Showing posts with label CVS Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CVS Health. Show all posts

Monday, December 4, 2017

Amazon Strikes Again: CVS To Buy Aetna For $69BN In Year"s Largest Deal, "Reshaping Health Care"

A deal that was months in the making is finally official, with Aetna"s board of directors approving on Sunday the health insurer’s sale to drugstore chain operator CVS Health Corp for approximately $207 per share in cash and stock, in a deal worth $67 billion, multiple news sources reported on Sunday afternoon. The purchase price represents a premium of 29% to where Aetna shares were trading before the WSJ first reported that the two companies were in talks in October.



The deal will be this year’s largest corporate acquisition, and in combining one of the nation’s largest pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) and pharmacy operators with one of its oldest health insurers, will "reshape health care" by bringing a large insurer and a big provider of pharmacy services under one roof.


According to the agreed terms of the deal, which will be announced later on Sunday, Aetna shareholders will receive $145 per share in cash and 0.8378 CVS Health shares for each Aetna share. According to Reuters, "Aetna shareholders will own about 22% of the combined company, while CVS shareholders will own the remainder." As part of the acquisition, three Aetna directors, including Aetna’s Chairman and CEO Mark Bertolini, will join CVS’s board of directors. After the deal closes, Aetna will operate as a separate unit run by members of the current management.


The acquisition will be financed with a mix of cash and debt. Barclays, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America have committed to provide $49 billion of financing, Bloomberg reported.


With Aetna currently employing 49,500 while CVS has 204,000 full and part-time employees, the combined company will boast a quarter million workers, if only for the time being. The deal, which is expected to close in the second half of 2018, will create cost savings of about $750 million, which means tens of thousands of layoffs.


Some more on the companies" background: CVS, with annual revenue of $178 billion, is a major pharmacy-benefits manager in addition to its vast collection of drugstores, some of which already have retail clinics. Aetna, with revenue of around $63 billion, is the third-largest U.S. health insurer, providing coverage to around 22.2 million members enrolled in employer, Medicare, Medicaid and other plans.


The deal comes as healthcare payers and pharmacies are responding to rapidly changing factors, including Obamacare, rising drug prices "and the threat of competition from online retailers such as Amazon.com", Reuters noted. In fact, as Morgan Stanley pointed out two weeks ago, Amazon"s imminent entry into the healthcare sector has been cited as one of the primary catalysts behind the AET/CVS deal:



As a reminder, this is how Morgan Stanley summarized the rationale behind the just announced merger:








Drug retailers have the most opportunities to adjust their business models and lower cost structures to defend against Amazon. Within the drug supply chain, the threat of Amazon’s entry into drug retail is accelerating vertical integration, and is cited as a driver behind the rumored CVS/Aetna merger. In our view, the combination would diversify profits away from the supply chain, help create a narrow preferred network, and act as a first step in repurposing the retail footprint to create a new healthcare-retail delivery model. If drug retailers don"t change  this model, we estimate ~10% risk to profits. CVS has also announced free same-day delivery in New York City, proactively preparing for a potential Prime Now entry, in our view.



As a result, the deal “feels more defense than offense,” Ana Gupte, an analyst with Leerink Partners LLC, said recently. In Aetna’s case, “I don’t see a path to growth” in its current configuration, she said.


“One of the problems with the health-care system is it’s so fragmented and there’s so little coordination,” Bessemer Ventures" Steve Kraus told Bloomberg. “A better vertically integrated less-siloed system is a good thing in my mind.”


In this context, Reuters points out that CVS plans to use its low-cost clinics to eventually save more than $1 billion per year on health care costs for Aetna’s roughly 23 million medical members. It adds that a combined insurer and PBM will also likely be better placed to negotiate lower drug prices, and the arrangement could boost sales for CVS’s front-of-store retail business.


It"s not just imminent layoffs however, as the combined company expects to invest billions in the coming years to add clinics and services, largely financed by diverting funds away from other planned investments.








That could eventually cut costs substantially, with the clinics serving as an alternative to more expensive hospital emergency room visits.


 


Meanwhile, deeper collaboration between Aetna’s insurance business and CVS’s PBM division could drive down drug costs by adding clients and boosting the PBM’s leverage with drugmakers.



