Answer Addiction

Tag: opioid settlements

  • Four States Propose $48 Billion Settlement In Global Opioid Lawsuit

    Four States Propose $48 Billion Settlement In Global Opioid Lawsuit

    The $48 billion offer is still a far cry from the estimated $504 billion in damages caused to the country in 2015 alone.

    The attorneys general of four U.S. states have proposed a $48 billion settlement between some of the world’s biggest drug companies and states, tribes and nearly 3,000 cities and counties across the nation at what could be the peak of the opioid epidemic. 

    The offer comes shortly after what would have been the first federal opioid trial was averted by a $250 million settlement between Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen and two counties in Ohio.

    The global settlement deal was proposed by two Democratic and two Republican attorneys general of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Tennessee. According to NBC News, the foursome has not yet announced whether any other states are on board with their plan.

    Is $48 Billion Enough?

    However, a lawyer representing the cities and counties involved in the global suit, Paul Hanly, believes that this number is not high enough for his clients. It’s likely that negotiations will continue for another three to six months, he said.

    “This is the most complex negotiation in the history of litigation,” said Hanley.

    Last week, Hanley’s clients rejected an offer of $18 billion over the course of 18 years after it was found that New York City would have only received as little as $5 million per year from the deal, a small fraction of the $500 million per year it has spent to combat the opioid crisis. The same issue applied to other cities.

    The $48 billion offer is still a far cry from the estimated $504 billion in damages caused to the country in just the year 2015.

    Funds Would Be Delivered Over 10-Year Period

    The settlement would also be split between cash payments and services and supplies. The deal proposed for the global case would offer over $22 billion in cash as well as $26 billion in treatment drugs and delivery services, all of which would be delivered over the course of 10 years. 

    In Ohio, drug distributors Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen paid $215 million to Summit and Cuyahoga counties, while generic opioid maker Teva Pharmaceutical paid $20 million in cash and provided $25 million worth of Suboxone, a common opioid addiction treatment drug. The cash payments will also go toward treatment efforts.

    “We are looking at using this money for treatment,” said Cuyahoga County prosecutor Michael C. O’Malley. “It’s about rehabilitation and getting people straight.”

    Meanwhile, Walgreens Boots Alliance, another defendant in the Ohio case, has not yet announced its settlement with the plaintiffs. Purdue Pharma, whose name is often evoked when it comes to the opioid crisis, was also a target of these lawsuits but filed for bankruptcy in September.

    All companies involved have denied the allegations that they’re responsible for the opioid epidemic, but the three who settled last week released a joint statement saying that the deal is “an important stepping stone to achieving a global resolution and delivering meaningful relief.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Senator Urged AGs To Accept Settlement While On Sackler Payroll, Source Says

    Senator Urged AGs To Accept Settlement While On Sackler Payroll, Source Says

    Allegations surrounding Luther Strange’s role in the opioid settlements have created a deeper partisan divide.

    The opioid epidemic has been claiming lives across the country and affecting families no matter their socioeconomic status, race or political affiliation. And yet, a partisan divide has emerged in regards to the settlement with Purdue Pharma, thanks in part to one prominent Republican who was working with the Sacklers, the family that owns Purdue. 

    Conflict Of Interest

    NPR reported that Luther Strange, former Alabama attorney general and senator for that state, was working as a lawyer for the Sacklers at the same time that he was urging other Republican attorneys general to accept the proposed settlement deal. 

    At a meeting of the Republican Attorneys General Association, which took place over the summer in West Virginia, Strange allegedly urged attorneys general to accept the settlement with Purdue, while he was on the Sackler’s payroll. 

    Publicly, Strange has spoken out against the hiring of private lawyers to help craft the lawsuits against Big Pharma. He’s also said that using public nuisance laws to pursue companies could have wide-ranging impacts. 

    “I’ve written on this recently because it is a blooming problem and issue around the country,” he said in June. 

    The State Divide

    States are split almost evenly about whether to accept the proposed settlement with Purdue. The settlement would see the Sackler family contribute $3 billion of their personal money, but many attorneys general feel this is not enough, compared with the massive amount of profits that the family pulled from the company. 

