Investigation reveals Foulkes earned millions at CVS while benefiting from profits

The profits generated by CVS and its former President, Helena Foulkes, during a time of opioid crisis have been the subject of scrutiny in a recent investigation conducted by GoLocal. While Foulkes presented a narrative of CVS’s commitment to addressing the epidemic, various documents and legal actions have contradicted those claims, shedding light on the company’s financial gains amidst a public health crisis resulting in significant human toll.

Helena Foulkes, a prominent figure in CVS’s leadership, received substantial compensation through salary, stock incentives, and bonuses while the company was profiting from the distribution of opioids. Despite her public statements about taking action upon learning of the epidemic, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings revealed that Foulkes amassed millions of dollars while CVS continued to flood the market with prescription pills.

GoLocal’s investigation involved an extensive review of lawsuits, SEC filings, press releases, media interviews, and numerous other sources. Notably, a 245-page lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against CVS exposed details that contradicted Foulkes’ assertions, highlighting the company’s practices during her tenure as president.

Amidst rising opioid-related deaths and devastation to countless families, Foulkes earned $21 million over a span of four years from 2014 to 2017, a period in which CVS was instrumental in opioid distribution. Retail prescriptions of opioids surged nationwide, indicating a concerning disregard for the consequences of heightened access to these potentially lethal medications.

Foulkes’ leadership role coincided with a surge in opioid prescriptions, despite stagnant reported pain levels among Americans. The U.S. DOJ’s lawsuit against CVS underscored the company’s profit-driven approach, with little emphasis placed on curtailing inappropriate dispensing practices in the face of escalating addiction rates and overdoses.

While Foulkes attributed CVS’s actions to perceived deception by Purdue Pharma, the reality painted a different picture. Despite settlement payments to the DEA totaling tens of millions, CVS’s involvement in the opioid supply chain persisted, raising questions about the company’s ethics in managing the crisis.

The revelation of multiple enforcement actions against CVS by the DEA further exemplified a pattern of negligence or indifference toward the rampant misuse of opioids. Settlement agreements and lawsuits underscore a troubling narrative of corporate profit-taking at the expense of public health and safety.

Foulkes’ narrative, once viewed as a beacon of corporate responsibility, now faces increased scrutiny in light of the revelations surrounding CVS’s practices during a critical period of the opioid epidemic. The investigation sheds light on the insidious intersection of financial gain and human tragedy, prompting a reevaluation of accountability and transparency within corporate pharmaceutical entities like CVS.