In recent years, independent PBMs have been criticized for keeping drug prices high amid potential conflicts of interest with insurance company clients, because they could potentially keep cost savings from drug negotiations rather than passing them on to patients.


Alternatively, PBM margins have been pressured and health insurers have sought to cut costs amid steep prescription drug price rises and requirements to care for even the sickest patients under the Affordable Care Act.


* * *


Analysts cited by Reuters said the CVS-Aetna deal could prompt other healthcare sector mega-mergers, as rivals scramble to emulate the strategy.








It could spur a merger between Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc and Humana Inc, or between Humana and Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Ana Gupte, analyst at Leerink Partners, said recently.



On Nov. 30, Express Scripts Holding Co.’s top executive said the company would be open to a deal at the right price, though wasn’t actively looking for one. “We don’t need to sell to be very successful in the future, but we are always open to others who may all of sudden conclude they want what we have,” Express Scripts CEO Tim Wentworth said in an interview. He also mentioned the possibility of partnering with Amazon on a drug distribution arrangement.


The deal, and any subsequent follow through, is not without risk of regulatory intervention: last year Aetna tried to buy rival Humana Inc to gain leverage to control costs, but antitrust regulators killed the deal as well as a proposed merger between Anthem and Cigna. Furthermore it is unclear if the DOJ, which recently sued to block the Time Warner-AT&T deal, won"t issue another antitrust veto. That could happen if the DOJ shifts its attention to vertical mergers:








Although CVS and Aetna’s planned merger does not directly consolidate the health insurance or pharmaceutical industries, the U.S. Department of Justice has been taking a closer look at so-called vertical mergers, where the companies are not direct competitors.


 


Last month, the Justice Department sued to block AT&T Inc’s planned $85.4 billion merger with Time Warner Inc, saying the integration of a content producer with a distributor could reduce consumer choice.



Reuters concedes that "the CVS-Aetna deal could attract similar scrutiny if regulators feared it could block Aetna customers from frequenting other pharmacies or contracting with other PBMs" even as four antitrust experts said there is little doubt the deal will be approved, although it might need to meet conditions to convince antitrust enforcers to sign off.








It is unclear whether it would be evaluated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department but that decision might be made based on which agency is less busy, said Matthew Cantor of law firm Constantine Cannon.


 


“(The companies) want the FTC to get it. The reason that the FTC is better at this point is that the Justice Department has just broken with decades of precedent of how to deal with vertical mergers,” said Cantor, referring to the decision to refuse conduct remedies and file a lawsuit to stop AT&T from buying Time Warner.



According to Bloomberg Intelligence"s Jennifer Rie, the CVS-Aetna deal antitrust prospects may depend on which U.S. regulator is tasked with reviewing it.








The Federal Trade Commission has been less critical of consolidation among companies in adjacent businesses, known as vertical consolidation. The Justice Department, on the other hand, last month sued to block the merger of AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Inc., a vertical deal.


 


Michael Newshel, an analyst at Evercore ISI, said the DOJ effort to block the AT&T-Time Warner deal does raises concerns but a CVS-Aetna deal does have a path forward. Aetna would likely need to divest some or all of its Medicare drug plan business, he said.



In addition to regulatory risk, the combination faces substantial challenges, "including the huge operational task of knitting together the companies’ diverse operations so that customer experiences are smooth and seamless. The deal isn’t likely to deliver as many cost-cutting benefits as combinations with more direct overlap, such as Aetna’s scuttled acquisition of Humana, analysts said. CVS will need to keep much of Aetna’s infrastructure since it doesn’t currently provide health insurance."


As noted by the WSJ, as part of the deal CVS plans to repurpose portions of its pharmacies so they become community health centers where customers can go to get answers to more questions about their health and coverage and how to manage the cost of it. The pharmacies will have space dedicated to wellness, and provide services for things like vision, hearing and nutrition.









Friday, June 16, 2017

Environmental Working Group Releases its 2017 Guide to Sunscreens

If you’re planning to spend summer days by the pool or beach-side, you’ll likely reach for a bottle of sunscreen to prevent you from becoming red and crispy. These products are not all created equal, however, and it can be difficult to know what to purchase when you’re staring at the multitude of options available at the supermarket. Thankfully, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has put out a list of the best and worst sunscreens every year since 2007 to help you decide.


