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

21–30 of 160 posts

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#21

Post by cwkoss »

gringoDan wrote: post #5
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

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?

I find the argument that humans will stop studying pharmacology if they can't monopolize their results quite unconvincing. Current pharma co R&D and innovation only effectively investigates the benefits of drugs with recent patents (with enough years remaining to monetize).

There is moral validity to profit-seeking investment in drug trials which find effective treatments, but the current system enables this only with great amounts of inefficiency.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#22

Post by ls612 »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #10
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?

From what I understand the vast majority of innovative pharmaceuticals are funded by academia.

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.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#23

Post by refurb »

cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

This may come as a shock to you, but marketing pharmaceuticals is really no different than marketing other products. It really comes down to educating consumers about your product.

Doctors as decision makers are not some monolithic block of individuals who are super educated about every product on the market and every piece of data. Just developing awareness of new drugs is a huge job. I'd say less than 5% of doctors are cutting edge enough that they require no additional education on new drugs.

The best story I can tell was from a friend who worked at a drug company that sold a hepatitis C drug. Once Gilead's drug came out, this company basically decided to discontinue their drug. Incredibly, there were doctors out there still ordering the old drug. The company had to send reps out to these doctors to tell them to stop ordering it. Continuing to use it made zero sense at all.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#24

Post by gringoDan »

For better or for worse, consulting companies exist to:

1) Enrich their partners

2) Lend credibility to their clients

Consulting firms are hired based on an "appeal to authority" fallacy. Companies don't want to make hard/unpopular decisions, so they outsource them to consultants. Data point: management consulting is one of the industries that is hit hardest by a recession. [0] If consultants truly provided value, this is exactly when they would be most needed.

The people actually doing the work on these deals are 22-25 year olds. They are highly incentivized to make their firm look good (thus enriching the firm's partners). Anything else is gravy. Anecdotally, I have many friends who worked in the industry, and when asked if they would hire consultants for their own hypothetical businesses, the answer was always "No".

I highly recommend this article on McKinsey's work restructuring Puerto Rico's debt - it pulls back the curtain on the industry: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/mckinsey-in-puerto-ri...

[0] https://www.ft.com/content/1a229d54-4548-11de-b6c8-00144feab...

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#25

Post by inflatableDodo »

gringoDan wrote: post #5
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

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?

>how do we set up an incentive structure that encourages R&D and innovation?

Well, there's disease, death, suffering and injury. If you need more of a structured incentive than that, then I am not sure really what to suggest.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#26

Post by foolbiter »

happytoexplain wrote: post #12
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

>Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society. This seems like one of the most cleanly horizontally divided opinions in all of the US - where nearly everybody agrees loudly and strongly with it except the wealthy and powerful. I wish a presidential candidate would have the balls to echo this severe but obviously popular thought and fix the fucking system with extreme prejudice.

There are at least two currently-running candidates who do seem have the balls to directly confront the pharma industry! Why do you think there aren't?

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#27

Post by chaosite »

perspective1 wrote: post #18
jormungand wrote: post #8

Management Consultants: A bunch of 20 sth year olds with fancy degrees and zero experience in growing a business helping huge companies grow by whatever means possible. I always found this hugely ironic.

And yet these consultants created a plan so successful NYT is writing about it.

20-year-olds are also quite good at selling addictive drugs.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#28

Post by henryfjordan »

im3w1l wrote: post #6
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

Ad supporters will sometimes say that ads are meant to get the word out about a product so people know its an option. How can we prove that this is false or that the benefits are smaller than the drawbacks?

I would like to see a compromise where new drugs are allowed to be advertised to the public for say 1 year following their release then never again.

People need agency in their own medical choices, and knowing there is a drug for your medical condition is very empowering. Especially as we talk more and more about moving to a single-payer system, it's important to make sure patients have the power to question their doctors and explore their own health instead of essentially being dictated to by the state.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#29

Post by jeron »

perspective1 wrote: post #18
jormungand wrote: post #8

Management Consultants: A bunch of 20 sth year olds with fancy degrees and zero experience in growing a business helping huge companies grow by whatever means possible. I always found this hugely ironic.

And yet these consultants created a plan so successful NYT is writing about it.

I wouldn't say management consultancy is unsuccessful by any means. The ethicality of what some of these firms have done? Hmm...

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#30

Post by enraged_camel »

refurb wrote: post #23
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

This may come as a shock to you, but marketing pharmaceuticals is really no different than marketing other products. It really comes down to educating consumers about your product. Doctors as decision makers are not some monolithic block of individuals who are super educated about every product on the market and every piece of data. Just developing awareness of new drugs is a huge job. I'd say less than 5% of doctors…

>> This may come as a shock to you, but marketing pharmaceuticals is really no different than marketing other products.

Really? You don't see the difference between marketing, say, a car or a smartphone, and marketing a drug that treats a life-threatening condition?

Perhaps you should think about this subject a bit more deeply.

>> I'd say less than 5% of doctors are cutting edge enough that they require no additional education on new drugs.

What do you base this on? Do you have some citations to support it?

Post reply on HN