"In the case of controlled substances, we have to balance our mission to deliver medicines to pharmacies against our important efforts to prevent and illegal diversions of those drugs"
- McKesson ("Our Media Statement")
Within the settlement agreement, the four of the five major distributors of opioid substances -- Teva, McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen (the last three of which “distributes about 90% of all medicines to pharmacies, hospitals and clinics in the United States”)[2]-- have agreed to split the settlement bill amongst their group, with Teva agreeing to an annual cash payment of $30 million over the course of 3 year alongside a donation of $25 million worth of addiction treatments.
Though officials have hailed the settlement case to be “a benchmark for a national resolution for other communities...to abate the epidemic”[1], as Peter Weinberger, a lawyer representing the Ohio counties, that doesn’t mean the trial is completely off the table and done for. For example, Walgreens Boots Alliance, the fifth major distributor, “didn’t reach a deal”, which delayed their respective trial, while Mundipharma, a branch of the larger Purdue pharmaceutical group, “continues to market opioids...as more effective and less addictive”. All of this while an estimated “2,000 lawsuits…[in] virtually every U.S. state allege that pharmaceutical companies...promoted the widespread use of opioid painkillers while withholding crucial information about the risks of addiction”[4].
Hot-Take: I’m a strong advocate for market liberalism and my Torie-capitalist perception entails a support for government de-regulation of private interests, allowing them to have more mobility and flexibility in how they do their business with their consumers without the scrutiny of a central government breathing down on their necks. But, in this case, I side by the prosecutors because the country’s opioid crisis has been ongoing for nearly two-decades and has been perpetuated by their manufacturers by “ensuring their non-addictive qualities” in the same way that gambling firms have implored the public to try their luck and win big prizes by playing games of chance. Although, I disagree with the $260 million settlement because, in the face of the five giants and the multi-billion industry, that’s essentially loose change found underneath a couch.
Questions:
Should there be more federal oversight on the privatised opioid-drug industry?
Do you agree with the current settlement deal? If not, why?
How should drug companies address these issues in order to mitigate the crisis’ effects?
Sources
[1]https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/online-exclusives/drug-companies-reach-260-million-settlement-ohio-opioid-trial/
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/health/opioid-settlement.html
[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/health/opioids-trial-cleveland.html
[4]https://qz.com/1732237/four-major-players-reach-settlement-in-ohio-opioids-lawsuit/
4 comments:
There should definitely be more federal involvement in the opioid-drug industry, especially considering how such business has devastated the health of so many Americans in the past. Introducing increased government regulation in this industry could force opioid companies to clearly put warnings about the addiction and health risks, and hopefully, decrease the number of addicted users and overdose fatalities. I also agree with you on the weakness of the settlement; at first it may seem like a lot of money, but compared to how much money drug companies rake in from doing business, that amount is pretty much nothing.
There's definitely a need for some strict federal oversight regarding the opioid industry, as a sizable amount of drug related deaths are caused by opioid misuse. For example, 68% of drug overdose deaths in 2017 involved opioids, 6 times higher than that of 1999. It's necessary for the government to overview the actions of the companies producing the opioids so no misinformation or deception is circulated and should hope to curb the rising amount of opioid related deaths around America. While I dislike how the companies were essentially able to sneak their way past a possibly landmark trial regarding these types of industries, it is positive that these companies are being held accountable for the type of products they put out, even if the actual settlement money is quite low. It's essentially a warning to these companies to stay in line with a small money price so to avoid a big trial in the future that could cost them a massive fortune.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html
I definitely think there should not only be more government oversight on the illegal consumption and purchase of these opioids, but even more so a strategy for rehabilitation. Suddenly making it more illegal to access these opioids for those already addicted to it can cause more harm than help. Blindly throwing money into a situation that ultimately fails in the status quo (such as what this settlement attempts), is a poor band-aid solution that disregards root causes. I used to work in a Walgreen's Pharmacy and oftentimes our Pharmacist had to turn away people coming in with fake prescriptions and the like. She said that what often happens is those who had an accident or go to the hospital get a prescription for things such as pain meds, and while at first there was legitimate cause to use such medications, they get addicted to the very drugs they were supposed to be using to help their single need. Many CII and CIV drugs that patients are recommended to take are highly addictive so I think there needs to be more care taken in those writing prescriptions and those dispensing them to ensure its a single-issue use. I think that the government should definitely be more strict about follow-up with patients weaning off these drugs and working on better treatment methods. Plus, let's be real. Pharmaceutical companies couldn't give a rats ass about the people. They're not a multi-billion dollar industry for shits and giggles. They probably don't actually want the government to be strict about these things because that would make them lose money. MONEY MONEY MONEY. Everything is all about those Benji's. It's sad, really. Okay. I'm done with my rant.
I agree with Julian with government deregulation on some businesses, as that could allow for more technological innovation and such, but I definitely feel like the opioid manufacturers need to be held on a very tight leash for now. The opioid crisis resulted from lax testing/marketing of opioids as non addictive substances, and if the opioid industry is left unchecked they will continue making money at the expense of many people’s lives. To be honest, the settlement probably wouldn’t change the business practice of the opioid business at all, as opioid are a pretty necessary substance in medicine and if the business were left unregulated the companies producing the medicine would probably cut testing even more to increase profit margins to make back the money.
Post a Comment