There are 30 Rexall's in Southern Ontario (I'm friends with the Regional VP).augustabound wrote:... in Southern Ontario there are Rexall stores popping up everywhere.
Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
- ThinkDividends
- Contributor
- Posts: 509
- Joined: 02 Dec 2009 00:07
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Patiently building wealth one dividend increase at a time…
- augustabound
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: 17 Mar 2007 09:56
- Location: GTA
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
The only Rexal I remember seeing longer that a couple of years ago is the one in First Canadian Place on King St. downtown (Toronto). Which was formerly a Pharma Plus.
I would imagine most of those 30 stores are pretty new compared to Shoppers fleet. Then again, they have their fair share of new locations like Alta mentioned........just like Tim Hortons, one on every corner.
As I thought about it I also remember seeing newer locations in Sudbury and Hamilton. (Yes my job takes me around the province sometimes unfortunately )
As for their weekly flyer, the only deals that we see are toilet paper on sale. Not worth it for me to make a stop just for TP.
But the convenience of them make it easy to stop in on your way home for a couple of things and many people do it as Pitz mentioned.
I would imagine most of those 30 stores are pretty new compared to Shoppers fleet. Then again, they have their fair share of new locations like Alta mentioned........just like Tim Hortons, one on every corner.
As I thought about it I also remember seeing newer locations in Sudbury and Hamilton. (Yes my job takes me around the province sometimes unfortunately )
As for their weekly flyer, the only deals that we see are toilet paper on sale. Not worth it for me to make a stop just for TP.
But the convenience of them make it easy to stop in on your way home for a couple of things and many people do it as Pitz mentioned.
"Whenever I'm about to do something I think, would an idiot do that? And if they would, I do not do that thing." - Dwight K. Schrute
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
I used to own SC. I sold it after I once asked the pharmacist why their dispensing fees were so high. She looked at me like I had two heads, and curtly told me to F-off (not in those exact words, though). I now get prescriptions filled at Walmart or Costco, for about a quarter the dispensing fee. I figured that if I felt ripped-off by Shoppers, then there must be others like me... that convinced me the stock was not worth owning. (I think I got out around $50 or perhaps slightly less.)
It's a good company, but only if they execute flawlessly and can maintain their high fees. I guess they found out they can't. There's too much risk investing in companies priced at "perfection".
It's a good company, but only if they execute flawlessly and can maintain their high fees. I guess they found out they can't. There's too much risk investing in companies priced at "perfection".
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Shoppers picks a fight that it will not win
Fabrice Taylor wrote:You can't blame Jurgen Schreiber for being upset with the Ontario government. But as a shareholder, you should be horrified about the way he's handling it.
Smart people never pick a fight with powerful politicians, and in provincial politics they don't come much more powerful than the minister of health. You can't win that scrap at the best of times and this is far from the best of times.
Mr. Schreiber, chief executive officer of Shoppers Drug Mart, (SC-T37.51-0.32-0.85%) doesn't get it. His stock has been bludgeoned since Ontario said it would radically alter the pharmacy business.
Some say the retailer's shares are cheap. Since other provinces will likely follow suit I'm not so sure, but at any rate I'd think twice about investing in a company whose CEO instigates a public relations battle against a government – especially a government trying to cut costs because it's nearly broke and everyone knows it.
[snip]
Mr. Schreiber doesn't get it though. He thinks he can intimidate Ms. Matthews by reducing service in her riding and threatening not to open new stores in the province.
Says an angry Ms. Matthews in response:
“I remain absolutely committed, in fact more committed than ever, to move forward with the reforms that will clean up a system that has been open to abuse, that will bring down the cost of generic drugs.”
Those are fighting words and she carries a big stick.
Mr. Schreiber could have taken the high road and stressed the potential positives, as some analysts have. He could have made a case for hard work and a nimble response to all this adversity.
Instead he petulantly stuck a pole in a beehive. Shoppers shareholders should hope he wakes up or the next thing you know the government might threaten to get into the business of dispensing drugs itself.
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Maybe they could dispense them from the LCBO stores!adrian2 wrote:Shoppers picks a fight that it will not win
Fabrice Taylor wrote:...Shoppers shareholders should hope he wakes up or the next thing you know the government might threaten to get into the business of dispensing drugs itself.
