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

McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#131

Post by refurb »

wpietri wrote: post #105
gringoDan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play Devil's Advocate - without pharmaceutical companies developing and marketing drugs, how do we set up an incentive structure that encourages R&D and innovation?

If there is any devil that doesn't need your help, it's the pharma industry. It's important to realize that to a first approximation, advertising prescription drugs is pure waste. The main case is pharma companies battling for fixed market share. That is, there are N people who have the problem, and companies X, Y, and Z are spending money trying to maximize their share of the market. The ad spend changes which pharm…

You realize there are a handful of therapeutic areas where they are really competitive?

It’s inaccurate to suggest that’s the only market for drugs.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#132

Post by wpietri »

refurb wrote: post #131
wpietri wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is any devil that doesn't need your help, it's the pharma industry. It's important to realize that to a first approximation, advertising prescription drugs is pure waste. The main case is pharma companies battling for fixed market share. That is, there are N people who have the problem, and companies X, Y, and Z are spending money trying to maximize their share of the market. The ad spend changes which pharm…

You realize there are a handful of therapeutic areas where they are really competitive? It’s inaccurate to suggest that’s the only market for drugs.

As I said, I see two basic cases. In one, they're competitive. In the other, they aren't. I think general audience advertising is even less justifiable in the latter case.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#133

Post by slenk »

r00fus wrote: post #118
slenk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 20-some people running...I wouldn't call them a presidential candidate yet...more like presidential hopefuls. And because big pharma seems to always win.

They are technically all candidates. The winner of the primary is a nominee . Pharma gets what they pay for. Vote for someone who isn't beholden to them.

Yeah, but after continuing to vote for people that don't have backing and therefore never have a chance to start really is starting to feel like I am wasting my vote.

Hell, because of the Electoral College, my vote ultimately doesn't count if it isn't what the whole state picks.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#134

Post by refurb »

cwkoss wrote: post #91
sgt101 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I find the argument that humans will stop studying pharmacology if they can't monopolize their results quite unconvincing. agree >Current pharma co R&D and innovation only effectively investigates the benefits of drugs with recent patents (with enough years remaining to monetize). Can you elucidate the connection to your first statement - I don't see how that follows.

Defenders of drug monopolies often argue that removing the monopoly will reduce our intensive drug research spending. This may be true. However, I'd argue that the focus of this intensive drug research spending is perverted by economic incentives and overinflated because of the artificially constrained scope. For-profit Pharma companies have a fiduciary obligation to only invest in research which they can profit from…

Unless money starts growing on trees, it makes sense to invest in the profitable drugs, that way you can fund future research.

Investing in a tiny market and low prices means that investment is gone and won’t support future R&D.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#135

Post by refurb »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #38
ls612 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority got their start in academic settings. Most of the R&D money (in particular the expensive phase 3 clinical trials) is spent by pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, so the actual innovation occured in academic settings, as was the query.

Absolutely not.

That’s like saying Apple didn’t invent the iPhone because Shockley discovered transistors.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#136

Post by refurb »

the8472 wrote: post #9
gringoDan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play Devil's Advocate - without pharmaceutical companies developing and marketing drugs, how do we set up an incentive structure that encourages R&D and innovation?

Submit them to a central, vendor-independent database so doctors (or consumers for non-prescription) can find available ones based on their ailments.

I think the takeaway is that is already available and doctors don’t consistently use it.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#137

Post by awakeasleep »

bob33212 wrote: post #63
khawkins wrote: post #31

As someone currently dealing with chronic pain, suits like this are highly aggravating. It's just another front of the failed drug war. People who need pain relief get screwed as doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies treat every single patient like they're a drug addict waiting to happen. The real drug addicts will continue to get their pills, while the upstanding members of society writhe in pain.

I see comments like this on every single opioid news thread. I'm sure that you are being honest about feeling that you need to take opioids every day, but I'm sure that you understand the addictive nature of the pills and why we should avoid making more people addicted. I have had a total of two opioid pills in my life and I could feel exactly how it could take over.

The attitude towards prohibition that your parent comment described is exactly what set the stage for the recent opioid epidemic.

We were just coming out of another era where opioids were restricted to the inhumane point where people with serious problems were left in debilitating pain - to the point where Purdue's lies were accepted because doctors felt genuine sympathy towards the suffering they saw.

There is a happy middle ground. There are people who benefit from opioid medications.

It was bad moral choices by this generation's pharmaceutical companies that caused this outbreak. That is where the fault lies.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#138

Post by albertshin »

I wonder if it's just McKinsey is the bad apple in the mgmt consulting industry or if NYT just has more inside sources there than at other firms.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/world/asia/mckinsey-china...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/business/mckinsey-hedge-f...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/30/world/mckinsey-bribes-boe...

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#139

Post by lancewiggs »

markdown wrote: post #116
cj wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This is already the case in many places outside the USA (Canada, Europe, Brazil, Hong Kong). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising

I believe the list is shorter if you make it about which countries allow direct-to-consumer advertising: USA, New Zealand. That's it.

Indeed. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in New Zealand has a code of practice for Therapeutic and Health Advertising (below). My father was running the ASA when this came in, and NZ and the USA were the only 2 countries with D2C ads for pharmaceuticals.

The advertising amount and impact in NZ is a lot lower than in the US as our healthcare system is largely public (government funded) with a single buyer (Pharmac) of pharmaceuticals that exercises considerable pricing power, and is unafraid to change brands. Most of us go to the doctor and take what is prescribed.

https://www.asa.co.nz/codes/codes/therapeutic-and-health-adv...

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#140

Post by Ericson2314 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #126
harshreality wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody needs to discover what drugs are suitable for them. This is medicine, not a restaurant menu. If you're diagnosed with a medical condition or have a specific ailment, then you can investigate potential treatments. The status quo "compromise" solution gets this exactly backwards. "This drug will make your life better. So ask your doctor so they'll comb through your medical records and history looking for somethi…

> If you're diagnosed with a medical condition or have a specific ailment, then you can investigate potential treatments I know at least a few people who didn't realize they had an ailment until seeing the symptoms listed on an ad. There is a balance between promoting new drugs (and the affiliated afflictions) to the general public and pushing medicines to doctors.

Well this country's medical system is too bad to even begin to try to do preventative medicine. (You can think of it as a 400 million person medical poverty trap. We all live in medical poverty.)

We're that fixed you would learn about conditions you didn't know you had from the doctor. Or therapist.

Post reply on HN