Understanding the Role of Purdue Pharma in the Opioid Crisis
School
New Jersey Institute Of Technology**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
MGMT 499
Subject
Management
Date
Dec 11, 2024
Pages
3
Uploaded by MateThunderMandrill46
Case Summary: Purdue Pharma and the Opioid Addiction Crisis(1) Who is responsible for the opioid crisis: Purdue Pharma, the FDA, patients, people with a drug use disorder, or all the above? Where lies the blame? Anand Giridharadas, New York Times bestselling author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, concludes: “if you look at the way in which the opioid crisis killed people, it is a direct, malicious, forthright set of choices by various actors that predictably, reliably, foreseeably killed very large numbers of people.” Do you agree with this assessment? Discuss.The opioid crisis happened because of bad decisions by many different groups. Purdue Pharma’s aggressive marketing, lobbying, and lying about the safety of OxyContin caused a lot of the problem. They marketed the drug as safe, long-lasting, and low risk, targeting general doctors who didn’t know much about opioids. The FDA is also to blame because they approved OxyContin for wide use without good independent studies and didn’t do enough to check Purdue’s claims. Patients and drug users were involved too, but their addiction often came from how easy it was to get opioids. Overall, the blame goes to Purdue Pharma, the FDA, the Sackler family, and a lack of proper healthcare oversight. Anand Giridharadas was right when he said this crisis came from “malicious choices.” Purdue Pharma cared more about money than public health.(2)The Sackler family and executives of Purdue Pharma maintain that they have done nothing wrong. They argue that all they did was develop and market an innovative drug that the FDA approved. The Sacklers firmly believe they did something good with OxyContin, which has allowed millions of people to cope with debilitating pain. They review pain (arthritis, back pain, and so on) as heavily undertreated in the United States. They maintain that the problem lies with the drug abusers and not with the company that developed the drug. Advancing a libertarian argument, the Sacklers liken their company to a gun manufacturer and argue that the gun manufacturer doesn’t shoot people, but people kill people using guns. To date, none of the Sackers has been convicted of any wrongdoing. They maintain their innocence and feel they are scapegoats for the drug- addiction crisis and for other pharma companies that also sold opioids. How do you assess this viewpoint?The Sackler family argues that Purdue Pharma is like a gun company—they made the product, but misuse isn’t their fault. However, this ignores key facts. Purdue Pharma misled doctors, patients, and regulators about how addictive OxyContin was. They made pain management sound like opioids were the only solution, even for minor pain.
Comparing themselves to a gun company is not fair because they had a responsibility to warn people about risks honestly. By shifting blame to others, they ignore the damage their company caused. The Sacklers had a moral duty to prevent harm, but they failed to do that.(3) Discuss the tension between ethical actions and legal actions. Some tactics might be legal but unethical. What should an executive do when faced with this tension? What would you do?There’s a big difference between what is legal and what is ethical. Many of Purdue Pharma’s actions, like hiring aggressive sales reps and pushing doctors to prescribe higher doses, were legal but still wrong. These actions hurt vulnerable people and made the crisis worse. Companies should focus on what is good for society, not just what is legal or profitable. If I were in this situation, I’d push for clear communication, better product testing, and actions that keep patients safe, even if it means earning less money.(4) Purdue Pharma’s significant innovation was the time-released version of codeine, which led to OxyContin. Purdue Pharma promoted the drug as less addictive, a claim the FDA approved. Yet, the claim was phony. It was based not on a scientific study but on a small anecdotal sample described in a letter to the editor of a leading medical journal (JAMA or Journal of the American Medical Association). When do marketing claims become unethical?Marketing becomes unethical when it misleads people, especially in healthcare. Purdue Pharma’s claims about OxyContin being low-risk and lasting 12 hours were based on weak evidence and weren’t true. These false claims made doctors and patients trust the drug when they shouldn’t have, leading to addiction and overuse. Ethical marketing needs to be truthful and backed by strong evidence. Regulators like the FDA should make sure companies can’t get away with this in the future.(5) In ChapterCase 12, we learned that two Theranos executives, Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani will face prison for committing fraud. Yet, not a single death was caused by Theranos’ medical devices. In contrast, over 1 million Americans have died of despair with most of those deaths directly or indirectly related to opioid addictions, which started with OxyContin’s marketing push. None of the Sacklers has been convicted, nor have they lost the billions they stashed away in overseas trusts. Where is the justice? How do you assess this situation, especially since many of the Sackler family members held similar executive positions at Purdue Pharma as Holmes and Balwani at Theranos? And both companies were private, not publicly owned stock companies.It’s unfair that no Sackler family members were punished while Theranos executives went to jail. Theranos didn’t cause any deaths, but Purdue Pharma is linked to over a million deaths. This shows how money and power can protect people from being held
accountable. The Sacklers moved their money to offshore accounts and used legal loopholes to avoid responsibility. Justice would mean taking back their hidden money, changing the laws that protect them, and making sure all parties involved are punished equally, no matter how rich they are.(6) The consultancy McKinsey paid $600 million to settle investigations for its role in advising Purdue Pharma on how to push OxyContin sales while not admitting anywrongdoing. The senior partners at McKinsey were unhappy because each partner takes ashare of the company’s profits, which are now $600 million less due to the settlement. To show their disapproval, McKinsey partners did not renew the term of their CEO, an unusual occurrence. They argued that McKinsey did nothing wrong and they were entitled to the $600 million. And, if it went that far, McKinsey should have fought any lawsuit. Does McKinsey have any blame for the opioid addiction crisis? How do you assess the sentiment of the company’s senior partners? What would you do if you were working at McKinsey and were assigned to be part of the Purdue Pharma consulting project? Discuss.McKinsey & Company helped Purdue Pharma increase OxyContin sales by giving advice on how to target certain doctors and respond to bad publicity. While McKinsey didn’t make or sell the drug, their advice helped Purdue’s harmful practices. McKinsey’s leaders saying they did “nothing wrong” ignores the bigger picture. If I worked on this project, I would speak up about the ethical problems, refuse to participate, and push for better consulting practices. Consultants have a duty to think about how their work affects society, not just how it helps their clients make money.