Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

nytimes.com

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#51
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely they lack context to interpret what they’re seeing. One that jumped out at me a while back: They were showing physician payouts from Medicare and presenting them as though they were salaries. Problem: some specialties carry overhead in their Medicare payout. When your cardiologist prescribes you a blood pressure medication, that money goes to a pharmacy, not to the doctor. So your physician payout is X (cost…

Here's the introduction at the top of the ProPublica page cited by the GP: Pharmaceutical and medical device companies are required by law to release details of their payments to a variety of doctors and U.S. teaching hospitals for promotional talks, research and consulting, among other categories. Use this tool to search for general payments (excluding research and ownership interests) made from August 2013 to Decem…

> That seems like pretty fair context. You seem to be referencing a different article about Medicare reimbursement without actually citing it. That's a dodge.

I'm not dodging anything. I'm pointing out that when I bother to read their articles, they repeatedly get things wrong. The whole point of the Gell-Man effect is: "I read things I'm an expert on. They get those things really wrong. I am skeptical when they continue to write (on that topic) and (other topics), because why would they get other things any more right?"

I'm not an expert on the nuances of the pharma payout reporting. I am an expert on health care policy, health insurance, and clinical practice. Everything they write related to that, that I have read, tends to be off-base. If they regularly get healthcare stuff wrong, then yes, I apply skepticism to them writing about closely related topics which I may not have the same expertise in.

> If the medical industry requires reams of context to understand its practices and pricing, it's largely because pharma, insurers, medical groups, and individual providers often go to obscene lengths to obscure their practices and pricing.

(a) Any data of any complex, multi-component system requires reams of context to understand. This is why "domain expertise" is considered one of the key components of a competent data scientist.

(b) Our system is complex in part because >60% of our healthcare dollars derive from either federal programs, state programs, or an intersection of the two, which means they come with piles of regulatory things that complicate the issue.

(c) Our system is complex in part because we have a free market system, which is a fractured, multi-actor system (as opposed to a single-party-system). This means cash-flow gets complicated by the fact that reimbursement flows to lots of different interacting groups with dis-aligned interests.

(d) Our system is complex because we have a privatized insurance system, which puts a for-profit actor between the consumer and the physician - and one who, in partnering with certain provider groups, specialty pharmacies, etc. effectively channels the demands of the consumers into preferred paths - preferences determined by negotiated rates.

(e) Pricing tends to lack transparency because the vast majority of healthcare dollars are via these third-party insurers, who each negotiate separate rates with providers. Everyone involved in these negotiations has an incentive to not let their negotiated rates become widely public.

If your need to point a finger of blame undermines your willingness to understand the complexity of the system, you only do a disservice to yourself. The system doesn't get simpler just because you don't like its outcomes - and attempting to modify it without understanding the interacting components is doomed to massive unintended consequences. Or, in short, don't tear down the fence until you understand why it was built.

>I'm not going to waste skepticism on ProPublica that could better directed at the American medical-industrial complex.

That's a false dichotomy.

People providing inaccurate reporting that is critical of an industry don't become more accurate because you are also critical of that industry. That's just rationalization: "these guys must be above criticism because they validate beliefs I already hold."

You could be skeptical of both parties. You could be skeptical of the medical industry and shitty reporting on the medical industry. You could be skeptical of FB and NYT's recent obsession with it. You could be skeptical of etc. etc.

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#52
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also deserving of skepticism: doctors who accept money from big Pharma. It motivates over prescription. That's a scientifically proven fact.

One of my doctors refused to give me a prescription for a 25mg version of a medication over a 5mg version (pill could be cut in pieces and still as efficient), as the lower dosage was classified as "cosmetic", commanding 50x higher prices/mg, whereas the higher dosage was "life-saving", therefore cheap. Then I went to another doctor and experienced the same. The same doctor was recommending me to buy the higher dosag…

He probably got burned at some point and got scared. We get reviewed a lot more these days.

"You prescribed a 5x higher dose than he needed!"

"But I told him to cut it in five."

"That's not what you wrote in your documentation?"

"Well, if I wrote that in the documentation, it would have been documenting my own insurance fraud. I had to write that it was for (condition that requires 25 mg)."

"Did he have (condition that requires 25 mg)?"

"No, he had (condition that requires 5 mg)."

"So, which is it? Did you commit insurance fraud, or did you write him the wrong dosage?"

One is insurance fraud, the other is malpractice.

Why is it the doctor's fault that we're stuck in the middle of this shit system? Do people not understand that we aren't in control? The insurers, the federal regulators, the combination of the two, (Medicare), the state regulators, the combination of those two (Medicaid), congress, etc. They're in control. It's a happy day when our hands aren't bound from the start of our day to the finish. Don't blame us because we're the face you interact with.