For the fun of it...Keith
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
I haven't seen any discussion about IF and how Pharmacies compensate doctors for writing prescriptions that send business their way. Has this been discussed? I do know that drug companies offer doctors perks but wonder if it goes further than that?adrian2 wrote:From TD Waterhouse:
The Government of Ontario (Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care) announced long awaited drug reform details. Unfortunately the worst case scenario materialized.
Suffice it to say, it just became a lot less profitable to run a pharmacy in Ontario and, eventually, probably Quebec as well. Given the lack of direct benefit to the government, we had assigned a relatively low probability to the worst case scenario (i.e., that government significantly reduces generic pricing and eliminates generic rebates on the private side) panning out but the government’s proposal did just that and then some. At first glance, it looks like pharmacies will take much, if not all, of the blow themselves, leaving the generic drug companies to emerge relatively unscathed. Moreover, there was very little offered in return for pharmacies to fill the funding gap on dispensing fees. The only saving grace is that the much larger private plan changes will be phased in over 4 years, but this will also depress earnings growth over an extended period of time.
[...]
Our 12-month target falls to $40.00 (from $52.00) but because we believe that the stock will drop materially on the open, it seems pointless to recommend selling at this point...so we are downgrading the stock to HOLD (from Buy).
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Springbok, here in BC when the Doc writes a prescription, you take it wherever you like to be filled. Can't see where there's any incentives here.
Also, from this morning's Globe and Mail:
A bitter pill to swallow
More details of the Ontario situation from the standpoint of the little guys.
Also, from this morning's Globe and Mail:
A bitter pill to swallow
More details of the Ontario situation from the standpoint of the little guys.
- augustabound
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: 17 Mar 2007 09:56
- Location: GTA
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Does the doc prescribe name brands versus generic brands or is it at the discretion of the pharmacist which to fill?scampbell wrote:Springbok, here in BC when the Doc writes a prescription, you take it wherever you like to be filled.
"Whenever I'm about to do something I think, would an idiot do that? And if they would, I do not do that thing." - Dwight K. Schrute
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Why is Ontario worried about the 'rising cost of generic drugs' if the main reason for this seems to be that a number of blockbuster brand drugs are coming off patent protection and will be available as (cheaper) generic drugs? I have no problems with trying to get a better price for generic drugs but wouldn't their total drug costs go down with more generic drugs?
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Yes, that is true - we CAN go anywhere for filling. But it just happens that there is a pharmacy right in same building or near to many of the new family health clinics that we now have in Ontario. Near us, Shoppers have built a new store with accommodation on upper floor that one of the Family Health Clinics is moving into. Guess where most of the prescriptions will be filled! And why would patients worry, unless they don't have a drug plan and are under 65.scampbell wrote:Springbok, here in BC when the Doc writes a prescription, you take it wherever you like to be filled. Can't see where there's any incentives here.
One of my prescriptions specifies Crestor and another Arthrotec. Pharmacy may try and substitute, I guess. But I would be unhappy if they did without clearing it with my doctor.Does the doc prescribe name brands versus generic brands or is it at the discretion of the pharmacist which to fill?
I do know of doctors who have been wined and dined, invited to expensive golf outings and otherwise feted by both drug companies and pharmacy owners. Just wondered if it goes beyond that.
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29494
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Springbok wrote:I haven't seen any discussion about IF and how Pharmacies compensate doctors for writing prescriptions that send business their way.
How do you know that most prescriptions are filled by pharmacies near the prescribing doctor's office? I'm sure some of that happens because of convenience but to what extent is an open question. And even if it happens a lot, unless you're suggesting some sort of kickback scheme, how does it raise the cost of medical care? How do you propose to stop it -- by legislating the minimum distance between a pharmacy and the nearest prescribing physician?Springbok wrote:But it just happens that there is a pharmacy right in same building or near to many of the new family health clinics that we now have in Ontario... Guess where most of the prescriptions will be filled!
It's at the pharmacist's discretion unless the doctor explicitly wrote, "No substitution." A further incentive to dispense generics is that many drug plans will only reimburse for the cost of a generic when one is available.Does the doc prescribe name brands versus generic brands or is it at the discretion of the pharmacist which to fill?
