McKinsey Never Told the FDA It Was Working for Opioid Makers While Also Working for the Agency Slashdot


It is a huge conflict of interest if these two teams talk to each other and risk leaking their side’s position. Thus, not only are the teams allowed to talk to each other, they’re not allowed to communicate to others that they’re working with that client. McKinsey, Goldman, Accenture, all the big accounting firms are always working with ‘Big Pharma’ and ‘Government’ at the same time and all of the parties know this. In this case it’s not really relevant – engineers on consulting projects are not “back office staff”. Fiction in the free world loves to say “You always have a choice”, but the characters who learn this lesson tend to have much more power than others, be it physical strength, political power, or maybe just access to some important thing. Many people don’t have a meaningful way to make a difference, and the cost is the livelihood of themselves and their families.

In one instance in 2008, which surfaced in a lawsuit against Purdue, the FDA told Purdue that it planned to require the company to submit a drug-safety plan for its bestselling drug, OxyContin. The company recognized that regulation of this sort threatened to cut into its sales margins, and according to McKinsey documents filed in federal court, top Purdue executives tasked the consultancy with devising a response to the FDA. McKinsey’s extensive opioid company consulting eventually began coming to light, starting with a 2019 ProPublica report. The firm’s opioid work has provoked widespread criticism, spawned a welter of lawsuits and led the firm to pay nearly $600 million this year to settle legal claims made by all 50 states, as well as five U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. To bring more clarity to the conversation, we conducted an in-depth review of the COVID-19-vaccine pipeline and the range of potential immunization and demand scenarios.

One paragraph offered a blunt assessment of the continued severity of the opioid crisis. It said that two programs Mr. Azar would oversee as secretary — Medicare and Medicaid — were contributing to the problem by allowing opioids to be dispensed to people prone to abuse them and in doses that were too high. In 2011, the F.D.A. hired McKinsey to advise its office overseeing drug companies’ agency-approved plans to monitor the safety of potentially risky products such as opioids. Dr. Smith worked on the project while also advising Purdue on an effort that would, among other things, demonstrate whether OxyContin was meeting those requirements. McKinsey also allowed employees advising Purdue to help shape materials that were intended for government officials and agencies, including a memo in 2018 prepared for Alex M. Azar II, then the incoming secretary of health and human services under President Donald J. Trump.

The bottom line is that all clients sign agreements forbidding them or McKinsey from sharing knowledge of the relationship. That comes with the understanding that there are similar agreements with other companies. Recall that presidential candidate who got a ton of flack because he wasn’t able to disclose what he did at McKinsey? infulencers gone wild But its still hard for the firm to allow sharing that information because everything is NDA’d to hell. I tend to think this is a bit better than average big co., but whatever, it doesn’t hit my day to day. In my opinion the more down to earth impact that you might enjoy is just helping companies you like do better.

With fentanyl, there is only a short window of time to intervene and save a person’s life during an overdose. Its not such a bad thing to wonder if there are conflicts of interest. While that is true, a company with minimal ethics will disclose a conflict of interest, especially one as fundamental as this one. It has become amply clear that McKinesy is lacking that minimal ethics. 30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.

In addition to ensuring that the adaptations made today will be relevant in the future, that strategy will likely make the trickle-down effects for broader preparedness become more clear. Investments made now may create opportunities for greater preparedness for future pandemics and affect the ability to onboard capacity for new vaccine technologies and platforms when they might be needed. In the near term, COVID-19 vaccines would prevent more people from becoming infected and dying. The second-order effects include controlled utilization of hospitals and healthcare resources, the development of herd immunity, and gradual economic recovery. In the midterm, if COVID-19 were to become endemic, the presence of a vaccine would allow the broader population to be inoculated . And if the disease mutates or immunity is short lived, the additional development and manufacturing capacity currently being established could be applied quickly to increase vaccine supply, create new vaccines, and accelerate the response to future pandemics.

You can work on helping clients in spaces that you think are good to serve and refuse to serve clients in spaces you don’t. There’s an element in that money goes to the top, enriching partners whose work you may disagreement. Eh, I would say the flow of money is much less interesting than the individual impacts of my work.

McKinsey’s failure to disclose its industry engagements deprived the FDA of the opportunity to consider whether, for example, the overlap between McKinsey’s government and pharmaceutical industry projects and the potential financial incentives at play constituted a conflict, experts said. A number of other McKinsey projects at the FDA, contracting records show, were also likely to have a financial impact on its pharmaceutical industry clients. The top executive for global consulting firm McKinsey & Company faced congressional questions Wednesday about the company’s work for U.S. health regulators even as it advised opioid drugmakers on how to boost sales of their prescription painkillers. The timing question is becoming a bit more clear, as is the question of how much value may be created by the global launch of successful vaccines against COVID-19. Based on the established set of facts, experts agree a vaccine for COVID-19 is likely to be available somewhere between the fourth quarter of 2020 and first quarter of 2021, most likely for use in specific populations, with additional candidates coming on line by the end of 2021.