Sure, it's an opioid. That's not the point. The point is that it's made from an inexpensive generic opioid feedstock: oxycodone. The supposed value-add isn't the painkiller, it's the timed-release agent.
Unless these reporters are simply lying, there's evidence of great variability in the effectiveness of that timed-release agent. But the company's market position depends on the 12-hour dose. If the drug's needed every six hours, the only difference between it and the cheap stuff is price. In that case, most doctors won't prescribe and most payers won't reimburse the expensive stuff.
So, a doctor can ask a patient, "are you willing to take a pill every six hours?" If the patient agrees, the prescription can be very inexpensive and effective. And, wide swings in blood concentration are controllable, which helps avoid both grogginess and withdrawal struggles.
A friend who develops instruments for anesthesiologists has told me that a well-controlled minimal effective dose of pain med works, and manages risk very well. Peoples' rates of clearing these compounds vary a lot, and the timed-release compound doesn't appear to reduce that variability, contrary to the what the marketer is implicitly claiming.
If the treatment is for acute short-term pain (post-op, etc) a six-hour regime isn't a big burden, and the reduced risk of addiction justifies some inconvenience.
If the treatment is for chronic pain, a wise patient and doctor might start by trying the more frequent doses, and move to "time-release" doses if the first treatment doesn't work. Patients and doctors tune their meds all the time. Why not start trying for minimal effective dose, and move to a more addiction-prone regime if the first one desn't work?
But that would foul up the business of Oxycontin's marketer.
A weekly Narcotics Anonymous meeting just moved out of the hall of a church I serve to a bigger hall, because they're gaining members fast. That's not good.