Category: Sackler Family

  • Prevent Opioid Overdose Deaths: A Call for Specific Prescribing Laws and Physician Oversight

    Prevent Opioid Overdose Deaths: A Call for Specific Prescribing Laws and Physician Oversight

    Make doctors precisely explain why they are prescribing opioids and why they decided on the pill count and refill allowance for each patient. 

    Recently, a friend’s teenage daughter underwent a procedure common for young adults: she had her wisdom teeth extracted. I had the same procedure performed in the late 1990s, at age 20. Back then, I was given a bottle of ibuprofen for the pain and, for the bleeding, told to apply tea bags. My friend’s daughter was given something just a tad stronger: 

    Vicodin.

    A teenager was given a strong opioid painkiller to numb the pain of a routine tooth extraction. It’s absurd that this is the accepted medication for this procedure when there are no complications, nothing that would indicate breakthrough pain on a level of requiring a narcotic that is given to cancer patients.

    However, the fight against opioid abuse is finally gaining promising victories by wielding an effective weapon: lawsuits. 

    Holding Big Pharma Accountable

    As the epidemic grew, many – myself included – called for state and local authorities to take drug companies to court for knowingly encouraging large-scale consumer usage of highly addictive prescription painkillers such as OxyContin, Vicodin and Percocet. Thousands of lawsuits have now been filed and in August, the $572 million decision won by Oklahoma against Johnson & Johnson became the first large-scale trial ruling concerning Big Pharma’s role in creating the opioid crisis. The state argued that J&J, which had supplied 60% of the opioids drug makers used for painkillers, aggressively marketed the drug to doctors and patients as safe. 

    Most recently the Sackler family – owners of Purdue Pharma, which makes OxyContin – reached a tentative settlement for$10-12 billion, a move that will result in the company’s bankruptcy

    They lied, we died, and now they have to pay up. Hopefully these are just the first few drips in an oncoming flood of restitution owed Americans by companies responsible for an unprecedented addiction crisis. They deserve whatever fates come their way – criminal, civil, or, as the 800-pound spoon left at Johnson & Johnson’s headquarters intended, shame-filled. 

    Now, as the overdose death rate shows signs of ebbing but has by no means abated – 68,000 Americans died in 2018 compared with 72,000 in 2017, hardly cause for celebration – it’s time to ask what’s next. 

    For years, drug companies pushed opioids as a panacea for all things pain-related. The result was an absolute avalanche of prescriptions: 191 million in 2017 alone, which averages to 58 opioid prescriptions for every 100 Americans. And despite guidelines intended to discourage opioid painkillers as a first-step approach to easing pain, primary care clinicians – most patients’ initial gateways to healthcare – wrote 45% of all opioid prescriptions. 

    Surgeons also have been implicated in widespread overprescribing. One study of nearly 20,000 surgeons, led by Johns Hopkins School of Public Health researchers, noted the common practice of prescribing dozens of opioid medications even for low-pain operations. Some prescribed over 100 opioid pills for the week following a surgery, along with usage instructions far exceeding guidelines from several academic medical centers. No wonder some six percent of all patients prescribed opioids post-surgery become dependent

    The diagnosis is simple: Doctors have proven incapable of, or unwilling to, exercise responsible discretion in determining which conditions and medical procedures necessitate painkillers notoriously linked to addiction, misuse, and overdose. 

    A Painful Backlash

    Complicating matters, the opioid crisis has become a two-way street. 

    In response to the backlash to the initial opioid free-for-all, many doctors have become so wary of prescribing opioids that those who truly need them are unjustly suffering. Much of this hesitancy is a reaction to guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control in 2016 that, according to Richard Lawhern, founder of the Alliance for the Treatment of Intractable Pain, has subjected patients with legitimate chronic pain to a “draconian reduction” in doctors willing to meet their needs with opioid-based medication.

    The problem with the CDC’s directive was vagueness of language. The guidelines state that opioids are appropriate for pain caused by cancer, end-of-life care, and “palliative care.” But “palliative” is a subjective term, and therefore confusing for doctors who, understandably, now have their guards up against malpractice suits in addition to opioid addiction and abuse. In a February 2019 reiteration of its guidelines, the CDC clarified that opioids are reasonable for chronic pain but, unfortunately, repeated its ambiguous wording concerning specific conditions. 

