Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $572M for wrongful opioid epidemic in Oklahoma

[BC_89]

Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $572 Million in Landmark Opioid Trial (Published 2019)

Oklahoma pursued the first case against a drug manufacturer for the national public health disaster, and the ruling may point to what lies ahead in 2,000 more lawsuits.

www.google.com

“Johnson & Johnson will finally be held accountable for thousands of deaths and addictions caused by their products,”

So basically convicted for fueling an opioid crisis in the state of Oklahoma with over 400,000 confirmed deaths in the past 20 years. What I really found interesting was 40 other states (pretty much the rest of the country) plans to follow suit with similar claims to this pharmaceutical company.

I’m curious why only sue the supplier and not the middle independent or private practice settings that have the choice to prescribe and dispense. Perhaps just over my head on how these contracts really work.

I thought it was interesting nonetheless

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[allantois]

I’m surprised they haven’t pulled the pills off the market altogether by now

 

[Rouelle]

Because Duragesic patches and Nucynta are the key players in the opioid epidemic...

 

[Argentium]

The answer to your question of "Why J&J," it's actually really simple -- because they have the most money.

Purdue filed for bankruptcy, the generic players don't have a lot of money (and their cases are still pending anyways), and the wholesaler/retail cases are still pending as well

 

[BC_89]

To go along with the Why Was Johnson & Johnson the Only Opioid Maker on Trial in Oklahoma?, the Judge that finalized the finding (Judge Balkman) wrote a 42 page outline of the which the following was noted:

"Judge Balkman details how Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceutica, marketed their products by assuring doctors that what appeared to be addiction in patients was actually evidence of under-treated pain—and, thus, that the solution was prescribing more opioids".

Which now leads me to think that representative sellers for J&J must have an MD certification in order to have any weight of the matter to state patients were simply under-treated? Even if so, it is still the autonomy of the prescriber(s) to say "yay" or "nay" to the sales pitch and thereby prescribe higher than usual usage of opioids. Which then leads me to question that the opioid crisis is not something new for the past decade (especially with fentanyl in the last few years). So why would providers and chains still allow a higher than normal usage that may seem more in favor of contributing to the opioid crisis?

I think I'm simply just reading to much into this. Anyway, an interesting read between my breaks and studies.

**Edit** Another settlement specified for another pharma company to comply with their own definition of the Opioid Crisis: Purdue Pharma is offering $10-12 Billion in Cleveland....Interesting how some of this is coming to light in short increments (settlements and appeals that is).

Purdue Pharma offers $10 billion to $12 billion to settle opioid claims

 

[greenteapanacea]

I'm just gonna post this here:

Pharma cash rolls into Congress to defend an embattled industry

In the heat of the most ferocious battle over drug prices in years, pharmaceutical companies are showering U.S. senators with campaign cash as sweeping legislation heads toward the floor. | In the heat of the most ferocious battle over drug prices in years, pharmaceutical companies are showering...

www.fiercepharma.com

 

[BidingMyTime]

"Judge Balkman details how Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceutica, marketed their products by assuring doctors that what appeared to be addiction in patients was actually evidence of under-treated pain—and, thus, that the solution was prescribing more opioids".
Which now leads me to think that representative sellers for J&J must have an MD certification in order to have any weight of the matter to state patients were simply under-treated? Even if so, it is still the autonomy of the prescriber(s) to say "yay" or "nay" to the sales pitch and thereby prescribe higher than usual usage of opioids. Which then leads me to question that the opioid crisis is not something new for the past decade (especially with fentanyl in the last few years). So why would providers and chains still allow a higher than normal usage that may seem more in favor of contributing to the opioid crisis?

What J&J reps did was tell doctors that the drugs *always* last 12 hours and should *never* be prescribed at shorter intervals, and that if people "felt" the dose was wearing off too soon, then the dose needed to be upped. The reps assured the doctors that all the pharmacokinentics proved this, and it's not like doctors had any means to verify this (even if they felt the need to, and what doctor would question the pharmacokinetics of a new drug from the drug rep?)

The reality was, in many, *very* many, of these patients, the oxycontin did wear off by 8 hours. So q8 hr dosing was more appropriate for these patients. Instead, by upping the dose, it just gives a big high, and then a big drop when the drug wears off and the patient has to wait for the next dose, this set patients up for drug addition. From what I've read, J&J had studies showing they knew this, but they hid those studies and continued lying to doctors, pharmacists, and patients.....so I think this does make them quite culpable.