Purdue consultant apologizes for work
STAMFORD — McKinsey & Co., the consulting firm that allegedly tried to help OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma boost its opioid sales, has issued a statement expressing regret about its work with the Stamford-based company.
The statement follows disclosures about the extent of the collaboration between McKinsey and Purdue’s executives that were made in bankruptcy court documents submitted last month. The filings built on allegations in Massachusetts’ lawsuit against the company that McKinsey urged members of the Sackler family, who own Purdue, to decide whether to “turbocharge
the sales engine.”
“As we look back at our client service during the opioid crisis, we recognize that we did not adequately acknowledge the epidemic unfolding in our communities or the terrible impact of opioid misuse and addiction on millions of families across the country,” the company said in part of the statement, which is posted on its website. “That is why last year we stopped doing any work on opioid-specific business, anywhere in the world.”
A message left seeking comment from Purdue about the statement was not immediately returned. Through a spokesman, the Sacklers declined to comment on the statement.
As part of an approximately $8 billion settlement with the U.S. Justice Department, Purdue pleaded guilty last month to criminal charges of defrauding the government and violating anti-kickback laws. But it has denied the allegations of marketing fraud outlined in several thousand lawsuits that have been consolidated in its bankruptcy case. The Sacklers reached their own $225 million settlementwith the Justice Department, but they have denied any wrongdoing.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong declined to comment on the McKinsey statement. Connecticut and the 23 other “nonconsenting” states that submitted the filing have not agreed to settle their lawsuits against Purdue.
One McKinsey proposal, which was developed in 2017, suggested paying rebates to insurance companies for each patient who overdosed or developed opioid-use disorder, according to the filing.
“Their analysis showed that paying a rebate could be an ‘attractive option’ for Purdue if the payment was in the range of $6,000 to $14,000 for each patient who was harmed,” the filing said. “The money would not go to the patient, but it would encourage the insurance company to keep paying for Purdue drugs.”
The consulting work was “designed to support the legal prescription and use of opioids for patients with legitimate medical need and any suggestion that our work sought to increase overdoses or misuse and worsen a public health crisis is wrong,” McKinsey also said in the statement. But it admitted that it “fell short” of taking into account the “broader context and implication” of its work.
McKinsey is undertaking a “full review” and cooperating with authorities related to its dealings with Purdue, the statement added.
It also acknowledged a 2018 email exchange among McKinsey consultants that discussed the potential deletion of documents.
“It probably makes sense to have a quick conversation with the risk committee to see if we should be doing anything other that [sic] eliminating all our documents and emails,” one of the consultants said in an email to a colleague, according to the states’ filing. “As things get tougher here, someone might turn to us.”
“Will do,” the other consultant replied.
In response to the non-consenting states’ filing, McKinsey has faced strident criticism from Congress members on both sides of the aisle.
“After-the-fact apologies do nothing to absolve McKinsey of its highly unethical, potentially illegal, actions to provide Purdue Pharma with a pathway to instilling more opioid deaths,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, said. “Advising Purdue Pharma on how best to push their highly addictive product demonstrates complete disregard for the health and wellbeing of Americans. McKinsey should be held accountable.”
In a letter last week to McKinsey, Sen. Josh Hawley, RMissouri, said there are “serious questions” about whether McKinsey is implicated in the crimes to which Purdue pleaded guilty. In addition, the discussion of the potential destruction of documents “raises the prospect” that McKinsey might have also obstructed justice, he said.
Hawley also cited McKinsey’s “billions of dollars” received through contracts with the federal government.
“McKinsey’s abhorrent conduct also demands that Congress consider broader action,” Hawley said. “No firm that proposes paying kickbacks for overdose deaths should receive a single cent from U.S. taxpayers.”
Meanwhile, Purdue is still trying to reach through the bankruptcy proceedings a comprehensive settlement of the lawsuits. The company has proposed a settlement that it values at more than $10 billion, but the non-consenting states have rejected that offer because they see it as insufficient.
If a settlement is reached, the plaintiffs have committed to using the funds to tackle the opioid crisis and not allocating the money for other purposes.