    NPR found that opinions on the plan are split largely along part lines. Only two Democratic attorneys general are in favor of the settlement, with 20 opposing it. On the other hand, most Republicans are in favor of the settlement, with some exceptions.

    Richard Ausness studies opioid litigation at the University of Kentucky and says that the partisan divide can be explained by underlying differences about the purpose of the settlement. 

    He said, “Some of the Democratic politicians, more so than the Republicans, are on a crusade. This is a moral issue for them, not just simply a matter of economics. They want to punish the drug companies for what they did, and not simply make a deal with them.”

    Ausness pointed out that Republicans are less likely to want to sue companies, and that they have traditionally been more closely aligned with Big Pharma. 

    Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, a Republican, was widely praised for securing a $270 million settlement with Purdue Pharma and a ruling in favor of the state against Johnson & Johnson. While Hunter has secured millions in funding for his state, he was criticized by his party and was nearly defeated in a recent primary. 

    Over the summer, Hunter said, “It’s been tough. The extent to which this lawsuit was part of the discussion during the election was certainly regrettable. That was something that certainly gave me pause.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Johnson & Johnson Fined $107M Too Much In Opioid Settlement

    Johnson & Johnson Fined $107M Too Much In Opioid Settlement

    “That’s the last time I use that calculator,” an Oklahoma judge said, according to CNN.

    The judge who ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million said that he made a mathematical error that resulted in the settlement being $107 million too much. 

    Bad Math

    As part of the settlement, Judge Thad Balkman allotted $107,683,000 to help treat babies born dependent on opioids. However, Balkman said this week that he came to that sum by misguided math. He unintentionally added an extra three zeros. In reality, he only meant to assign $107,683 for the treatment of babies. 

    “That’s the last time I use that calculator,” Balkman said, according to CNN.

    Because of that, the landmark judgment against Johnson & Johnson will be reduced by nearly a quarter. 

    Lawyers for Johnson & Johnson were the first to notice the error. 

    “No evidence supports this higher amount, which appears simply to reflect a mistaken addition of three zeros to the calculation of the annual average, yet the state’s proposed judgment fails to account for this discrepancy,” the lawyers wrote in court paperwork. 

    Drugmaker Requests Further Reduction in Payout

    Johnson & Johnson also requested that Balkman reduce the amount that the company will be required to pay to account for the fact that Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries will be contributing $355 million to the state. That amount was decided on during a pretrial settlement. 

    Balkman has not yet said whether he will amend the Johnson & Johnson fine because of the settlement with Purdue and Teva. However, he will reduce the fine to account for his math error. The settlement amount will be updated, but Johnson & Johnson has said that it plans to appeal the ruling regardless. 

    The state of Oklahoma had asked for $17 billion in damages from Johnson & Johnson. Christopher Ruhm, professor of public policy and economics at the University of Virginia, helped the state decide how much to ask for. He said that $17 billion would have allowed Oklahoma to address the opioid epidemic over the next 30 years. 

    Opioid Settlements Pale in Comparison to Big Pharma Profits

    “It is a lot of money. It’s also a major public health crisis,” Ruhm said.

    Balkman used that plan to allot $572,102,028, roughly the amount that the state asked for per year. 

    “The state did not present sufficient evidence of the amount of time and costs necessary, beyond year one, to abate the opioid crisis,” he wrote in his ruling. 

    Although settlements around the opioid lawsuits can seem large, many people argue that they pale in comparison to the profits that companies made from opioids that were allegedly marketed in misleading ways. The settlement amounts are also small compared to the money that cities, counties and states spend to address the epidemic. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • How Should The Money From The Opioid Settlement Be Spent?

    How Should The Money From The Opioid Settlement Be Spent?

    Tight controls will be needed to guarantee that all funds support evidence-based methods of prevention and treatment.

    The opioid lawsuits and multi-billion dollar settlements that are being negotiated may seem like one-of-a-kind, but the U.S. has dealt with settlements of this magnitude before—in the 1990s, when Big Tobacco companies agreed to pay about $246 billion in damages over 25 years. 

    That money was intended to prevent people from smoking, and to help people stop if they were already addicted. And yet, just 2.4% of the settlement funds have gone toward cessation and prevention efforts. 