See above. If you don't want generic then you'll have to convince your doctor. Good luck with that unless you have an allergy to the generic but not the name brand.Pharmacy may try and substitute, I guess. But I would be unhappy if they did without clearing it with my doctor.
Another reason for Ontario's move (if it hasn't been mentioned upthread) from A bitter pill to swallow
Note also from the chart that the pharmacist's mark-up is based on the nominal drug price. This gives them a further reason to keep those prices high and accept kickbacksprofessional allowances rather than use the net price.Fuelling the battle over generic drugs is the increasing clout they are playing in medicine cabinets across the country. In the next five to seven years, some of the most-prescribed drugs in Canada will be coming off patent, meaning the name-brand manufacturer will give way to generic versions that can be sold cheaper. Lipitor, Advair, Crestor and Nexium are just a few blockbuster medicines that will likely be produced in generic form soon, meaning more of the population will be on generics than ever before – and governments will see their spending on generic drugs soar.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Pffft............Bylo Selhi wrote:Springbok wrote:I haven't seen any discussion about IF and how Pharmacies compensate doctors for writing prescriptions that send business their way.How do you know that most prescriptions are filled by pharmacies near the prescribing doctor's office? I'm sure some of that happens because of convenience but to what extent is an open question. And even if it happens a lot, unless you're suggesting some sort of kickback scheme, how does it raise the cost of medical care? How do you propose to stop it -- by legislating the minimum distance between a pharmacy and the nearest prescribing physician?Springbok wrote:But it just happens that there is a pharmacy right in same building or near to many of the new family health clinics that we now have in Ontario... Guess where most of the prescriptions will be filled!
It's at the pharmacist's discretion unless the doctor explicitly wrote, "No substitution." A further incentive to dispense generics is that many drug plans will only reimburse for the cost of a generic when one is available.Does the doc prescribe name brands versus generic brands or is it at the discretion of the pharmacist which to fill?
See above. If you don't want generic then you'll have to convince your doctor. Good luck with that unless you have an allergy to the generic but not the name brand.Pharmacy may try and substitute, I guess. But I would be unhappy if they did without clearing it with my doctor.
Another reason for Ontario's move (if it hasn't been mentioned upthread) from A bitter pill to swallowNote also from the chart that the pharmacist's mark-up is based on the nominal drug price. This gives them a further reason to keep those prices high and accept kickbacksprofessional allowances rather than use the net price.Fuelling the battle over generic drugs is the increasing clout they are playing in medicine cabinets across the country. In the next five to seven years, some of the most-prescribed drugs in Canada will be coming off patent, meaning the name-brand manufacturer will give way to generic versions that can be sold cheaper. Lipitor, Advair, Crestor and Nexium are just a few blockbuster medicines that will likely be produced in generic form soon, meaning more of the population will be on generics than ever before – and governments will see their spending on generic drugs soar.
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29494
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Thank you for taking the time to make that detailed, well-thought out and insightful post. If only all our healthcare funding problems could be solved so easilySpringbok wrote:Pffft............
More than meets the eye in pharmacy fight
I've wondered about that as well. It's not just the standalone pharmacies like SDM and Katz but all the grocery and department store pharmacy departments that seem to be everywhere. We've throttled the number of practicing physicians in order to control costs. Why not pharmacists? Yes, we went too far with doctors but that doesn't mean that the technique, if not the degree, is sound.Do we really need three drugstores at a single intersection?... We have too many pharmacies. The U.S. has about 56,000 of them. As of Jan. 1, Canada has 8,718. Using the standard 10 to 1 rule in Canada-U.S. comparisons, either the U.S. should have 87,000 drug stores or we should have 5,600. Judging from the three drug stores within 160 metres of each other at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West, I’m inclined to believe things are out of whack in the Great White North.
An additional measure: I suspect the majority of "drug users" are on a regular regimen of the same pharmaceuticals for chronic conditions, e.g. birth control, diabetes, hypertension, etc. Do they really need to go to a pharmacy for every refill? Surely it would be less expensive to send them refills by mail or courier. Pharmacists earn their dispensing fee for the advice they proffer during the initial transaction. But afterwards they add nothing apart from a generic "fact sheet" that no one bothers to read.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Personally, I find they don't earn that dispensing fee at all. I want them to count the pills and give them to me. I can read the friggin' label myself, and my doctor wouldn't have prescribed the drug if I didn't need it. I don't need all the other crap that pharmacists claim they offer.Bylo Selhi wrote:Pharmacists earn their dispensing fee for the advice they proffer during the initial transaction. But afterwards they add nothing apart from a generic "fact sheet" that no one bothers to read.
