Answer Addiction

Tag: Purdue Pharma

  • 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

  • Judge Orders Pause On Suits Against Sacklers, Purdue

    Judge Orders Pause On Suits Against Sacklers, Purdue

    The Sacklers had asked for a months-long stay on lawsuits while they dealt with Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy. 

    A federal judge has put a temporary hold on further lawsuits of Purdue Pharma or the Sackler family, but not as long of a hold as the Sacklers wanted. 

    Robert D. Drain, a bankruptcy judge based in New York, is overseeing the proceedings for Purdue (the maker of OxyContin), part of the company’s settlement in opioid litigation. Drain put a stay in place that will last until November 6.

    According to the New York Times, Drain said that this will keep the parties from unnecessary spending on litigation, but also ensure that the settlement is moving forward. 

    States that oppose the settlement agreement are trying to go after the Sacklers’ personal wealth, which the states argue was gained through their company’s harmful and possibly illegal marketing practices.

    The Sacklers Wanted A Longer Stay To Deal With Bankruptcy

    The Sacklers are contributing $3 billion to the settlement, but states argue that is little compared to the amount the company profited from OxyContin and other prescription drugs. The Sacklers asked for a months-long stay on lawsuits while they dealt with the bankruptcy. 

    The judge, it seemed, ruled in the middle. During the seven-hour hearing, Drain emphasized that the bankruptcy court could craft a binding agreement that would help states reach their ultimate goal: getting damages to help them cover the costs of the opioid crisis. He said that Purdue (and the Sacklers) would not be able to use delay tactics in his court. 

    Midway through the hearing, the Times reported that Drain shouted, “No one wastes time in front of me! Everyone, the debtor first and foremost, would engage in good faith.” 

    Learning From The Big Tobacco Settlement

    Drain pointed out that his court has the power to make a settlement that will dictate what the funds are used for. He pointed out that this could help avoid issues like those that happened with the tobacco settlement, where funds that were intended for smoking prevention were instead used to cover general budget shortcomings. 

    “That could not happen in a bankruptcy plan, because a bankruptcy plan is binding,” he said. 

    The states agreed to voluntarily abide by Drain’s decision, since a federal judge cannot compel states to a certain action. By November 6, the states will have more information from the Sacklers and Purdue, including how much, exactly, the family profited, said William Tong, Connecticut’s Attorney General. 

    “We are disappointed by the court’s ruling, but pleased that it is limited in time to less than 30 days,” he said. “We will use this time to ensure that we get access to the Sacklers’ financial information and will be ready on Nov. 6 to make our case to hold Purdue and the Sacklers accountable.”

    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

  • 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

  • Courtney Love Refuses to "Sell Out" to OxyContin Heiress at NYFW, Takes It to Instagram

    Courtney Love Refuses to "Sell Out" to OxyContin Heiress at NYFW, Takes It to Instagram

    “This request from Joss Sackler is shameless and offensive after everything I, many of my friends, and millions of other addicts have been through with OxyContin,” Love told Page Six.

    Manhattan socialite Joss Sackler could not escape the controversy of her family name during this year’s New York Fashion Week.

    Ahead of the NYFW presentation of her line, “LBV care of Joss Sackler,” on Monday, Page Six reported that the “OxyContin heiress” offered more than $100,000 and a dress sewn with 24 carat gold thread to Courtney Love to attend the show.

    Ties to OxyContin

    The Sackler Family owns Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin. Purdue is fighting a barrage of lawsuits alleging that the pharmaceutical company played a role in fueling the opioid crisis. The company is currently negotiating a settlement ahead of a much anticipated federal trial scheduled to begin in October.

    State attorneys general have vowed to go after the family’s wealth as retribution. “I won’t let them get away with their crimes,” said Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro on Twitter. “I will sue them personally, so that we can dig into their personal pocketbooks.”

    David Sackler, Joss’s husband, is the grandson of Raymond Sackler, one of the three company’s founders. David served on Purdue’s board of directors from 2012 to 2018, before the couple “fled town” to escape the controversy, as Page Six reported in May, trading their $6.5 million Upper East Side apartment for a place in Palm Beach, Florida.

    Rejected by Courtney Love

    Joss Sackler and her team, who are “huge fans” of Courtney Love, assured the Hole rocker that “The brand has no relation to Purdue… other than Joss is married to the family,” according to Page Six.