    Leana S. Wen, former Baltimore health commissioner and current visiting professor at George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, says that we need to proceed carefully to ensure that the opioid settlements aren’t squandered in the same way. 

    Supporting Evidence-Based Methods of Prevention and Treatment

    Writing for The Washington Post, Wen says, “To prevent a similarly egregious diversion, today’s policymakers should commit—at the outset—to a strong public health framing for the opioid settlement. This starts with tight controls to guarantee that all funds support evidence-based methods of prevention and treatment.”

    Wen outlines a series of steps to ensure that the opioid funding is distributed fairly and used effectively. First, she says, the government needs to stop supporting out-of-date detox programs that do not result in long-term sobriety. Instead, she says, the funds should be used to fund medication-assisted treatment, the gold standard for treating opioid use disorder. 

    “Rapid ‘detox’ programs do not work, and, in fact, lead to higher rates of overdose deaths,” Wen writes. “Yet, these detox programs still get government funding, and many states force people to comply with these methods. That needs to change.”

    Racial Disparities in Fund Distribution

    Next, Wen suggests that the funds be distributed to areas most affected by opioid addiction. This could be done using a model similar to the one that the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program uses to distribute money to areas hardest hit by HIV/AIDS outbreaks. 

    It’s important, Wen notes, that the funds be sent not just to areas with the highest prescription rates, but also to places where heroin and street drugs have been devastating. This is crucial in order to ensure that there are no racial gaps in who benefits from the settlement funds. 

    “A funding distribution that focuses only on one face of the disease would violate public health best practices,” she writes. “It would also worsen racial disparities. Already, many in my city and around the country are angry that opioid addiction was not deemed an epidemic until decades after it claimed the lives of countless people in minority communities.”

    Wen continues, “When the face of addiction was black and brown—and associated with heroin—addiction was seen as a crime and a moral failing; when it became white and associated with pills, addiction became understood as a disease. To be sure, it is an important development that much-needed resources are finally coming to address this crisis. But unless street drugs are given equal weight to prescription opioids, the response will not only be ineffective, it will perpetuate systemic injustice and structural racism that have long undergirded opioid addiction.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Arizona Backs Out Of Purdue Settlement

    Arizona Backs Out Of Purdue Settlement

    Arizona’s attorney general indicated that in light of new information, the $3 billion that the Sacklers had agreed to pay is not enough.

    States have been split on whether or not to accept a $12 billion opioid settlement with Purdue Pharma. Now, Arizona has become the first state to switch positions, backing out of the deal that it had previously agreed to.

    Major Withdrawal Triggers States To Rethink Settlement

    The move comes after court documents emerged indicating that the Sackler family, which owns Purdue, withdrew as much as $13 billion from the company. The family says that the withdrawals were used to pay taxes and were later invested in companies that the family will sell as part of the settlement.

    However, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich indicated that in light of the new information, the $3 billion that the Sacklers had agreed to pay is not enough, according to Reuters. 

    “It’s in everyone’s best interest to secure a just and timely settlement. Purdue and the Sackler family need to take responsibility for their role in the opioid crisis,” Brnovich said in a statement.

    Other States May Follow In Arizona’s Footsteps

    Arizona’s change of position means that the majority of states now oppose the settlement. Two states—Kentucky and Oklahoma—have reached their own settlements with Purdue, but of the remaining 48 states, 25 are not in agreement about the settlement. 

    Last month, when the settlement was announced, Brnovich said that it was “was the quickest and surest way to get immediate relief for Arizona and for the communities that have been harmed by the opioid crisis and the actions of the Sackler family,” according to CNN. 

    However, the new revelation that the Sacklers’ profits was more than triple the amount initially reported made him second-guess the settlement. The family “sought to undermine material terms of the deal,” Brnovich said in court fillings on Monday. 

    Although Arizona is not a state typically associated with a high rate of opioid overdose, Brnovich has been aggressively pursuing both Purdue and the Sackler family. In August, he announced a lawsuit that goes directly to the Supreme Court, in which the state alleges that the Sacklers took money from Purdue in order to avoid paying out damages. 

    “These transfers all took place at times when company officials, including the Sacklers, were keenly aware that Purdue was facing massive financial liabilities and that these transfers could prevent it from satisfying eventual judgments,” the suit argues. 

