$CVS · The Motley Fool · 2026-11-04
CVS 在2028年初前拆分为零售药房与 CVS Health 部门（PBM、Aetna、诊所），此举合理，且可能释放被压制的价值；但两家独立公司都不是说话者会买入的：零售业务面临与 Amazon 的长期竞争，保险业务则面临利用率飙升和报销方式变化。CVS Health 是更耐人寻味的一块；其中一部分可能成为收购目标，不过这一点仍有待观察。
逐段跳播
我们今天要聊 AMD，还有 CVS 的分拆，但我们必须先从今天的新闻说起。
We're going to talk today about AMD and also a split at CVS, but we have to start with the news of the day.
我们回来后，会聊到 CVS 从整合者转向去整合。几十年来，CVS 似乎一直处于整合阶段，不断增设更多门店。后来他们进入了保险业务，但这对投资者来说并没有特别奏效。过去十年，该股仅上涨了5%。
When we come back, we're going to get to CVS going from consolidator to deconolidating. For decades, it seems like CVS has been in consolidation phase, adding more and more stores.
Then they got into the insurance business, but that hasn't worked particularly well for investors. The stock's up just 5% in the past decade.
Rachel，今天早上他们宣布将把公司一分为二。我们需要了解什么？这最终会是那种能奏效的举措吗？是的，他们将拆分成两家独立的上市公司。这很大程度上是在解除一项持续了数十年的纵向整合战略。
其中最著名的例子之一就是2018年他们收购了Etna。我认为他们看到了不祥之兆：试图同时做连锁药店、医疗服务提供商和保险巨头，并没有创造长期股东价值。
Rachel, this morning they announced that they're going to be splitting the company into two. What do we need to know? And is this is this the kind of move that's going to ultimately work out?
Yeah, so they're going to split into two separate publicly traded companies. This is very much kind of unwinding what has been really a decadesl long uh vertical consolidation strategy.
I mean, one of the most notable examples of this was back in 2018 when they acquired Etna. I I think they're seeing the writing on the wall that trying to be, you know, the quarter drugstore, medical provider, insurance giant all at once, that has not created long-term shareholder value.
嗯，有些人就是这么说的，对吧？不。是的。老实说，过去几年对 CVS 来说非常非常艰难。他们宣布这个计划我并不特别意外。我认为它能创造什么样的价值，还非常有待观察。
Well, that that's what some said, right? No. Yeah. This this has been honestly a very very difficult few years for CVS. I'm not particularly surprised that they've announced this plan.
I think it very much remains to be seen what kind of value it will create.
但基本上，这个分拆计划预计在2028年初完成。所以他们将拥有 CVS pharmacy，这将是侧重零售的一侧，拥有数千家实体药店、分钟诊所和药房运营。然后他们将拥有 CVS Health，把药品福利管理机构 Caremark、Etna 以及他们的优质护理资产打包在一起。
But essentially the separation plan, it's supposed to conclude by early 2028. So they're going to have CVS pharmacy. That'll be the retail focus side, right, with the thousands of brick-andmortar drugstores, the minute clinics, pharmacy operations.
Then they'll have CVS Health that's going to bundle uh the pharmacy benefit manager, Caremark, Etna, and then their premium care assets into one.
他们过去几年之所以如此艰难，原因之一是整合的 PBM 和保险模式因医疗成本上升而在华盛顿面临大量立法审查。所以也许有这样一种想法：彻底拆分可能释放被套牢的股东价值。
One of the reasons they've had such a difficult time the last few years, so the integrated PBM and insurance models have been under a lot of legislative scrutiny in Washington over rising healthcare costs.
So maybe there's this idea that a clean break could unlock trapped shareholder value.
但即便是独立的零售药房业务，他们也在与 Amazon 等数字巨头进行一场长期的、结构性的较量；保险业务方面则面临使用成本飙升、政府报销模式转变。所以，我不确定这两家公司中任何一家是我愿意买入的，即便是在它们独立的状态下。
But even the standalone retail pharmacy side, they're in a really long-term secular battle against, you know, the digital uh giants like Amazon, the insurance side, is seeing surging utilization costs, shifting government reimbursement models.
So, I'm not necessarily sure that either of these two companies are are ones that I would want to be a buyer of uh even in their standalone state.
但当然，我确实认为把公司一分为二是有道理的。也许其中一家最终会成为收购目标。这还有待观察。是的，Lou，这似乎是那种对消费者从来都不会有好结果的交易之一，而 CVS 某种程度上变成了准垄断。
你知道，取决于你所在的地方，也许你运气好，旁边有一家 Walgreens 挨着一家 CVS。但你知道，随着他们进入保险业务，他们整合了越来越多的权力。你变得各自为政。看起来这并没有奏效，就像过去一二十年里很多这类公司一样。
But certainly, I do think that splitting the company in two makes sense. Maybe one ends up becoming an acquisition target. That remains to be seen. Yeah, Lou, this this seems to be one of these deals that it just never works out well for consumers and CVS kind of became quasi monopoly.
Uh you know, depending on where you're at, maybe you maybe are lucky and you have a Walgreens sitting next to a CVS. Uh but you know, they consolidated more and more power as you get into insurance.
You get kind of siloed. Seems like that just didn't work out well as it hasn't for a lot of these companies over the past decade or two.
这就是，我是说，看看这个国家的医疗保健，它就是一塌糊涂，就是这样。我认为 CBS，我是说，我认为他们试图通过做的一些交易来解决其中一些问题，结果却制造了新的烂摊子，因为归根结底，协同效应和利益冲突之间只有一线之隔，而当你面对的是一个人的生命，而不是，你知道，一架飞机发动机的价格时，纵向整合就带上了新的意味，并且会产生政治后果和很多后果。
This is I mean look healthcare in this country is a mess period and I think CBS is I mean they they I think were trying to solve some of that mess with some of the deals they did and they just created new messes because look at the end of the day there's a fine line between synergies and conflicts of interest and when you're dealing with someone's life versus like you know just the price of an aircraft engine vertical integration takes on new vibes then and have political consequences and a lot of consequences.
他们可能是在某种程度上走在了政治前面。不只是与这次选举有关，而是存在一种两党共识：同时拥有药房和药品福利管理机构对消费者不利。
is uh they might have been getting a kind of ahead of the politics here. Uh not just kind of with this election, but it just there's kind of bipartisan support that owning botharmacies and the pharmacy benefit managers doesn't isn't good for consumers.
我，你知道，Rachel 很可能是对的。这两家我都不会买。CVS Pharmacy，我们已经看到这在 Walgreens 身上是如何发展的。他们现在已经不是上市公司了。我怀疑 CVS Pharmacy 长期来看注定会是一家上市公司。
I, you know, Rachel's probably right. I'm not going to buy either of these. Uh CVS Pharmacy, we saw how this worked out for Walgreens. They're not public anymore. I doubt that CVS Pharmacy is destined to be a public company long term.
CVS Health，谁知道呢？我认为保险 PBM 和这些老年诊所的组合，我认为后者对整体故事非常重要，仅仅是因为 Medicare 的敞口。也许那里有不错的业务。我觉得这更有意思。
CVS Health, who knows? I think the combination of the insurance PBM and these senior clinics which I think are very important to the story just because of the Medicare exposure.
Maybe there's a good business there. I think that's more intriguing.