Talk:CVS Caremark/Archives/2014

Untitled

I have had my fill of caremark. After investigating what my prescriptions costs at the pharmacy versus going through their mail order program I have discovered I am being ripped off. The drugs costs less at the pharmacy than ordering by mail. A total of $13 per 90 days. I know that doesn't seem like much, but when you are a sick person. It is alot. Thanks Caremark for not caring about your customers

I removed a previous allegation that Caremark was involved in "drug recycling" or relabeling after I was totally unable to find any source which could back this up. Some pharmaceutical companies have been reliably reported as engaging in relabeling practices (e.g. Bayer), but verifiable material concering Caremark is simply not there. Anyone's research better than mine? If so, feel welcome to put it back. Caravaca 06:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a encyclopedia page

This looks like written by an insider. I really cannot understand what is the thing they are manufacturing or selling or the services they provide. Instead, I get something about ajax, like I care. Please take the time and make this page understandable.

I work for Caremark and I still have no clue what this section is talking about, it sounds like an embittered laid off IT person.

What you decide to believe or not believe shows your lack of sincerity. These people are GUILTY of taking advantage of the sick, poor, and dieing for the sake of greed. There is is place reserved for them in hell.

Sounds like you are biased. This is not a page for you to be biased, this is a page for you to discuss how to improve the article.

First paragraph -- odd timeline

Someone who has a better handle on the timeline involved should sort the first paragraph chronologically, or perhaps break the history into a separate section. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the drug recycling comment. Links should have been there to link the the KHOU story along with some lawsuits.

The drug recycling was entered as "Allegedy" to be safe against whiners.

And I am a former Caremark insider. "People" tamper with this entry because all the negitive news about the company. Some try to stifle the news updates on this entry.

Jamesreb 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And no, not an irrate IT employee. I am a WHISTLEBLOWER that worked in the LSMO CCC.

Someone definitely needs to redo the 1st paragraph. When you look up "history of Caremark", most other websites says Caremark was originally called Home Health Care of America & established in 1979. In addition, although this section is not written in a bias tone, half the article(as a whole) discusses scandals & other ethics issues. While I feel such subject matter is appropriate, it should not dominate the article.68.0.254.20 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge Page

I think a seperate CVS/Caremark page would be better than merging the Caremark into a CVS/Caremark page. Also Caremark is a seperate division in CVS/Caremark.

Also, there is already a CVS/Caremark Corporation page.

BhamAla 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Keeping a page that documents Caremark's own pre-CVS history/info would be appropriate.Jeebas62 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethical and legal issues

In regards to the racial harassment allegations in #1, per [1], a federal court had ruled in favor of Caremark. I think it would be appropriate to remove the mention of these allegations. As for the reusing returned mail-order medications in #4 & the forging/falsifying prescription drug changes in #5, was there ever any charges filed? If so, did a court find Caremark guilty of anything? My personal feeling in regards to allegations in general is that if they were never charged or and/or found guilty, it probably shouldn't be here. At a minimum, there should be a sentence stating the current state of the allegation, such as no charges were ever filed, was found not guilty, settled out of court, currently being investigated, etc.Jeebas62 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CaremarkLogo.png

Image:CaremarkLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)