    “We want the Supreme Court to make sure that we hold accountable those individuals who are responsible for this epidemic,” Brnovich told The New York Times in August. “We allege that the Sacklers have siphoned billions of dollars from Purdue in recent years. They did this while knowing the company was facing massive financial liabilities.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Drug Companies Want Federal Judge Removed From Opioid Cases 

    Drug Companies Want Federal Judge Removed From Opioid Cases 

    Big Pharma lawyers argue that their clients will not get a fair trial with Judge Dan Polster because of his desire for a settlement.

    Drug companies and retailers that are being sued by local governments across the nation are requesting that the judge overseeing the opioid suits in federal court step down, saying that he is too focused on reaching a settlement. 

    Lawyers for the defendants—which include Cardinal Health, Walmart and many others—filed a motion on Saturday saying that Judge Dan Polster is not impartial in the case because he has said he wants a settlement, The Guardian reported. 

    Turning A Blind Eye

    Polster’s “unusual level of commitment” to reaching a settlement agreement has caused him to turn “a blind eye to the law,” the lawyers said in the motion. 

    They explained, “Defendants do not bring this motion lightly. Taken as a whole and viewed objectively, the record clearly demonstrates that recusal is necessary.”

    Polster has indeed been outspoken about his desire to see a settlement in the federal cases, which combined more than 2,000 lawsuits.  

    Hopeful For Change

    Last year, Polster discussed his hopes that the trials would result in meaningful change. The defendants latched onto that comment in their motion.

    They quoted Polster as saying, “My objective is to do something meaningful to abate this crisis,” including “dramatically reducing the number of opioids that are being disseminated, manufactured and distributed… and [assuring] that we get some amount of money to the government agencies for treatment.”

    Polster has acknowledged that the trials that he is presiding over are a unique situation, and something that hasn’t been seen before in the judiciary. 

    “The judicial branch typically doesn’t fix social problems, which is why I’m somewhat uncomfortable doing this, but it seems the most human thing to do,” he said in 2018. 

    The lawyers argue that their clients will not get a fair trial with Polster at the bench.

    “The court’s deep involvement in settlement discussions requires its disqualification from any bench trial of equitable remedies. Together, these factors more than raise a reasonable question about the court’s impartiality,” they wrote. 

    The first bellwether trial in the federal opioid litigation is scheduled to start next month. However, this motion is likely to delay that beginning, said law professor Carl Tobias.

    “Polster is likely to deny the motion, which will then be appealed, delaying the start of the trial,” he said. 

    Tobias pointed out that the whole point of presiding over all of the lawsuits in one court is to facilitate settlements. 

    “The defendants are saying Polster pre-judged the outcome through his public statements and in all he’s done,” Tobias said. “But trying to move it toward settlement is what Congress intended in this kind of situation.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Could The Purdue Settlement Set The Stage For A Public Pharma System?

    Could The Purdue Settlement Set The Stage For A Public Pharma System?

    “A United States public option for pharmaceutical production would address a range of problems in an industry rife with market failure.”   

    After Purdue Pharma settles its bankruptcy cases, the company will be disbanded and reformed, according to settlement plans. Rather than selling its drugs for profit, the new spin-off company will sell drugs to benefit cities and states devastated by the opioid crisis.

    Purdue will be no more, and a “public beneficiary company” will take its place. 

    Writing for The New Republic, Dana Brown and Isaiah J. Poole of The Democracy Collaborative, argue that this should be a first step in transforming the pharmaceutical industry from public to private. 

    “A United States public option for pharmaceutical production would address a range of problems in an industry rife with market failure,” Brown and Poole write.  

    The Case For Public Pharma

    Unscrupulous tactics like those undertaken by Purdue, the company behind OxyContin, and other opioid manufacturers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the industry’s problems, they write. There’s the fact that some medications are too expensive for the people who need them the most (including insulin, which has been in the news for high prices). Or, the fact that companies only research drugs that they believe can generate profit. 

    “The case for a public option is simple,” the authors write. “First, publicly owned pharmaceuticals are free of the structural need to appease profit-hungry shareholders and are thus able to focus on public health priorities.”

    Other Countries Have Public Options

    Sweden, Brazil, China and India all have some sort of public pharmaceutical industry and those countries have contributed to global drug development. 