Places like Costco and Walmart recognize that fact. That's why their dispensing fees are so much lower.
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29494
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Don't be too sure. Your family doctor may not be aware of everything you're on. You may have prescriptions from your family doctor, your dentist, a specialist or three and maybe even from a hospital if you've been there recently. Some of those medications may interact. They could even be dangerous in combination or in multiple doses. You should have all those scrips filled at the same place so that the pharmacist can check for these kinds of issues. You should have no problem with paying a dispensing fee for that sort of service. It could save your life.bones1 wrote:my doctor wouldn't have prescribed the drug if I didn't need it
We should consider going to a two fee model. One fee would be charged only for the initial dispensation of a new or changed prescription. It would be relatively high to remunerate the pharmacist for the additional professional services rendered. The second would be to pay his/her technician for counting/packaging the pills. That second fee would be in the Costco/Wal-Mart price range.
I realize pharmacists won't like these sorts of reforms. They weren't exactly ecstatic about the prohibition on selling tobacco products either. Yet despite their predictions of dire consequences they seem to have thrived. SDM and Katz have both grown substantially since. These new measures won't kill them either.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
ISTM that we do have a lot of pharmacies - sometimes I wonder if just 4 corners at each intersection is enough for all the pharmacies, Tims and residual gas stations....
I'll second Bylo's comments given the fractured nature of the prescribing process. But this is where there would be real advantage in centralized medical records - because properly it should be the doctor who doesn't prescribe a conflicting drug, rather than having to rely on the pharmacist to "catch" an "error".
I'll second Bylo's comments given the fractured nature of the prescribing process. But this is where there would be real advantage in centralized medical records - because properly it should be the doctor who doesn't prescribe a conflicting drug, rather than having to rely on the pharmacist to "catch" an "error".
Peter
Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Or, #3, no dispensing advice at all. Just give me the frickin' pills, and charge me $0 for the dispensing fee. They already get a mark-up on the drug, so it's not like they're losing money. When I buy groceries, I don't get charged a service fee at the checkout!Bylo Selhi wrote:Don't be too sure. Your family doctor may not be aware of everything you're on. You may have prescriptions from your family doctor, your dentist, a specialist or three and maybe even from a hospital if you've been there recently. Some of those medications may interact. They could even be dangerous in combination or in multiple doses. You should have all those scrips filled at the same place so that the pharmacist can check for these kinds of issues. You should have no problem with paying a dispensing fee for that sort of service. It could save your life.bones1 wrote:my doctor wouldn't have prescribed the drug if I didn't need it
We should consider going to a two fee model. One fee would be charged only for the initial dispensation of a new or changed prescription. It would be relatively high to remunerate the pharmacist for the additional professional services rendered. The second would be to pay his/her technician for counting/packaging the pills. That second fee would be in the Costco/Wal-Mart price range.
I can see someone on a zillion pills that gets them prescribed from a dozen different doctors wanting a pharmacist to double check. Okay, then he can pay the rip-off dispensing fee!
As an aside, who's to say he only has one pharmacist? If he has a dozen doctors, why not multiple pharmacists? In that case, they can't cross-check his meds. They're just ripping him off for an illusion of safety.
Frankly, I don't want to deal with a pharmacist at all. I'd rather just get the pills from my doctor, first-hand. I realize that has a conflict of interest if he makes a profit doing that, but perhaps there's a way to make that part non-profit. Pharmacists are just middle-men.
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
It's not a pharmacy, the business model is basically mid size convenience retail backed by a (regulated) utility-like anchor, both financially and figuratively.pmj wrote: ISTM that we do have a lot of pharmacies - sometimes I wonder if just 4 corners at each intersection is enough for all the pharmacies, Tims and residual gas stations....