    But Love wasn’t having it. “I am one of the most famous reformed junkies on the planet—my husband died on heroin—what is it about me that says to Joss Sackler, ‘I will sell out to you?’ Well I won’t.”

    She continued, telling Page Six, “This request from Joss Sackler is shameless and offensive after everything I, many of my friends, and millions of other addicts have been through with OxyContin.” Love is sober but says she will “always be an opioid addict… I am just in recovery.”

    Sackler countered, posting an email screenshot suggesting that Love, instead of rejecting her offer, sought “$275,000 minimum” to attend Sackler’s NYFW event. She wrote “Fake news” in the caption and tagged Love’s Instagram handle. Love responded: “Check me out you bitch. Come for me. Lying sack of #sacklerlies shit.”

    Fashion Show

    Sackler’s event went ahead as planned on Monday at the Bowery Hotel Terrace. The atmosphere was described by one journalist as “redolent of defiant wealth.”

    A friend of the family, Jaya Karamores, defended Joss. “It’s unfair,” she told the Daily Beast. “She’s her own woman and people should see the line before they open their mouths. All she’s seen as is a man’s wife. For her to run a business is amazing.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • OxyContin Maker Expected To File for Bankruptcy

    OxyContin Maker Expected To File for Bankruptcy

    Purdue Pharma is expected to file for bankruptcy protection as the company reportedly failed to settle thousands of opioid lawsuits against them.

    After years of reaping massive profits from allegedly deceptive marketing practices around its opioid painkillers, Purdue Pharma is expected to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy soon, since negotiations to reach a settlement in the scores of lawsuits against the company have failed. 

    Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery and North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein updated attorneys general around the country over the weekend, and their letter was obtained by the Associated Press. 

    “As a result, the negotiations are at an impasse, and we expect Purdue to file for bankruptcy protection imminently,” Slatery and Stein wrote. 

    A spokesperson for Purdue responded, “Purdue declines to comment on that in its entirety.” In March, Reuters first reported that Purdue was exploring bankruptcy, although there was no official word from the company. 

    Filing for Bankruptcy

    If Purdue Pharma does make a move to file for bankruptcy, it would complicate more than 2,000 lawsuits that municipalities and states around the country have filed against the company. It would almost certainly mean that Purdue would not be part of the opioid lawsuit taking place in federal court Ohio. The first trial in that batch is expected to start next month. 

    One speculation is that a bankruptcy payout from Purdue could be worth $10 to $12 billion over time, but others say that the payout could be as little as $1 billion, which is small considering the amount of lawsuits against the company.

    Seeking Damages

    Attorneys vowed that they would continue to seek damages from the company. 

    “Like you, we plan to continue our work to ensure that the Sacklers, Purdue and other drug companies pay for drug addiction treatment and other remedies to help clean up the mess we allege they created,” Slatery and Stein wrote in their letter. 

    In some cases, states are personally suing the Sackler family, which has reportedly pulled billions of dollars out of Purdue and moved that personal wealth offshore. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro is among those who plans to sue the Sackler family. 

    “I think they are a group of sanctimonious billionaires who lied and cheated so they could make a handsome profit,” he said. “I truly believe that they have blood on their hands.”

    Shapiro took to Twitter Saturday to emphasize his point. 

    “The Sacklers pioneered our #OpioidEpidemic,” he wrote. “They have blood on their hands. And on behalf of PA’ns, I will sue them personally, so that we can dig into their personal pockets & retrieve some of the money they made. We need this for treatment and other life saving efforts.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Purdue Pharma Accused Of “Corrupting” WHO To Sell More Opioids

    Purdue Pharma Accused Of “Corrupting” WHO To Sell More Opioids

    Officials say the World Health Organization helped Purdue “traffic dangerous misinformation” about opioids.

    Members of Congress released a report last week alleging that the World Health Organization (WHO) has been “corrupted” by the leaders of the opioid industry, particularly Purdue Pharma and Mundipharma International, both of which are owned by members of the Sackler family.

    U.S. Representatives Katherine Clark and Hal Rogers accuse WHO of essentially replicating claims made by these companies’ marketing materials, some of which have been found in court to be inaccurate and misleading.

    “The web of influence we uncovered paints a picture of a public health organization that has been corrupted by the opioid industry,” said Clark according to the Guardian. “The WHO appears to be lending the opioid industry its voice and credibility, and as a result, a trusted public health organization is trafficking dangerous misinformation that could lead to a global opioid epidemic.”

