Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

reuters.com

531–540 of 572 posts

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Changes for the better will necessarily be extreme. It’s long been my loosely held belief that _extreme_ change to a political system will _necessarily_ harm the average citizen. I think history has shown that to be true fairly consistently.

sometimes the short term harm inflicted on a few is worth the benefits it will bring society in the long term "Our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break?"

But who among us has the moral authority to claim which harm is okay on which few? I remain convinced that the path to sustainable progress does not lie in the direction of extremes. Push too hard too fast, and you both amplify your opposition, and risk pushing in the wrong direction.

But the great thing is we can all disagree on that, and still agree to work together where we can.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it would create opportunity for actually well-run businesses that benefits the customer to take their place This assumes that you have a functional society after say...Chase or Nestle or Pfizer or Boeing or Disney, etc becomes insolvent. You will lose more than a decade in churn as the monopolies (enough that they can dictate legislative agendas) leave huge gaps that are inevitably filled with instability. The "goo…

They dont need to be good, they need to have real competition and realisation that is they break the law they will be slapped hard Also, we wont have functional society without Dysney and Nestle? What, society will collapse if we run out of chocolates and movies? People won't have diabetes?

> we wont have functional society without Disney and Nestle? What, society will collapse if we run out of chocolates and movies?

The breadth of these companies is almost immeasurable. Nestle owns an immense amount of resource rights (eg the largest siphon of natural water from the Los Angeles basin) and industry (#1 food producing company in the world). Disney is the leading intellectual property holder of the world. The ubiquity, innate cultural knowledge, and economic strength of corporate entities in the world are part of what keep society stable. The brands are stable, so families are able to be stable and confident about the future.

This is why I picked out examples from multiple industries, all of which are known actors, who have been slapped on the hand for heinous acts over recent time.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are adding requirements and escape clauses to the federal charge of conspiracy that are not actually in the law. Here is the relevant text of 18 U.S. Code § 371: > If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the cons…

Yeah, I agree with you. You would have to show intent to do something criminal at the core of it. I’m not sure that’s there for McKenzie.

If the law intended for there to be an intent requirement, then the statute itself would say “knowingly” or “willfully”, which it clearly does not. This means that one can accidentally commit conspiracy, so long as the law you’re conspiring to break does not have an intent requirement.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#534

This is far too low. A fine large enough to destroy the company (as was effectively done to Purdue) would have been the only palatable outcome. And even more importantly, legal repercussions for all their employees who were personally responsible for this. All this settlement achieves is 'a cost of doing business', as they say. It's not punishment or deterrence. McKinsey and other companies like them will do similar…

How much was McKinsey paid by Purdue? I haven't been able to find the quantum anywhere.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#535
post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part of the reason that nothing ever changes is because it isn't profitable for things to change, at least not when some moneyed interests can make a profit doing things like predatory lending and others get to have cheap employees. In other words, the lack of a social safety net isn't just some accident that citizens blundered into. It was engineered and continues to be advanced by the people who make money fr…

This is a dumb take. Canada has a very cushy social safety net and still has payday lending with interest rates of 49%. And the alternative of having payday lending is no lending - that is, these folks would have no way of getting a short term loan. Is that better?

> Is that better?

Usually.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#536

I know someone who worked for McKinsey for a few years, and some of the projects he described were straight up slimy. The one I recall right now was helping a big payday lender (read: large scale loan shark) figure out how to get their money back from people who were behind on their payments. The problem was that they can only attempt to withdraw so many times from someone's bank before they're banned, so the agreed…

We know that interest is a parasitic, immoral, and destructive practice. The banks are in bed with the government, so they are allowed to lend with interest, however, how are payday lenders allowed to operate? Who are they bribing?

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#537
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so the agreed solution was to estimate the best time of the month when the client had received their paycheck, but before they had used it to pay rent and other expenses. The Purdue OxyContin's 12 hours higher dose and thus higher addictiveness "solution" instead of the 8 hour based lower dose cycle similarly bears all the hallmarks of being produced by MBA consultants.

Along with the whole different release times thing. People obviously have different metabolisms, so the duration of effect was different for different people. When these people told their doctors that their dose didn't last a full 8 hours, and they were experiencing pain after, say, 6 hours... their doctors were advised by Purdue to simply up their dosage, rather than give them a different dosing schedule. Pretty dir…

Time-release to begin with was the strategy to re-patent a prescribable habit-forming API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) whose underlying patent itself had already expired.

Turned out to be even more of a gold mine since the FDA approved formulations where each tablet simply contained way more of the API than it had on the label.

Full detailed data from the clinical trials supported the labeling for each tablet to show the amount from that tablet that would be released into the bloodstream when taken as directed, not the actual full amount of API in each tablet.

For the "taken as directed" dosing to be reliable enough for doctors to correctly gauge how much habit-forming toxic API their patients were absorbing compared to established & generic non-time-release formulations, the target is for the time release pills to have quite a bit of API remaining at the baseline upon excretion.