    “These examples expose the emptiness of industry arguments that public involvement in the drug industry will stifle innovation,” Poole and Brown write. In fact, with no need to spend on advertising or to direct profits to investors, a public pharmaceutical company would be better able to invest in research and thus make new innovations, they write. 

    The authors point out that controlling diabetes currently costs about $6,000 per person annually, a cost that has tripled in the past 10 years. A public pharmaceutical company could cut that cost to about $70, according to some analysis. 

    “Coupled with reforms such as a national pharmaceutical institute—which would ensure public investments in medical research can be harnessed for public benefit instead of co-opted exclusively for private profit—these public enterprises would produce both new medications and generics, and could offer them at or even below cost,” Poole and Brown write. 

    Learning From the Big Tobacco Settlement

    The authors point out that little lasting change came from the massive settlement with Big Tobacco in 1998. However, the opioid settlement could be different, if it sparked interest in public pharmaceuticals. 

    Poole and Brown conclude, “The U.S. could once and for all move beyond having to tolerate an industry that subordinates public health to shareholder greed.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Sacklers Accused Of Concealing $1 Billion In Wire Transfers

    Sacklers Accused Of Concealing $1 Billion In Wire Transfers

    The New York Attorney General’s Office was able to identify shell companies that were used to conceal the Sacklers’ riches.

    Members of the Sackler family have been accused of trying to conceal their wealth, as they try to settle some 2,000 lawsuits alleging that the family-owned company Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, contributed to the opioid crisis.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James said that her office discovered about $1 billion in wire transfers made by the Sackler family to various entities including real estate holdings.

    The wire transfers were uncovered as a result of just one of 33 subpoenas issued by James to various financial institutions, seeking information about the family’s wealth. Forbes listed the Sacklers as the 19th richest American family in 2016 with a net worth of $13 billion.

    Shell Companies

    James’ office was able to identify shell companies that were used to conceal the Sacklers’ riches.

    “While the Sacklers continue to lowball victims and skirt a responsible settlement, we refuse to allow the family to misuse the courts in an effort to shield their financial misconduct,” said James in a statement. “The limited number of documents provided to us so far underscore the necessity for compliance with every subpoena.”

    Sackler Rep Says Transfers “Were Perfectly Legal”

    A representative for Mortimer D.A. Sackler, a former Purdue Pharma board member, denied James’ suggestion that the family has been trying to protect their wealth from the barrage of lawsuits from states, counties, cities and tribal governments across the U.S.

    “There is nothing newsworthy about these decade-old transfers, which were perfectly legal and appropriate in every respect,” they stated. “This is a cynical attempt by a hostile AG’s office to generate defamatory headlines to try to torpedo a mutually beneficial settlement that is supported by so many other states and would result in billions of dollars going to communities and individuals across the country that need help.”

    A lawyer for Purdue Pharma argued in a court filing against subpoena action by the AG’s office, but a lawyer for the AG’s office said they have already helped uncover “shell companies” used by the family to hide their wealth.

    “Already, these records have allowed the State to identify previously unknown shell companies that one of the Sackler Defendants used to shift Purdue money through accounts around the world and then conceal it in at least two separate multimillion-dollar real estate investments here in New York, sanitized (until now) of any readily-detectable connections to the Sackler family,” said David E. Nachman in a letter to the court.

    On Monday, it was reported that Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy after reaching a tentative settlement that could be worth up to $12 billion over time, according to AP News. However, not everyone is onboard with the proposed settlement.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Purdue Reaches $10 Billion Settlement In Opioid Lawsuits

    Purdue Reaches $10 Billion Settlement In Opioid Lawsuits

    The deal does not include any admission of wrongdoing by Purdue Pharma or the Sackler family. 

    Purdue Pharma, the most infamous manufacturer of prescription opioid pills, has reached a multi-billion dollar settlement with thousands of state, city and county governments that are suing the maker of OxyContin for its alleged role in the opioid epidemic. 

    The deal was first reported Wednesday evening (Sept. 11). The details were not immediately made public, but The New York Times reported the basics of the settlement: Purdue will declare bankruptcy.

    What Happens To Purdue?