    The report claims that current WHO guidelines, implemented several years ago, still “mirror Purdue’s marketing strategies to increase prescriptions and expand sales.” This includes statistics and statements that have been contradicted by multiple studies, such as the assertion that less than one percent of patients who are prescribed opioids develop a dependence on the drug.

    Additionally, the WHO removed guidelines recommending that pain patients be started on a combination of low-dose opioids and non-opioid pain relievers to instead recommend that highly potent opioids, such as Purdue’s OxyContin, can be given immediately.

    To make matters worse, the WHO did not change its pro-opioid guidelines even after several members of Congress sent a letter to the organization in 2017 warning that Purdue was attempting to take its business worldwide after allegedly causing or heavily contributing to the opioid epidemic in the U.S.

    The WHO did not respond to the letter, which led Clark and Rogers to launch their investigation.

    In addition to mirroring Purdue marketing materials, the report alleges that the WHO was influenced by “industry-funded” advocacy groups such as the American Pain Society and the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP).

    The American Pain Society recently announced that it may cease operation due to legal costs related to accusations that the organization is little more than a front for opioid industry interests. 

    “While the findings in this report are tragic and alarming, they are unsurprising given this company’s unscrupulous history,” said Rogers. “The WHO must take action now to right the ship and protect patients around the world, especially children, from the dangers associated with chronic opioid use.”

    Clark and Rogers are calling on the WHO to withdraw its current guidelines related to opioid prescription. The WHO has said it is currently studying the report, and as usual, Purdue Pharma issued a statement denying all allegations of wrongdoing.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Opioid Lawsuits Pile Up Against Family Behind Purdue Pharma

    Opioid Lawsuits Pile Up Against Family Behind Purdue Pharma

    A string of lawsuits seeks to hold the Sackler family, who own Purdue Pharma, responsible for the opioid crisis.

    The Sackler family is withdrawing from the public sphere, including ending their philanthropic initiatives, as legal pressure rises to hold them responsible for the opioid crisis.

    Their charity arm, the Sackler Trust, has historically donated millions but announced it was ceasing all such activity now that they’re receiving bad press and alleging that “false allegations” are being made against them.

    “The current press attention that these legal cases in the United States is generating has created immense pressure on the scientific, medical, educational and arts institutions here in the U.K., large and small, that I am so proud to support. This attention is distracting them from the important work that they do,” said Sackler Trust chairwoman Theresa Sackler. “The Trustees of the Sackler Trust have taken the difficult decision to temporarily pause all new philanthropic giving, while still honoring existing commitments. I remain fully committed to all the causes the Sackler Trust supports, but at this moment it is the better course for the Trust to halt all new giving until we can be confident that it will not be a distraction for institutions that are applying for grants.”

    Purdue Pharma is the manufacturer of the opioid painkiller OxyContin, a drug for which they stand accused of downplaying the negative effects of while encouraging doctors to prescribe as much as possible in the name of profit.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control, opioids caused about 218,000 American deaths between 1999 and 2017. A recent study found that people are now more likely die from an opioid overdose than in a car accident. The Sacklers say they recognize that action needs to be taken.

    “We recognize that more needs to be done and that’s why we launched a long-term initiative that continues to build as we pursue a range of solutions that we believe will have a meaningful impact,” wrote Theresa Sackler.

    The Sacklers have suspended a $1.3 million grant to the United Kingdom’ National Portrait Gallery as to “avoid being a distraction.” Some other organizations, like the art gallery Tate, the Guggenheim, and the hedge fund Hildene Capital Management, have cut ties to the Sacklers preemptively.

    “The weight on my conscience led me to terminate the relationship,” said hedge fund manager Brett Jefferson.

    Some have called for removing the Sacklers’ name from buildings they funded, including Harvard University’s Arthur M. Sackler Museum and the Smithsonian’s Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, which were funded by the Sacklers long before the invention of OxyContin. Spokespeople for both museums have said they are not going to remove the Sackler name from their buildings.

    “Museums (are) white washing the reputation of a family that is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people … But the tide is turning against them,” said L.A. Kauffman of accountability group Sackler PAIN.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Former DEA Official Now A Paid Consultant For Purdue Pharma

    Former DEA Official Now A Paid Consultant For Purdue Pharma

    Insiders wonder if the former DEA official anticipated becoming a paid consultant for Big Pharma when she was with the agency.