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#53

Is it really just McKinsey, or are these articles focused on McKinsey because they are the most schadenfreude-inducing among big management consulting firms (akin to the media outrage directed at Facebook)? e.g. are BCG, Bain, the consulting arms of the Big 4 any more ethical in what they will or won't do for a paying client? The story would be more interesting if everyone outside of McKinsey refused to do consulting…

No they’re about the same. The NYTimes seems to have a bone to pick with McK for some reason.

Not to discredit any individual points, but the targeting seems odd.

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#54
post #17

Please don't take this personally. We have a situation here that I have seen a few times and I need help understanding it. We have an article in the New York Times. Some dude on Twitter reacts to it. You link to the dude on Twitter instead of the Times. Why? Even worse, you did not even link to the dude on Twitter. You link to some unrelated "thread unrolling" service, carefully making sure nobody who did any of the…

I dont know too much about McKinsey (besides from the obvious) but I would like to know what why they might be a horrible company.

It’s probably better to say that all major consulting companies are complicit with all aspects of major markets. Almost every large company employs McKinsey or one of its competitors. Most people involved will not be working on “horrible” content. Some people will, largely driven by the area they work in.

Projects could range from making insurance more profitable (broadly speaking bad for society) to improving diversity and inclusion (a good thing).

Consulting firms are rental shops for talented workers.

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#55
Article runs a weird line. Foremost, was it obvious at the time that opioids would grow to be highly damaging? Maybe. Was it obvious to the consultants? Maybe again. Some points here are rough.

“It was that year that Craig Landau, then Purdue’s chief medical officer and now its chief executive, had an email exchange that included a McKinsey consultant about how to counter mothers whose teenagers had overdosed on OxyContin. The solution: bring in patients to emphasize how the drug helps to relieve pain.“

This really does not feel malicious. It’s not discrediting the losses at all.

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#56
The legal papers linked at the start of this article make for a great read. The Sacklers are monsters who got people hooked on ever increasing doses they couldn't quit. It's not just about diverting and using the drug recreationally; most of the addicts started out with legit pain needs. Thousands of them are now dead.

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#57
post #52
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my doctors refused to give me a prescription for a 25mg version of a medication over a 5mg version (pill could be cut in pieces and still as efficient), as the lower dosage was classified as "cosmetic", commanding 50x higher prices/mg, whereas the higher dosage was "life-saving", therefore cheap. Then I went to another doctor and experienced the same. The same doctor was recommending me to buy the higher dosag…

He probably got burned at some point and got scared. We get reviewed a lot more these days. "You prescribed a 5x higher dose than he needed!" "But I told him to cut it in five." "That's not what you wrote in your documentation?" "Well, if I wrote that in the documentation, it would have been documenting my own insurance fraud. I had to write that it was for (condition that requires 25 mg)." "Did he have (condition th…

Are doctors doing anything to end the requirement that patients get prescriptions for drugs? What are you doing to change the system? The AMA lobbies congress to keep it broken in the favor of doctors and detriment of patients.

Doctors control our right to live. It's contrary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, because we must get your permission to live.

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#58
post #52
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my doctors refused to give me a prescription for a 25mg version of a medication over a 5mg version (pill could be cut in pieces and still as efficient), as the lower dosage was classified as "cosmetic", commanding 50x higher prices/mg, whereas the higher dosage was "life-saving", therefore cheap. Then I went to another doctor and experienced the same. The same doctor was recommending me to buy the higher dosag…

He probably got burned at some point and got scared. We get reviewed a lot more these days. "You prescribed a 5x higher dose than he needed!" "But I told him to cut it in five." "That's not what you wrote in your documentation?" "Well, if I wrote that in the documentation, it would have been documenting my own insurance fraud. I had to write that it was for (condition that requires 25 mg)." "Did he have (condition th…

The explanation I've received was that they don't get any money from the higher dosage from insurance company and as I use it for "cosmetic" reason, I won't get the cheaper one.

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#59
post #56

The legal papers linked at the start of this article make for a great read. The Sacklers are monsters who got people hooked on ever increasing doses they couldn't quit. It's not just about diverting and using the drug recreationally; most of the addicts started out with legit pain needs. Thousands of them are now dead.

It is easy to scapegoat the founders, but I know quite a few people, including myself, where OxyContin was the only pain reliever that really worked. In my case, took it after surgery. Not sure that Purdue Pharma is any worst or better than other Big Pharma.

Re: McKinsey Advised Purdue Pharma How to ‘Turbocharge’ Opioid Sales, Lawsuit Says

#60

Is it really just McKinsey, or are these articles focused on McKinsey because they are the most schadenfreude-inducing among big management consulting firms (akin to the media outrage directed at Facebook)? e.g. are BCG, Bain, the consulting arms of the Big 4 any more ethical in what they will or won't do for a paying client? The story would be more interesting if everyone outside of McKinsey refused to do consulting…

Worth reading what McKinsey did in South Africa: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/world/africa/mckinsey-sou...

Considering they took that deal even over the objection of some of their partners seems to me that not everyone, even the top firms, are as craven.

Post reply on HN