The reason there's a dispensing fee is because of government meddling. You aren't paying a fraction of the true economic cost for the drugs themselves so the real cost is made up in other goofy ways. Imagine the outrage if Canadians had to pay a market rat for pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical services. More transparent pricing is badly needed in all areas of healthcare IMO. Why is it only my dentist can give me a proper invoice worthy of a professionally run business?bones1 wrote: Or, #3, no dispensing advice at all. Just give me the frickin' pills, and charge me $0 for the dispensing fee. They already get a mark-up on the drug, so it's not like they're losing money. When I buy groceries, I don't get charged a service fee at the checkout!
This is absurd IMO. A bureaucrat legislating away one (sub class of) retailers ability to carry a product the competition carries. More and more meddling, when will it ever end. What's next? No more lotto tickets at retail outlets designated to be drugstores? Been too long since I've been to Ontario, maybe you can help on this one: Can London drugs sell tobacco in ON? If London Drugs is not a drugstore, what is it? (I'm guessing that LD is in ON and they do sell tobacco prods, could be wrong on either or both counts)Bylo Selhi wrote:...
realize pharmacists won't like these sorts of reforms. They weren't exactly ecstatic about the prohibition on selling tobacco products either. Yet despite their predictions of dire consequences they seem to have thrived. SDM and Katz have both grown substantially since. These new measures won't kill them either....
WalMart and Costco have a lower dispensing fee because it's not the anchor of their business and they are not in the 'convenience' arena. They have the add on services so that you have no reason not to go there, not to entice you to go there in the first place. Also, people waiting around for scripts increases the 'customer contact interval' which is positively related to revenue.bones1 wrote: ....Places like Costco and Walmart recognize that fact. That's why their dispensing fees are so much lower.
I can see why people would avoid SC as a customer but personally, I go there. Great hours, great location, minimal lineups and top notch service. Currently have a solid health plan in which the out of pocket cost to me is the same everywhere, so why would I go anywhere else.
Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome
--Charlie Munger
--Charlie Munger
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29494
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
You could be and you would be on both. LD doesn't operate in ON but if they did, like SDM, they wouldn't be allowed to sell tobacco. (BTW I miss LD's sales on computers and electronics.)FinEcon wrote:Can London drugs sell tobacco in ON? If London Drugs is not a drugstore, what is it? (I'm guessing that LD is in ON and they do sell tobacco prods, could be wrong on either or both counts)
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Why do you assume that if the government stopped regulating the markups on drugs, that the price would go up? Shopper's is already making a killing on drugs. Competition would keep rates down. That's what a free and open market does.FinEcon wrote: The reason there's a dispensing fee is because of government meddling. You aren't paying a fraction of the true economic cost for the drugs themselves so the real cost is made up in other goofy ways. Imagine the outrage if Canadians had to pay a market rat for pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical services.
That's one of the big problems with our health care system. We have two tiers: those with government-style health benefits, and those without. IMO, we should get rid of health plans. If people actually had to pay the full cost of dispensing fees, places like Shopper's wouldn't be able to charge such ridiculous rates. In the end, the taxpayers are funding Shopper's, because we have to pay for those gold-plated government health plans. And people like you don't care about how much you waste, because it's not "your money".I can see why people would avoid SC as a customer but personally, I go there. Great hours, great location, minimal lineups and top notch service. Currently have a solid health plan in which the out of pocket cost to me is the same everywhere, so why would I go anywhere else.
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
Must admit I'm surprised but appreciate the response, it's actually the one I was hoping for. Can anyone honestly say they believe LD is a 'drug store'? Come on.....the nearest one to me has kitchenware and cosmetics sections which are each larger than the pharmacy area. The electronics area is probably 20+% of the store floorspace. Just what constitutes a drugstore in McGuinty-land? So if a store such as LD removed the pharmacy section, could they sell tobacco? I cannot be the only one who feels this is absurd. I'm all for government reg when it makes sense but what rationale justifies this type of market distorting policy? I'm not big on smoking but really not big on unnecessary market meddling.Bylo Selhi wrote:You could be and you would be on both. LD doesn't operate in ON but if they did, like SDM, they wouldn't be allowed to sell tobacco. (BTW I miss LD's sales on computers and electronics.)FinEcon wrote:Can London drugs sell tobacco in ON? If London Drugs is not a drugstore, what is it? (I'm guessing that LD is in ON and they do sell tobacco prods, could be wrong on either or both counts)
Competition lowers prices when they are not being kept below market, a priori. The government didn't decide on a single payer system to raise prices paid by the end consumer. The government is distorting the market on the buy side (retail) and the sell (wholesale) side so it's difficult to say what would happen exactly. IMO, it would price out like the USA, higher for brand name, lower for generics but likely a higher average cost per person, distributed disproportionately, fairly or unfairly, on those who consume pharmaceuticals.bones1 wrote:Why do you assume that if the government stopped regulating the markups on drugs, that the price would go up? Shopper's is already making a killing on drugs. Competition would keep rates down. That's what a free and open market does.FinEcon wrote: The reason there's a dispensing fee is because of government meddling. You aren't paying a fraction of the true economic cost for the drugs themselves so the real cost is made up in other goofy ways. Imagine the outrage if Canadians had to pay a market rat for pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical services.