    Demetra Ashley, former acting assistant administrator and senior official for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is currently a paid consultant for one of the top opioid drug manufacturers in the country, according to NBC News sources.

    As acting assistant administrator, Ashley warned the Senate in 2017 that a “robust regulatory program” would be needed in order to prevent the misuse of controlled prescription drugs such as Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin and other opioid medications.

    She specifically called out the over-prescribing of these drugs as “inextricably linked with the threat the United States faces from the trafficking of heroin, illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues,” and by extension, the entire opioid epidemic.

    At the same Senate hearing, Ashley argued for a law that made it very difficult for the DEA to use immediate suspension orders against companies like Purdue Pharma to either be revised or repealed.

    The Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act, passed in 2016, made it nearly impossible for the DEA to take urgent action against a drug company when it “represents an imminent danger to public health or safety,” she said.

    Now, she is being paid by Purdue to advise them via her new consulting firm, Dashley Consulting, LLC. Purdue is currently facing around 2,000 lawsuits for its alleged role in the opioid epidemic via deceptive marketing tactics and encouraging doctors to over-prescribe OxyContin and similar drugs.

    After decades of specializing in preventing the diversion of prescription drugs, some are questioning whether Ashley did all she could to combat the alleged role of Purdue Pharma and other companies in the opioid epidemic and whether her new consulting position is a violation of ethics.

    While there is nothing technically illegal about this, Washington University law professor and government ethics expert Kathleen Clark says that Ashley’s new role with Purdue raises questions about “whether the prospect of a payday after leaving government tainted the actions of the regulator while still in government.”

    “Did this person act differently in government because they anticipated or wanted to get the payday from these very powerful economic actors who have huge amounts at stake?” Clark asks.

    When contacted by NBC News, Ashley did not confirm or deny consulting for Purdue Pharma, but acknowledged that she has “been consulting for members of the industry” since June 2018, three months after she retired from the DEA.

    She also confirmed that she has been subpoenaed as part of a consolidated lawsuit against opioid companies because of her former role in the DEA.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Oklahoma Lawsuit Against Purdue Pharma Settles For $270 Million

    Oklahoma Lawsuit Against Purdue Pharma Settles For $270 Million

    The bulk of the settlement will go to Oklahoma State University to fund an addiction treatment center and addiction treatment medicine.

    The first lawsuit of around 2,000 filed against Purdue Pharma and other drug manufacturers/distributors has settled for $270 million, Reuters reports. The money which will go toward mitigating the opioid crisis.

    The lawsuit was filed by Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter and would have gone to court in May.

    It accused pharmaceutical companies Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), Johnson & Johnson, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries of deceptive marketing that fueled the national opioid epidemic.

    The $270 million settlement is with Purdue Pharma only, so Johnson & Johnson and Teva are still expected in court on May 28 of this year.

    According to Reuters, the state of Oklahoma was seeking a total of $20 billion in damages caused by opioid addiction and overdose. The bulk of the $270 million from the settlement will be granted to Oklahoma State University to fund an addiction treatment center and addiction-fighting medications.

    $12.5 million will be given to local governments to help them recover from the opioid epidemic, and $60 million will be paid in legal fees. Members of the Sackler family who own Purdue Pharma will pay an additional $75 million to the university.

    This settlement has been encouraging news for critics of drug companies who believe this is a sign of more settlements to come. Purdue Pharma had been considering bankruptcy as a way to halt the roughly 2,000 lawsuits against it.

    However, it appears that Purdue may instead be opting for a far-reaching settlement across the many similar lawsuits. This is how the legal battles against the tobacco industry ended in 1998—with a $246 billion settlement, Reuters noted.

    University of Connecticut School of Law Professor Alexandra Lahav believes that the Purdue settlement “may be the start of the dominoes falling” for the company.

    According to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the opioid epidemic has caused over $500 billion in economic damages across the U.S. in the year 2015 alone.

    That number likely rose in 2016, when the total number of deaths from opioid-related overdoses jumped from 33,091 to over 42,000.

    Between deaths, the costs of treating overdose cases and addiction, missed work by those affected, and crime related to illicit opioids, the crisis has been economically devastating to communities across the nation.

    Purdue Pharma and members of the Sackler family have continued to deny its alleged role in fueling the opioid epidemic, stressing that prescription opioids come with FDA warnings about addiction and overdose. This argument, however, has proved to be an ineffective deterrent. 

    View the original article at thefix.com