This year, nearly ¾ of the products EWG examined offered inferior sun protection, or contained ingredients that can harm humans and/or the environment. One of those ingredients is oxybenzone, an endocrine-disrupting chemical which has also been linked to coral reef deaths.


The group says it has discovered a dramatic increase in the availability of mineral-only sunscreens, up from 17% of products in 2007 to 34% in 2017. Zinc oxide and titanium oxide products typically get positive reviews, as they are more stable in sunlight, offer a better balance between protection from both UVA and UVB rays, and rarely contain potentially harmful additives.




EWG says on its website that it remains concerned that a common sunscreen additive, a form of vitamin A called retinyl palmitate, can harm skin. It notes that government test data shows more skin tumors and lesions on animals treated with retinyl palmitate. Fortunately, the use of this potentially hazardous ingredient in sunscreen has decreased greatly – from nearly 40% of products in 2007, to just 14% of products reviewed in 2017.


Read: Synthetic Vitamin A Found in Sunscreens Linked to Skin Cancer


It should be noted that EWG considers sunscreen a last resort, behind the following protective measures:


  • Wearing clothing, which can reduce your risk of suffering a nasty sunburn by 27%;

  • Planning your day around the sun – the sun is lower in the sky and there is less of a burn risk early in the morning and in the late afternoon;

  • Finding or making shade, which can reduce the risk of multiple burns by 30%;

  • Sunglasses, which protect the eyes from UV rays;

  • Checking the UV index.

Of course if you know that you’ll be out in the sun for any extended period of time, I’d still recommend using sunscreen over turning into a lobster and suffering from UV damage.


Concerning Chemicals


Source: Yahoo Health
  • Oxybenzone is the EWG’s biggest concern health-wise, and for good reason. The endocrine disruptor is pervasive and has been detected in nearly every American. It has also been detected in breast milk. Oxybenzone is associated with relatively high rates of skin allergy.

  • Octinoxate (Octylmethoxycinnamate) has been detected in breast milk, is an endocrine disruptor, and has been shown to alter animals’ behavior and thyroids in studies. It is associated with moderate rates of skin allergy.

  • Homosalate has been found in mothers’ milk; disrupts estrogen, androgen, and progesterone; and leaves behind toxic breakdown products.

  • Octocrylene has shown up in breast milk, and is associated with relatively high rates of skin allergy.

A High SPF Doesn’t Always Mean More Protection


If you’re light-haired and fair-skinned, you should not assume that a higher SPF sunscreen offers significantly more protection than a lower one. EWG writes on its website:


“Theoretically, applying sunscreen with a sun protection factor, or SPF, of 100 would allow beachgoers to bare their skin 100 times longer before suffering a sunburn. Someone who would normally redden after 30 minutes in the midday sun could stay out for 50 hours.


But for high-SPF sunscreens, theory and reality are two different things. Many studies have found that people are misled by the claims on high-SPF sunscreen bottles. They are more likely to use high-SPF products improperly and as a result may expose themselves to more harmful ultraviolet radiation than people relying on products with lower SPF values.”


An SPF 100 product should – theoretically – provide twice as much protection as an SPF 50 sunscreen. But, in truth, the difference is negligible. A sunscreen with an SPF of 50 blocks 98% of UVB rays, while an SPF 100 blocks 99%. If you apply a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or a little more , you should be adequately protected from developing a sunburn, no matter how fair you are.


Source: The New York Times

High-SPF products may come with greater health risks, as well. These sunscreens require higher concentrations of sun-filtering chemicals than low-SPF sunscreens, and these chemicals have been linked to tissue damage and potential hormone disruption, not to mention skin allergies. The risks simply aren’t worth it – they don’t do a better job of protecting you.


Which Sunscreens You Should buy


This year, Environmental working Group gave 239 beach and sport sunscreens a green rating, the highest rating assigned to products by the group. There are also 239 green-rated sunscreen lotions for kids.


EWG also lists the worst of the worst sunscreens in its report, which includes recognizable names such as Banana Boat, Coppertone, CVS Health, Equate (Wal-Mart brand), and Neutrogena.


Source:


Environmental Working Group’s Guide to Sunscreens


Image Sources:


The New York Times




Yahoo Health



Storable Food


About Julie Fidler:


Author Image
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.