    A new company will be formed to sell OxyContin, and the profits from those sales will go to Purdue’s settlement payout. The Sackler family, which owns Purdue, will contribute $3 million to the settlement over seven years. In addition, Purdue will donate prescriptions, including those for addiction treatment. NBC News reported that the settlement is worth $10-12 billion overall. 

    The deal does not include any admission of wrongdoing by Purdue Pharma or the Sackler family. 

    According to NBC News, as of Thursday (Sept. 12), at least 20 states have rejected the deal while legal officials in 27 states are reportedly in favor of the deal, which still needs to be approved by a bankruptcy judge and the board of Purdue Pharma. 

    “We are proud to participate in the nation’s most significant step in addressing this deadly crisis,” Texas attorney general Ken Paxton said through a spokesperson. 

    Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, who earlier this week predicted that Purdue would likely file for bankruptcy, said the settlement “would secure billions of dollars nationwide to go toward addressing the devastating effects of the opioid epidemic and will result in the Sackler family divesting themselves of their business interests in the pharmaceutical industry forever.”

    Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody said that the settlement was historic and will help provide treatment. 

    “Sadly, this agreement cannot bring back those who have lost their lives to opioid abuse, but it will help Florida gain access to more life-saving resources and bolster our efforts to end this deadly epidemic,” Moody said. 

    The Opposition Calls The Settlement “An Insult”

    However, not everyone was satisfied with the settlement. At least 20 states have opted not to sign on to the deal. New York Attorney General Letitia James had one of the strongest reactions, calling the settlement “an insult, plain and simple.”

    Other states want to hold onto their right to sue the Sackler family personally. 

    “If Purdue cannot pay for the harm it inflicted, the Sacklers will,” said New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal. 

    Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey wanted to see Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family forced to admit wrongdoing. 

    “It’s critical that all the facts come out about what this company and its executives and directors did, that they apologize for the harm they caused, and that no one profits from breaking the law,” she said. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Purdue Pharma Would Pay Billions In Proposed Opioid Settlement

    Purdue Pharma Would Pay Billions In Proposed Opioid Settlement

    The newly proposed deal would involve the Sackler family giving up control of Purdue, and paying at least $3 billion toward the settlement.

    Purdue Pharma may be close to reaching a settlement. The OxyContin maker—named in more than 2,000 lawsuits for fueling, and then aggravating, the opioid crisis—is seeking to resolve the lawsuits through a multibillion dollar settlement, NBC News reported.

    The company’s lawyers were in Cleveland last Tuesday (Aug. 20) to meet with the plaintiffs’ attorneys, including state attorneys general, to discuss the proposal, anonymous sources relayed to NBC.

    The company would settle for $10 billion to $12 billion, and declare bankruptcy. The deal would involve the Sackler family giving up control of Purdue, and paying at least $3 billion toward the settlement. The family has owned Purdue since 1952.

    Purdue Speaks

    “The people and communities affected by the opioid crisis need help now,” the company said in a statement to NBC. “Purdue believes a constructive global resolution is the best path forward, and the company is actively working with the state attorneys general and other plaintiffs to achieve this outcome.”

    The company is blamed for fueling the opioid crisis by “downplaying the risks of addiction to OxyContin while exaggerating its benefits.”

    The death toll of the opioid crisis has exceeded 400,000 between 1999-2017, the CDC says.

    The Sacklers

    The legacy of the wealthy Sackler family—a major donor to the arts—has been tarnished by their affiliation with OxyContin. The Sackler name has been removed from the Louvre, and major institutions including the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Guggenheim have agreed to stop accepting gifts from the family, following anti-Sackler rallies organized by photographer Nan Goldin, who herself is in recovery from prescription opioid abuse.

    This wouldn’t be the first time Purdue had to pay for the “alleged” damage inflicted by OxyContin. In 2007, the company paid a fine of $635 million and top executives pleaded guilty in federal court to criminal charges that they duped regulators, medical providers and patients about the drug’s potential to be abused, as the New York Times reported.

    The company also agreed to pay Oklahoma $270 million in March, avoiding the trial that just concluded this month with only Johnson & Johnson as the remaining defendant. Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay the state $572 million to offset the cost of the opioid crisis.

    View the original article at thefix.com