    However unintended, the result is patients who rely on opioids for legitimate medical reasons suffering for the sins of Big Pharma and, subsequently, the incompetence of government officials and the inadequacies – including cowardice – of doctors.

    The scale of the crisis and forcefulness of the backlash also has resulted in patients who, through no fault of their own, became dependent on opioids and, at the drop of a guideline, found themselves completely cut off from a highly addictive drug and dropped into a hellish withdrawal. The unsurprising consequence of this overreaction by doctors is patients turning to the streets for unregulated, often fentanyl-tainted heroin. Any laws written to specify opioid painkiller administration must include reasonable ways of relieving already-addicted patients through treatment centers and weaning agents like methadone and buprenorphine (suboxone). 

    However, the conviction permeating the chronic pain community – that doctors rather than laws should be the primary determinant of opioid prescriptions – simply doesn’t hold water. It’s become clear that doctors don’t necessarily know best. We need rules that hamstring the parasitic overprescribers while unhandcuffing the paranoid underprescribers.

    Guidelines Aren’t Enough

    It’s time for legislators to take the mystery out of this branch of medicine. If doctors can’t stop writing opioid prescriptions to those who don’t need them, or refusing to write prescriptions for those who do, then we must enact laws with clear prescribing instructions. 

    We’re all familiar with mandatory sentencing guidelines; we need mandatory dispensing guidelines – laws that bring harsh punishment for overprescribing pain medication when it’s not indicated, while reassuring doctors that they will not be unfairly punished for providing chronic pain patients with the relief they require.

    The time has come for customized ailment and procedure-related opioid painkiller dosing laws, complete with extensive medical rationale requirements. Make doctors precisely explain why they are prescribing opioids and why they decided on the pill count and refill allowance for each patient. 

    We also need to look at something else: ourselves. Especially in post-surgery settings, the opioid overprescribing epidemic was exacerbated by the naïve, altogether modern notion that patients should never feel discomfort or pain. 

    If alternatives to opioids don’t kill 100% of post-procedure pain, the new one-word answer should be “tough.” The idea that we can go through life without ever experiencing pain is not only delusional but, as we’re seeing, destructive. Things heal. Patients will need more, well, patience. 

    Numbing people literally to death is not the answer. It is irresponsible and dangerous to prescribe opioids for an ingrown toenail. Or for carpal tunnel syndrome. Or to a child following a tonsillectomy or, of course, a teenager after a tooth extraction. 

    On the flip side, it is cruel and flat-out stupid to deny patients with serious chronic pain access to a now-demonized family of medicines that for many has meant the difference between functioning and debilitation. 

    The time for general guidelines is behind us. We need strict, specific statutes that greatly diminish doctors’ discretion while placing transparency and responsibility squarely on their shoulders. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Sacklers Pulled $13B From Purdue Prompting States To Push Back On Settlement

    Sacklers Pulled $13B From Purdue Prompting States To Push Back On Settlement

    “The Sacklers used the profits from their illegal scheme to become one of the richest families in the world…” twenty-four states argued in court documents.

    The Sackler family reaped up to $13 billion in profits from Purdue Pharma, money that some states say the family is trying to protect from going to settlements in the opioid lawsuits. 

    Now, states are trying to stop the family from getting a nine-month stay to protect them from opioid-related lawsuits, The Washington Post reports. The Sacklers are asking for the stay as part of the Purdue bankruptcy case. However, the states say that the bankruptcy can move forward without protecting the family

    “The Sacklers used the profits from their illegal scheme to become one of the richest families in the world—far wealthier than the company they ran,” twenty-four states argued in court documents. “Now, the Sacklers seek to leverage Purdue’s corporate bankruptcy to avoid their own individual accountability.’’

    “They’ve extracted nearly all the money out of Purdue and pushed the carcass of the company into bankruptcy.”

    The settlement agreement with Purdue includes $3 billion in funds from the Sackler family, but states say that’s not enough when the family pulled more than four times that amount in profits. 

    Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey, who has been one of the most outspoken critics of the family, said, “The Sacklers want the bankruptcy court to stop our lawsuits so they can keep the billions of dollars they pocketed from OxyContin and walk away without ever being held accountable. That’s unacceptable.”

    North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein echoed that sentiment, “The Sackler family is trying to take advantage of the fact that they’ve extracted nearly all the money out of Purdue and pushed the carcass of the company into bankruptcy. That’s unacceptable. Multibillionaires are the opposite of bankrupt.’’

    Some States Feel Short-Changed By Settlement Offer

    Twenty-four states have agreed to the settlement, and an equal number—plus Washington, D.C.—are filing legal steps to oppose it. While some states are desperate for resources, others feel short-changed by the agreement.

    Daniel S. Connolly, an attorney for part of the Sackler family, insisted that the agreement was fair, and the family should be protected from further lawsuits. 

    “The Sacklers have agreed to relinquish their equity in Purdue and to contribute at least an additional $3 billion to the fight against the opioid crisis,” he said. “The stay, if granted, will allow parties to focus their efforts on this goal rather than on litigation that will waste resources and delay the deployment of solutions to communities in need.”

    He said that talking about $13 billion is unrealistic. 

    “The distribution numbers do not reflect the fact that many billions of dollars from that amount were paid in taxes and reinvested in businesses that will be sold as part of the proposed settlement,” he said. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    The third-generation Sackler defended his family, Purdue Pharma and OxyContin in an eye-opening interview with Vanity Fair.

    David Sackler — a former board member at Purdue Pharma and son of Richard Sackler, whose infamous comments about opioids have been made public this year — says that his family’s role in the opioid epidemic is misunderstood. 

    Speaking with Vanity Fair, Sackler called the focus on the family “vitriolic hyperbole” and “endless castigation.” However, he said that his entire family has the utmost sympathy for people whose lives have been upended up opioid abuse. 

    “We have so much empathy,” he said. “I’m sorry we didn’t start with that. We feel absolutely terrible. Facts will show we didn’t cause the crisis, but we want to help.”

    Sackler decided to speak out because he felt that by staying silent the family has let other people take control of the story about Purdue Pharma, his family and opioid abuse. He wanted to begin “begin humanizing” the family

    “We have not done a good job of talking about this,” Sackler said. “That’s what I regret the most.” 

    Sackler said that it was true that Purdue was one of the first companies to emphasize the pain-relieving qualities of opioids. 

    “We were. But as the science changed, we put safeguards in place,” he said. 

    Although OxyContin is often pinpointed as the start of the epidemic, Sackler said that idea is inaccurate. 

    “To argue that OxyContin started this is not in keeping with history,” he said. 

    He added that people are judging the company’s actions through a modern lens, without taking into account the prevailing wisdom at the time. 

    “I really don’t think there’s much in the complaints, frankly, that’s at issue that’s not just, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t have marketed these things at all,’” he said. “Right? And I guess that’s a hindsight debate one can have.”

    Sackler argued that OxyContin is not as addictive as is often portrayed, but also said that regulatory bodies share the blame for allowing the drug to move forward. He said that ultimately the Food and Drug Administration decided that the pain relief benefits of OxyContin outweighed the addiction risk.

    “The FDA approved this medication with that balance in mind,” Sackler said. “So like any medication that has unintended side effects, you knew that this was one. It was approved as one. Doctors understood it, right?”

    When the risks became clear, Purdue put protective measures in place, including barring sales reps from contacting doctors who operated pill mills, Sackler said. 

    “None of the facts support the notion of these craven people just blithely ignoring the risks,” he said. “The company was trying to do the right thing under incredible stress.”

    Sackler revealed that his father Richard, who once referred to people abusing OxyContin as “reckless criminals,” has poor communication skills. 

    “He just cannot understand how his words are going to land on somebody,” Sackler said. That is made even worse when Richard’s written remarks are released to the public, he noted. “For a person like that, email is about the worst medium possible to communicate in, because there is no other cue. And so he’s saying things that sound incredibly strident and sound incredibly unsympathetic, and that’s not the person that he is.”   

    He emphasized that while Purdue was not responsible for the opioid epidemic, the family certainly should not be held personally responsible. 

