CVS to close 270 stores in 2025 Is your local branch on the list? Find out what this means for your prescriptions and healthcare access.
CVS Health has confirmed plans to close 270 shops across the United States in 2025. This marks the final stage of a broader initiative to shut down 900 locations over a three-year period. The move is part of the company's strategy to modernise services and meet the growing demand for digital and streamlined healthcare delivery.
According to CVS,the closures will primarily affect areas with multiple shops or those experiencing a decline in footfall. While the company maintains that 85% of Americans will still live within 10 miles of a CVS pharmacy, the closures raise concerns about access, particularly in rural and low-income communities. Why Is CVS Closing These Stores?
CVS states that the decision is based on three major factors: Changes in consumer behaviour, with more people using online services for prescriptions.
Overlapping shop locations, leading to inefficiencies.
A shift towards healthcare-focused branches, such as its HealthHUB model.
In a company statement, CVS explained: 'We are evolving to deliver a more personalised and connected healthcare experience that is accessible digitally and in person.'
This strategy includes expanding digital platforms, growing telehealth services, and opening smaller branches focused on wellness and treatment rather than retail. Entire State Could Lose Access: Arkansas at Risk
One of the most striking cases involves Arkansas, where all 23 CVS locations could close. The threat arises from a new state law that bans pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning pharmacies. CVS owns Caremark, one of the largest PBMs in the U.S.
Per reports from Newsweek, CVS claims the law may force its complete exit from the state, disrupting services for thousands. 'If my local branch shuts, I'll have to drive nearly 40 minutes,' said Little Rock resident Sandra Lewis. 'That's simply not practical for collecting medication.'
The company warns the law could reduce competition and increase the cost of prescriptions. How to Know If Your Local CVS Is Closing
CVS has not released a full list of affected locations. However, customers can take steps now to stay informed: Check the CVS Store Locator regularly for updates.
Call your local branch to enquire whether it is on the closure list.
Monitor local news and council notices for developments.
Staff at some branches have already been informed, so local pharmacists may be able to provide early confirmation. What CVS's New Direction Means for You
Rather than disappearing, CVS is transforming. The company is investing in clinics within Target shops, launching digital prescription tools, and scaling back general retail items.
Expect fewer greeting cards and snacks, and more healthcare services, such as flu jabs, diabetes screenings, and mental health support.
CVS says 900 closures by the end of 2025 will help streamline operations and improve service in remaining locations. By the Numbers: What the Closures Mean 270 shops will close in 2025.
900 locations total closing between 2022 and 2025.
23 Arkansas shops may close due to legal changes.
85% of Americans will still live within 10 miles of a CVS. What to Do Now to Prepare
To avoid disruption in your healthcare routine: Set up online prescription access through CVS.com.
Speak to your pharmacist about home delivery or nearby alternatives.
Consider using CVS pharmacies located in Target shops for continued care.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
a day ago
- Int'l Business Times
Former Biden Press Secretary Is Latest Democrat To Leave The Party, Will Release a Book Titled 'Independent'
Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced she is the latest Democrat to leave the party, becoming an independent after serving under former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Jean-Pierre will also release in October a book recounting the weeks that led to Biden's decision to not run for re-election last year. Titled "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines," it anticipates detailing the "betrayal by the Democratic Party" that led to Biden's announcement. The former official will also promote the need to "embrace life as Independents," claiming the two-party system is broken. "In a hard-hitting yet hopeful critique, Jean-Pierre defines what it means to be part of the growing percentage of our fractured electorate that is Independent," reads the announcement from Legacy Lit. Gallup noted last year that 43% of Americans identified as independents in 2023, tying a record high from 2014. 27% identified as Republicans and 27% as Democrats, a historical low for the latter. Jean-Pierre's is the latest of several recent departures, with some elected officials opting for No Party Affiliation and others joining the Republican Party. In Florida, state Senate Minority Leader Jason Pizzo announced his shift to NPA, claiming the state's Democratic Party is "dead" and criticizing political partisanship for hindering effective leadership. Doral Vice Mayor Maureen Porras, on her end, switched to the Republican Party in January. She cited the previous election's message from voters indicating a need for strong leadership and stated that the Democratic Party no longer represented her values or those of most Americans, claiming it prioritized "minority opinions" over community issues. Additionally, Florida State Representatives Hillary Cassel and Susan Valdes both left the Democratic Party in December. Cassel, a Jewish woman, specifically cited frustration with the party's stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict and tolerance of "extreme progressive voices." Valdes, on her end, expressed frustration with party leadership. Originally published on Latin Times
DW
a day ago
- DW
Musk slams Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' as 'abomination' – DW – 06/04/2025
Billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has heavily criticized a tax and spending bill put forward by US President Donald Trump. His remarks received support from a seemingly unlikely quarter. Billionaire Elon Musk has delivered a scathing opinion of US President Donald Trump's key tax and spending bill, describing it as "a disgusting abomination." Tuesday's remarks by Musk, considered a major Trump ally, come shortly after he withdrew from Washington at the end of his work for the administration, where he led the Department of Government Efficiency, better known as DOGE. The bill, which Trump has named the "Big Beautiful Bill," has so far passed the House of Representatives but is being held up in the Senate by several Republicans who want more cuts to spending. What did Musk and others say? "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk posted on his site X, formerly Twitter. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." He added that the bill would "massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt." In response to the comments, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: "Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it." However, Musk's comments received unexpected support from independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who wrote, "Musk is right," also calling the bill an "abomination." Sanders, a fierce Trump critic who describes himself as a democratic socialist and is allied with the Democratic Party, wrote that the bill would give the richest Americans $664 billion (€584 billion) in tax breaks while $290 billion would be cut from food aid for the impoverished. Trump's bill aims to extend tax breaks from his first term, financing them partly by cuts in social benefits. Edited by: Elizabeth Schumacher
Int'l Business Times
2 days ago
- Int'l Business Times
At No Cost to Federal Government a Lifeline for America's Communities
As the U.S. healthcare system wrestles with rising costs and deepening disparities, one federal program quietly continues to serve as a financial and clinical lifeline for millions of Americans: the 340B Drug Pricing Program. Since its inception in 1992, 340B has enabled safety net hospitals, community health centers, and other providers to purchase outpatient medications at reduced prices. These savings aren't about boosting bottom lines—they're about keeping doors open, expanding access to care, and delivering essential services for all. At its heart, 340B is about getting medicine—and the healthcare services needed to ensure their safe and effective use—to people who otherwise might go without it. It empowers hospitals that serve high numbers of uninsured and modest-income patients, as well as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Ryan White clinics that reach the working poor. The savings realized under 340B are not pocketed. These providers invest funds directly into programs that offer mental health services, treat substance use disorders, fund mobile clinics, and support chronic disease management. In many cases, access to the 340B program is the determining factor in whether a provider can afford to keep its pharmacy open to serve those who would otherwise go without treatment. The 340B program is a small program with big benefits. The discounts provided account for only 3% of drug companies' global revenues . At the same time, drug price increases continue to rise faster than inflation. In the United States, where drug companies already benefit from federally supported insurance programs and drug prices that are over three times higher than the rest of OECD countries, the 340B program is a reasonable accommodation to meet their obligations to be good corporate citizens. While the impact of the 340B program on drug companies is minimal, the impact on health is significant. Take community health centers, for example. These organizations are often the only providers in rural towns or urban neighborhoods. With the help of 340B, they can offer sliding scale fees, reach out to patients who are unhoused or living in poverty, and provide preventive care and health screenings that are crucial in addressing rising healthcare costs. For diseases like diabetes, 340B drug pricing ensures access to both medications as well as the patient education and healthcare provider services needed to effectively manage a complex chronic condition. In short, they make health more than a buzzword—they make it real. Hospitals also depend on 340B to sustain emergency rooms, neonatal intensive care units, and oncology programs. Small rural hospitals in particular often rely on these savings to remain operational. When one of these facilities shuts down, the consequences are immediate and severe: longer travel times for urgent care, delayed treatments, and a deeper strain on already stressed healthcare systems. Despite its impact, 340B has come under fire from some in the pharmaceutical industry and others who argue the program is being misused or lacks sufficient oversight. While oversight improvements are a worthy discussion, such criticisms ignore the real-world pressures providers face: skyrocketing drug prices, declining reimbursements, and the increasing demand for services as the population ages and grows more medically complex. Along with reasonable reforms that support program integrity, it's time to make common sense changes to reduce the regulatory burden on providers and let them focus on their main job—delivering high-quality health care to all. In the current budgetary environment, maintaining the 340B program is more important than ever. The program doesn't add to the federal budget. Instead, it gives healthcare providers the means to stretch existing resources further—just as Congress intended. Reducing or eliminating the 340B program to increase the profit of global pharmaceutical companies would shift costs to patients while simultaneously putting additional strains on state and federal budgets at the worst possible time. Undermining the 340B program would not just threaten individual institutions—it would unravel an already fragile health infrastructure. The people most affected would be those with the fewest options: modest and low-wage workers, rural residents, and those without insurance. The 340B program is a critical bridge between affordability and access, between policy and people. While reforms of the program may be useful, it is imperative they be guided with an overarching goal of improving how the program works for patients, not of providing a windfall for pharmaceutical manufacturers, who have experienced record profits since the program's inception. Weakening the 340B program would be short-sighted and harmful. Strengthening it is a fiscal imperative—for hospitals, clinics, and all communities. Author: Jane L. Delgado, Ph.D., M.S., is a highly esteemed and in-demand analyst and thought leader. She is the President and CEO of an NGO, Healthy Americas Foundation (HAF). She sits on the boards of the U.S. Soccer Foundation (Chair, Audit), McLean Hospital (Belmont, MA), the National Biodefense Science Advisory Board, the Lovelace Biomedical Research Institute (Investment Committee), and Argonne National Labs (Chair, Compensation).