Not sure what you mean by government style benefits. Are you referring to benefit packages of civil servants or income tested pharmaceutical benefit plans for lower income persons? I'm happily in the without government benefits group....without as in has an exceptional private plan. Wherever I choose to go changes nothing in terms of my out of pocket cost, so I go to the best place for myself. Given SC's business model, it will likely continue to lead me there.bones1 wrote:That's one of the big problems with our health care system. We have two tiers: those with government-style health benefits, and those without. IMO, we should get rid of health plans. If people actually had to pay the full cost of dispensing fees, places like Shopper's wouldn't be able to charge such ridiculous rates. In the end, the taxpayers are funding Shopper's, because we have to pay for those gold-plated government health plans. And people like you don't care about how much you waste, because it's not "your money".FinEcon wrote: I can see why people would avoid SC as a customer but personally, I go there. Great hours, great location, minimal lineups and top notch service. Currently have a solid health plan in which the out of pocket cost to me is the same everywhere, so why would I go anywhere else.
As a side note, SC is finally converging to a valuation which doesn't offend my delicate sensibilities as a value oriented investor.
Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome
--Charlie Munger
--Charlie Munger
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29494
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lately?
We regulate a lot of legal substances, including tobacco, alcohol, prescription drugs, explosives, etc. Each type (and subtype -- there are extra regulations in place with respect to narcotics that don't apply to other pharmaceuticals) of substance is regulated in a unique way. We do this in order to reduce the likelihood that these substances will be sold to people who we, as a society, don't think should have them, e.g. tobacco and alcohol to minors, narcotics to addicts, explosives to terrorists, etc. The system isn't perfect as any teenager who wants to smoke or drink can attest.FinEcon wrote:I cannot be the only one who feels this is absurd. I'm all for government reg when it makes sense but what rationale justifies this type of market distorting policy? I'm not big on smoking but really not big on unnecessary market meddling.
Now tobacco is a substance that, while legal, is highly addictive and is known to cause all sorts of serious health issues. While the solution is hardly perfect, banning the sale of tobacco in pharmacies -- stores that are supposed to sell products that promote good health! -- is at least a symbolic acknowledgement of the health risks of using tobacco. ISTM that society is trying to walk a fine line. We can't ban tobacco altogether. Look at the problems that causes with marijuana for instance. So we tax it heavily, we make its use socially unacceptable and we make it difficult, but not impossible, to obtain. It's not perfect but it does seem to be reducing the number of people who smoke and with it, the cost of providing additional health care to them as a result of smoking.
BTW if you want "absurd" here's an anecdote from the Bill Davis Conservative dynasty years. I'm telling it so you won't blame "unnecessary market meddling" entirely on Liberal governments. Back then the vast majority of stores, including even grocery stores(*), were required to close on Sundays. A notable exception was pharmacies, for obvious reasons. But this was also a time when pharmacies started to expand their shelves to include all sorts of non-health-related merchandise. The pharmacy near me even had a basic selection of hardware that included electrical and plumbing parts. One Sunday I broke a copper fitting in the midst of a DIY plumbing job in the kitchen. Worse there wasn't a shut off valve there so I'd shut off water to the entire house. Not to worry, I figured I could scoot down to the pharmacy, pick up another fitting and have it in place in time for making Sunday dinner. When I got to the store the entire non-pharma area was roped off. I could see the fittings on the rack but I couldn't reach them. I begged the pharmacist to sell me one, just one. He flatly refused because, if caught, he'd be heavily fined. We've come a long way in Ontario since then. So we had to go without water until Monday morning. Now that's absurd.
