> I can understand that much, but CVS doesn't (privately) reap the returns from healthier customers.
Assuming that customer retention is cheaper than acquisition, it directly reaps the returns from not killing its customers.
> That dynamic would apply to a health insurer or provider, not a glorified convenience store.
CVS is, among other things, an insurer (or, rather, a pharmacy benefit management company serving insurers, but the incentives are pretty similar with regard to not killing the insurers customers), and also operates the nations largest walk-in clinic brand in its in-store clinics (so, its also a provider, and not just in the sense that every pharmacy is.)
>Assuming that customer retention is cheaper than acquisition, it directly reaps the returns from not killing its customers.
Public goods problem -- you have to subtract off all the customers you lose to other companies that have extra money due to not cutting off the cigarette revenue stream.
Assuming that customer retention is cheaper than acquisition, it directly reaps the returns from not killing its customers.
> That dynamic would apply to a health insurer or provider, not a glorified convenience store.
CVS is, among other things, an insurer (or, rather, a pharmacy benefit management company serving insurers, but the incentives are pretty similar with regard to not killing the insurers customers), and also operates the nations largest walk-in clinic brand in its in-store clinics (so, its also a provider, and not just in the sense that every pharmacy is.)