The $8 billion is a federal legal case. In a separate civil case $225 million or so was awarded.$8 billion?
Lawyers getting all that or does it go to the families?
Well thank god for that.The $8 billion is a federal legal case. In a separate civil case $225 million or so was awarded.
Some money is supposed to go to states to compensate for expenses incurred for opioid addiction/treatment. Not sure how much of what will go to families (if any).
The owners took a deal. They took $10 billion for themselves. Agreed to pay the government $8 billion in fines AND turned the company over to the government. The company will continue to provide OxyContin. The US government is now in the opiod drug dealing business.
yes.Is it their fault their drug was handed out by "doctors" indiscriminately?
TO THE EDITOR
Recently, we examined our current files to determine the incidence of narcotic addiction in 39,946 hospitalized medical patients1 who were monitored consecutively. Although there were 11,882 patients who received at least one narcotic preparation, there were only four cases of reasonably well documented addiction in patients who had no history of addiction. The addiction was considered major in only one instance. The drugs implicated were meperidine in two patients,2 Percodan in one, and hydromorphone in one. We conclude that despite widespread use of narcotic drugs in hospitals, the development of addiction is rare in medical patients with no history of addiction.
Hershel Jick, M.D.
Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program Boston University Medical Center, Waltham, MA 02154
Yea but I mean, you guys should really have know opium is addictive.yes.
In 1980 an editorial was posted in the New England Journal of Medicine.
View attachment 18257
Purdue used THAT and repeated it out of context for 20 years.
Can you imagine 101 words being the basis for billions of sales, an opioid crisis, and an industry of lies? It's insane they even considered doing it.
They did this over and over but that is the most egregious and their most cited.
1> not a study
2> inpatients controlled setting limited duration of use
3> a single retrospective review of medical records from one hospital
Purdue then applied that LETTER TO THE EDITOR that was only meant to imply a single point that opioids likely have a safe place inpatient (they do and that's actually where they still have their best and safest usage) and used it in every marketing imaginable (watch video above) selling doctors that their were low risks for addiction with oxycontin usage.
All the while they were aware of the opposite being true.
When doctors operate as pill mills or even prescribe otherwise ethically but do not do enough to prevent overdose, they have been held civilly AND criminally liable. This is no different. It is not within the bounds of industry standards at all.
Purdue pushed a product with lies about its safety. They made billions for decades on death and addiction, lying about their known qualities the entire time.
In the 90's pain was declared the fifth vital sign. So controlling a patient's pain was considered a must.Yea but I mean, you guys should really have know opium is addictive.
And outside the hospital setting like @Splinty is talking about?In the 90's pain was declared the fifth vital sign. So controlling a patient's pain was considered a must.
In the hospital setting controlling a patient's pain, solely from the patient's point of view, is directly correlated to scores, grants, and funding.
In order to receive federal payments from Medicare or Medicaid programs, a health care organization must meet the government requirements for program participation, including a certification of compliance with the health and safety requirements called Conditions of Participation (CoPs). Options exist for meeting CoPs: 1) A survey may be conducted by a state agency on behalf of the federal government or 2) a survey by a national accrediting organization such as the Joint Commission that has been recognized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).