- cross-posted to:
- medicine@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- medicine@mander.xyz
Federal prosecutors looking at relationship with Purdue Pharma and other drug manufacturers, and its role in US opioid crisis
McKinsey is under criminal investigation in the United States over allegations that the consulting firm played a key role in fueling the opioid epidemic, with federal prosecutors homing in on its work advising OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma and other drugmakers, three people familiar with the matter said.
The consulting firm and the US justice department declined to comment.
The inquiry is focused on whether McKinsey engaged in a criminal conspiracy when advising Purdue and other pharmaceutical manufacturers on marketing strategies to boost sales of prescription painkillers that led to widespread addiction and fatal overdoses, two of the people said.
The justice department is also investigating whether McKinsey conspired to commit healthcare fraud when its consulting work for companies selling opioids allegedly resulted in fraudulent claims being made to government programs such as Medicare, they said.
You must log in or register to comment.
McKinsey, at work for the indefensible. The consulting firm that supports horrible initiatives. I hope they get what they deserve.
In case you don’t know who these creeps are:
I’m guessing Pete Buttigeig can make that go away.
How? What does this have to do with transportation?
I didn’t know he consulted for them. The article states that he’s been transparent about all the work he did, mostly in grocery and climate, with the exception of NDA-restricted work. It also states that he’s formally requested release from the NDA for complete employment transparency.
He’s the Secretary of Transportation, and has no authority over pharmaceuticals in the US. I still fail to see how your comment has any credibility.
with the exception of NDA-restricted work
I don’t know what you know about McKinsey, but most of their work is NDA-restricted.
Sure, but he spoke to the majority of his consulting work as not being restricted by the NDA. He volunteered the information that some was NDA restricted, and requested release to offer further transparency. That doesn’t sound like an intelligent move unless he’s certain it would help his case.
Regardless, he still has no authority over the case at hand. I fail to see the reason for calling him out other than you read that he worked there in the past. I’m all for reading more evidence, if you have any to provide.
If you don’t think someone in a top cabinet position has no sway over the DOJ, I don’t know what to tell you.
And if you don’t think a politician would hide skeletons in their closet behind NDAs, I also don’t know what to tell you.
I’m not saying one wouldn’t. It doesn’t make sense for him to go out of his way to disclose that he did work under a private NDA, and request release, if it were hiding something scandalous.