(*) However, "convenience" stores like Mac's Milk and 7-11 were exempt even though they sold essentially a limited selection of the same merchandise as grocery stores but at inflated prices. Now how absurd is that "unnecessary market meddling" brought to you by successive Conservative governments?
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lat
Naw, it's the pharmacies that don't like these changes. The pharmacists have wanted to move into various professional services, like getting reimbursed for counselling on smoking cessation, managing blood pressure, renewing meds when it's obvious that they're still working, managing diabetes, getting paid to work with patient & prescribers* to get patients on the meds that the guidelines recommend rather than what that last rep who dropped off a bunch of free "samples" said was good, etc.Bylo Selhi wrote:Don't be too sure. Your family doctor may not be aware of everything you're on. You may have prescriptions from your family doctor, your dentist, a specialist or three and maybe even from a hospital if you've been there recently. Some of those medications may interact. They could even be dangerous in combination or in multiple doses. You should have all those scrips filled at the same place so that the pharmacist can check for these kinds of issues. You should have no problem with paying a dispensing fee for that sort of service. It could save your life.bones1 wrote:my doctor wouldn't have prescribed the drug if I didn't need it
We should consider going to a two fee model. One fee would be charged only for the initial dispensation of a new or changed prescription. It would be relatively high to remunerate the pharmacist for the additional professional services rendered. The second would be to pay his/her technician for counting/packaging the pills. That second fee would be in the Costco/Wal-Mart price range.
I realize pharmacists won't like these sorts of reforms.
Their dream is for an individual with high blood pressure to get a prescription merely prescribing "Drug Therapy", and get paid for positive outcomes (like hitting targets, adherence to regiment, side-effect management or living longer).
SDM and Rexall don't really like this world though, it cuts them out.
*Or being allowed to change these directly
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lat
for the vultures, like myself, who are intently following this story, more on this tale from MacLean's:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/22/onta ... armacists/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/22/onta ... armacists/
Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome
--Charlie Munger
--Charlie Munger
Re: Shoppers Drug Mart (Symbol-SC) -- why so beaten down lat
I do have strong opinions on this controversy, and surprisingly enough, I side with the Ontario government. I'm in the minority who pays for their own drugs, and unfortunately both my wife and me are not in perfect health so our medical expenses easily exceed the annual threshold to be claimable on our tax returns.
So obviously, I'd prefer to see the prices of generic drugs slashed in half, even if it would mean a higher dispensing fee. There are pills for which the medication cost is pennies (times the number of pills dispensed), where the fee costs more than the pills. In those cases, under the new model, they will cost more. In other cases, a 3-month supply of generic medicine can cost upwards of $200, so even with a higher dispensing fee, the price will come down substantially.
Bottom line: why should all patients pay for free delivery, convenient hours etc no matter if they use those services or not, and no matter which pharmacy they choose? If the price of generics is cut in half, and some pharmacies offer extra services, let them charge for those services, I believe in choice. I go out of my way to Costco pharmacy now and pay $4.11 dispensing fee instead of $10+ at Shoppers. Even now, the medication price itself is cheaper at Costco compared to regular pharmacies; I'm not getting free delivery and I'm not paying for it
So obviously, I'd prefer to see the prices of generic drugs slashed in half, even if it would mean a higher dispensing fee. There are pills for which the medication cost is pennies (times the number of pills dispensed), where the fee costs more than the pills. In those cases, under the new model, they will cost more. In other cases, a 3-month supply of generic medicine can cost upwards of $200, so even with a higher dispensing fee, the price will come down substantially.
Bottom line: why should all patients pay for free delivery, convenient hours etc no matter if they use those services or not, and no matter which pharmacy they choose? If the price of generics is cut in half, and some pharmacies offer extra services, let them charge for those services, I believe in choice. I go out of my way to Costco pharmacy now and pay $4.11 dispensing fee instead of $10+ at Shoppers. Even now, the medication price itself is cheaper at Costco compared to regular pharmacies; I'm not getting free delivery and I'm not paying for it