is that some people are still covered by plans that are temporarily allowed to disregard this provision and other Obamacare rules. Eventually, virtually all health insurance will include no-cost contraceptives.  If you think you've been charged illegally for birth control at CVS, follow these instructions listed on Speier's website: Customers with questions about an illegal co-pay charge, or those who want to make sure they are receiving a reimbursement and whose prescription drug benefits are covered through the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) CVS Caremark, are encouraged to call 1-800-704-6589 and ask to speak with a Tier 2 representative or supervisor about a generic birth control illegal co-pay charge to make sure that their call is immediately escalated to a staff member with override capabilities.

Выбор редакции
18 сентября 2014, 17:30

Tough day setting up for drugstore stocks

Shares of Walgreen (NYSE:WAG) and CVS Caremark (NYSE:CVS) are showing some weakness early after results from Rite Aid (NYSE:RAD) take a hit from generic drug introductions. Walgreen is down 0.4% premarket, while CVS is tilting 0.6% south. Rite Aid (RAD) is in a dive, now down 13.4%. Post your comment!