But this is an API that opiate addicts crave and it didn't take long for them to figure out they could simply crush the pills to ingest the full amount of API a tablet contained.

On the black market this escalated each pill to the top shelf category.

For addicts and chronic pain patients building a progressive tolerance they can't get enough, and this is the regular kind of opiate API that has always fomented eventual overdose when the increases are not curtailed and the toxic effects become much more prominent or fatal.

For any patient on generics who wanted _more drugs_, if they got switched to Oxycontin at the same dose they were a happy camper. Until they wanted even more. But multiple time-release pills were not in the prescribing guidelines so Purdue escalated by stepping up to the plate and developing stronger-dose product in the same time-release formulation.

This was a sign that so many people were building up a tolerance where it took more API to give them the same perceived effect.

The non-addicted occasional consumer of these powerful pain pills could sell their surplus for more each year. The financial incentive to refill prescriptions is greatest for those who don't actually take any of the pills. The Sacklers got richer at the same rate as the drug dealers too, since they raised the pharmaceutical price in step with the increases in street price.

The growing financial economy paralled the spread of the tolerance-building consumption habit, so realistically the demand was stronger than that from all of the ultimate consumers' habits by a large margin.

Opium wars had been fought over this kind of thing.

Doctors, nurses, patients, addicts, narcotics agencies were raking in the bucks like there was no tomorrow, and even those who were not benefitting by one dime were not going to stop.

Sacklers simply declared opium wars and the casualties are still mounting.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I agree with you. You would have to show intent to do something criminal at the core of it. I’m not sure that’s there for McKenzie.

If the law intended for there to be an intent requirement, then the statute itself would say “knowingly” or “willfully”, which it clearly does not. This means that one can accidentally commit conspiracy, so long as the law you’re conspiring to break does not have an intent requirement.

I think we might have to agree to disagree. My understanding is that the conspiracy must intend to break the law. If one party doesn’t know the other is breaking the law, it isn’t conspiracy. If McKenzie didn’t have any illegal recommendations, or knowledge of illegal actions, they are in the clear.

If they advised Perdue to do something illegal, that is a different story

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the New York Times article, "The amount McKinsey is paying is substantially more than it earned from opioid-related work with Purdue or Johnson & Johnson, Endo International and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, its other opioid-maker clients, a person involved in the settlement negotiations said" To me, "a cost of doing business" implies that they're making more money than it costs them. Here at least, that doesn't…

Posted this a few times but it keeps getting brought up. A project like this would be ~$1M. The fine is ~$600M. Total McK revenue is ~$10,000M. It's wayyyy more than the cost of doing business. This project represents less than 0.001% of a year's revenue. Company is losing 5-6%.

> Most of the money will go to government programs fighting opioid addiction and providing treatment, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein said Thursday. The company helped “turbocharge” opioid sales for 15 years while consulting for Purdue and its billionaire owners, the Sackler family, Stein said.

15 years of work must have cost more than $1M

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/2/4/mckinseytopay-573...

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#540
post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When company management wants to make a big change they hire consultants to provide cover and justification for it. [..] Companies like McKinsey will say whatever you want them to say, and there is no shortage of conflicting case studies to 'prove' their points. Not really, there are plenty of cheaper companies you can hire to do this when you know the solution and just need to bring in someone to do something unpo…

> there are plenty of cheaper companies you can hire to do this Isn't McKinsey like the IBM of their field, though? Hiring someone cheap makes it harder to pass the buck if it doesn't work out. "Nobody ever got fired for buying McKinsey" and all that.

I mean the pass the buck projects definitely exist, but they aren't as common as you might think in my experience. They can hire McKinsey for them if you want, it's just an expensive way to go. These projects are invariably ordered by companies that have toxic cultures anyway.

Far more common is a project where the client half knows what they want, but their thinking isn't detailed enough to implement it.

As an example that might happen in my field, let's say a company has three distribution centres, each with a general manager, and they report directly into a 'head of logistics'. The project is that they want to look at closing one distribution centre, they think they could probably get away with 2.

The client might know what they want, but probably wont understand the impact on transport costs, the capacity that exists at the other two distribution centres, likely delapse costs, how much they are likely to get for sublease as they have a long lease, the cost of redundancy, system changes required because some specific activity happens in the central DC, impact on the cost of goods sold, what are the inventory benefits, when according to their financial plan will they need the 3rd facility again. They are also unlikely to have an implementation plan and a cost estimate for making the change.

Even if the Head of Logistics can do all that, he has a full time job managing the network and working out all the impacts isn't a part-time job. It's also important to get right, so can be hard to delegate because the company probably doesn't have someone that has worked all this out before (e.g. do they know how to calculate inventory savings?).

So that's how a company can kind of know what they want to do, but consultants can still add value.

Post reply on HN