Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 324 posts

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#21

Post by roenxi »

wrs wrote: post #9
roenxi wrote: post #4

Left hand. COVID proved that we could establish safety & efficacy of a medical treatment in about 12 months, to the point where as I recall a lot of the manufacturers have a legal exemption from any liability for damage done by vaccines. Right hand. There are these opioids have been around for decades and somehow they reached this huge level of damage. Largely the same cultures of people involved. I still think the a…

The public policy for individual pain management and the public policy for highly contagious diseases can be different, for logical reasons that I hope are obvious.

Yeah, pain management is even more important and they got that wrong. COVID was just a flash in the pan then it seems to have settled down into the background as an issue, while chronic pain is an ongoing thing that is easier to study.

So even if we assume that they weight their efforts by importance that isn't particularly impressive for the COVID authoritarianism.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#22

Post by Retric »

roenxi wrote: post #19
Retric wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opioids were known to be harmful. Purdue attacked the gatekeepers and policy makers not the science. It was mostly a story of what happens when a well funded con artist enters an environment built on trust. Suddenly pain management was viewed as very important by the medical establishment, while mostly paying lip service to all the long term consequences of said actions. After all you can’t actually know how much som…

> Opioids were known to be harmful. So, hypothetically, if a doctor prescribed me opioids I should be allowed to say I don't want to take them? Even if the manufacturers assure me it is safe, effective and they have lots of evidence of the same. Because to me that seems like a logical conclusion. I think that should be a general policy. People should be able to overrule doctors on the subject of how they are treated.

Nothing hypothetical about that, it’s generally how US healthcare works barring people being declared mentally incompetent, court ordered treatment, etc.

To address the seeming contradiction. Vaccination was never imposed by the healthcare system on patients during COVID, it was required by cruse ships, schools, and yes hospitals for staff etc.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#23

Post by bdcravens »

roenxi wrote: post #4

Left hand. COVID proved that we could establish safety & efficacy of a medical treatment in about 12 months, to the point where as I recall a lot of the manufacturers have a legal exemption from any liability for damage done by vaccines. Right hand. There are these opioids have been around for decades and somehow they reached this huge level of damage. Largely the same cultures of people involved. I still think the a…

Remember that the fast tracking of the development of the vaccine was a project of the administration in power at the time. The shifting political narrative has diminished this very important part of the discussion.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#24

Post by Dylan16807 »

roenxi wrote: post #21
wrs wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public policy for individual pain management and the public policy for highly contagious diseases can be different, for logical reasons that I hope are obvious.

Yeah, pain management is even more important and they got that wrong. COVID was just a flash in the pan then it seems to have settled down into the background as an issue, while chronic pain is an ongoing thing that is easier to study. So even if we assume that they weight their efforts by importance that isn't particularly impressive for the COVID authoritarianism.

Government rules around COVID were also a flash in the pan. On a per-day basis it was pretty proportional to the urgency.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#25

Post by [deleted] »

kevinventullo wrote: post #20
sitkack wrote: post #3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life They could figure out how to divvy up their 65 life sentences. Why do they get to pay their way out of this? > According to Kavanaugh, former McKinsey senior partner Martin Elling [2] "personally deleted various Purdue related electronic materials from his McKinsey laptop with the intent to obstruct future investigations." Corporate laptops are backed up, with backups offsi…

Just remember, it’s never okay for the people to take matters into their own hands. They just need to get out there and vote! Our elected representatives will ensure that justice is served. If they don’t, that just means you didn’t donate enough to the Good Guys.

[deleted]

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#26

Post by mulmen »

sitkack wrote: post #3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life They could figure out how to divvy up their 65 life sentences. Why do they get to pay their way out of this? > According to Kavanaugh, former McKinsey senior partner Martin Elling [2] "personally deleted various Purdue related electronic materials from his McKinsey laptop with the intent to obstruct future investigations." Corporate laptops are backed up, with backups offsi…

> Corporate laptops are backed up, with backups offsite. I find it hard to believe that the only copy was on his laptop.

Not defending anyone and maybe McKinsey is different but I have never had a corporate laptop with built-in backup. I am always left to figure that out on my own.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#27

Post by Terr_ »

bdangubic wrote: post #8
courseofaction wrote: post #2

[flagged]

what kind of adjustment and who are adjusters?

I think it's a reference to the recent killing of that health insurance CEO, where some folks have taken to referring to the killer as an "adjuster."

It's a play on words from the profession of insurance/claims adjuster, which is someone who who arrives to determine what happened and what damage the insurance company is liable for. Unlike the normal version, there's a very different twist on what kinds of damage, responsibility, and consequences are involved...

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#29

Post by [deleted] »

roenxi wrote: post #19
Retric wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opioids were known to be harmful. Purdue attacked the gatekeepers and policy makers not the science. It was mostly a story of what happens when a well funded con artist enters an environment built on trust. Suddenly pain management was viewed as very important by the medical establishment, while mostly paying lip service to all the long term consequences of said actions. After all you can’t actually know how much som…

> Opioids were known to be harmful. So, hypothetically, if a doctor prescribed me opioids I should be allowed to say I don't want to take them? Even if the manufacturers assure me it is safe, effective and they have lots of evidence of the same. Because to me that seems like a logical conclusion. I think that should be a general policy. People should be able to overrule doctors on the subject of how they are treated.

[deleted]

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#30

Post by roenxi »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #24
roenxi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, pain management is even more important and they got that wrong. COVID was just a flash in the pan then it seems to have settled down into the background as an issue, while chronic pain is an ongoing thing that is easier to study. So even if we assume that they weight their efforts by importance that isn't particularly impressive for the COVID authoritarianism.

Government rules around COVID were also a flash in the pan. On a per-day basis it was pretty proportional to the urgency.

Well, yes. We have a society built around concepts of individual liberty and respect for basic human rights. So all the rules were rolled back. The question is why they were rolled out in the first place. Even to this day there is a distinct lack of evidence that any given rule was helpful. We successfully transitioned from a world where everyone was eventually going to get COVID to a world where everyone eventually got COVID and in hindsight it is hard to see what the authoritarian slant of the policies earned anyone. Except perhaps earmarking the people who should be kept out of positions of power.
Post reply on HN