    “The suits are grasping at the notion that the Sacklers were in charge of the operation,” he said. “That’s just so not true. I was on the board from 2012 to 2018, and I was voting on information I was given.”

    Sackler insisted that Purdue and his family have done good over the years. 

    “It’s overwhelming what the company over the years was trying to do to fix this problem, and the money they spent,” he said. “And it’s heartbreaking for all of us in the family, not only to be attacked personally for this, but just to know the truth, and to know what the rest of the industry did in comparison—nothing. Nothing at all. Not a thing at all.”

    He continued, “We have gone past the point where no good deed goes unpunished into the theater of the absurd.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    The third-generation Sackler defended his family, Purdue Pharma and OxyContin in an eye-opening interview with Vanity Fair.

    David Sackler — a former board member at Purdue Pharma and son of Richard Sackler, whose infamous comments about opioids have been made public this year — says that his family’s role in the opioid epidemic is misunderstood. 

    Speaking with Vanity Fair, Sackler called the focus on the family “vitriolic hyperbole” and “endless castigation.” However, he said that his entire family has the utmost sympathy for people whose lives have been upended up opioid abuse. 

    “We have so much empathy,” he said. “I’m sorry we didn’t start with that. We feel absolutely terrible. Facts will show we didn’t cause the crisis, but we want to help.”

    Sackler decided to speak out because he felt that by staying silent the family has let other people take control of the story about Purdue Pharma, his family and opioid abuse. He wanted to begin “begin humanizing” the family

    “We have not done a good job of talking about this,” Sackler said. “That’s what I regret the most.” 

    Sackler said that it was true that Purdue was one of the first companies to emphasize the pain-relieving qualities of opioids. 

    “We were. But as the science changed, we put safeguards in place,” he said. 

    Although OxyContin is often pinpointed as the start of the epidemic, Sackler said that idea is inaccurate. 

    “To argue that OxyContin started this is not in keeping with history,” he said. 

    He added that people are judging the company’s actions through a modern lens, without taking into account the prevailing wisdom at the time. 

    “I really don’t think there’s much in the complaints, frankly, that’s at issue that’s not just, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t have marketed these things at all,’” he said. “Right? And I guess that’s a hindsight debate one can have.”

    Sackler argued that OxyContin is not as addictive as is often portrayed, but also said that regulatory bodies share the blame for allowing the drug to move forward. He said that ultimately the Food and Drug Administration decided that the pain relief benefits of OxyContin outweighed the addiction risk.

    “The FDA approved this medication with that balance in mind,” Sackler said. “So like any medication that has unintended side effects, you knew that this was one. It was approved as one. Doctors understood it, right?”

    When the risks became clear, Purdue put protective measures in place, including barring sales reps from contacting doctors who operated pill mills, Sackler said. 

    “None of the facts support the notion of these craven people just blithely ignoring the risks,” he said. “The company was trying to do the right thing under incredible stress.”

    Sackler revealed that his father Richard, who once referred to people abusing OxyContin as “reckless criminals,” has poor communication skills. 

    “He just cannot understand how his words are going to land on somebody,” Sackler said. That is made even worse when Richard’s written remarks are released to the public, he noted. “For a person like that, email is about the worst medium possible to communicate in, because there is no other cue. And so he’s saying things that sound incredibly strident and sound incredibly unsympathetic, and that’s not the person that he is.”   

    He emphasized that while Purdue was not responsible for the opioid epidemic, the family certainly should not be held personally responsible. 

    “The suits are grasping at the notion that the Sacklers were in charge of the operation,” he said. “That’s just so not true. I was on the board from 2012 to 2018, and I was voting on information I was given.”

    Sackler insisted that Purdue and his family have done good over the years. 

    “It’s overwhelming what the company over the years was trying to do to fix this problem, and the money they spent,” he said. “And it’s heartbreaking for all of us in the family, not only to be attacked personally for this, but just to know the truth, and to know what the rest of the industry did in comparison—nothing. Nothing at all. Not a thing at all.”

    He continued, “We have gone past the point where no good deed goes unpunished into the theater of the absurd.”

    View the original article at thefix.com