McKinsey and Its Opioids Scandal
McKinsey and Its Opioids Scandal
Scandal
By Madison Weiss
In 2020, Purdue pleaded guilty once more to improper marketing. But this time,
the company was not acting alone. In the wake of the 2007 case, members of
the Sackler family, who founded and owned Purdue, sought advice. In 2009, the
company hired McKinsey to advise them on how to move forward in the wake of
the lawsuit. Consequently, McKinsey directed them to increase their sales of
OxyContin. To do so, the management consultancy crafted strategies to focus
on pharmacies, physicians, and individuals in a way that would later be referred
to as “over-marketing and over-prescribing”.
This sort of calculus is common in business. We trace this tendency back to the
work of Milton Friedman, an economist who emphasized responsibility to
shareholders above all else. The sentiment behind this, as justified by
academics like Stephen Bainbridge, is to avoid “indeterminate balancing
standards”. From this point of view, having one group to which companies must
always be responsible ensures firms will always make the responsible
choice. The alternative would be an ability to shift responsibility to a particular
group to justify making a particular choice. In response, critics point out that
just because a framework gives a consistent result does not mean the result is
justified. The thousands of lives lost due to McKinsey’s decision to emphasize
Purdue’s bottom line over concern for the general public magnify this
concern. What’s more, the argument this was a responsible outcome seems like
a smokescreen for a decision that was in all likelihood the result of akrasia
prompted by greed. Akrasia means acting against one’s moral principles
through weakness of will.[1] To borrow the words of Tom Peters, McKinsey’s
akrasia was an “insane push for profitability at all costs”. [2]
McKinsey surprised both physicians and the world by pushing a sales tactic that
would cause considerable harm. While not all consulting firms have the most
stellar reputations, McKinsey was revered as one of the oldest, largest, and most
prestigious consulting firms in the world. For almost one hundred years, the
company prided itself on the “McKinsey mystique”, or the idea partners would
always act to “uphold absolute integrity”.[4] This reputation has attracted talent
from some of the most prestigious universities, with McKinsey being the sixth
most popular employer of graduates from the University of Pennsylvania. [5] Such
status within the advising community created broad trust in McKinsey as a
reputable actor.
H. J. N. Horsburgh identifies three types of trust: innocent, guilty, and
therapeutic.[6] Innocent trust is born of a lack of experience and duplicity. When
a person trusts innocently, it is because they do not know better. On the other
hand, guilty trust is born of carelessness. When a person trusts guiltily, they
would have identified the other party was acting wrongly if only they had
bothered to connect the dots. Therapeutic trust is distinct due to its
intentionality. It is a doxastic form of trust. This means it justifies trust through
belief.[7] In this case, the belief that giving trust promotes trustworthiness. Any
of these three lenses can potentially explain physician-consultant relationships
with regards to opioids.
This of course assumes that trust is the motivating force behind changes in
physician prescribing behavior, which may be a naive assumption. Trust is only
a factor in this equation if a physician is using the advice of a representative to
make an honest recommendation in a patient’s best interest. But this may not
be her goal. She too can be swayed by the profitability of
overprescribing. Research estimates that “between August 2013 and December
2015, 375,255 opioid-related payments were made to 68,177 doctors. Upwards
of $46 million paid out, none of which was for a physician conducting
research.”[11] It is no coincidence the rise in synthetic opioid overdoses began in
2013,[12] as physicians were paid to overlook the consequences of opioid
overprescribing.
Whereas these charges do not require the action be intentional, fraud and deceit
requires misrepresentation of information happen knowingly. [29] Additionally,
civil conspiracy occurs when two or more parties knowingly agree to act
unlawfully to harm another,[30] and civil aiding and abetting refers to this plan
being acted upon.[31] These charges apply to the working relationship between
McKinsey and Purdue, which had already been found guilty of committing
federal crimes with regards to the opioid crisis. An intentional act occurs when a
party, acting purposefully, harms another,[32] and an intentional omission occurs
when a party unintentionally does not act, allowing harm to occur.[33] McKinsey
can be said to have intentionally acted by advising Purdue. They also can be
seen as having committed an intentional omission by not having implemented
measures to ensure patient safety. Intention clearly plays an important role in
these charges.
Yet the question of intention is a complex one. The legal definition of this term
is “a design, resolve, or determination of the mind”.[34] This presents an issue,
given that a person’s thoughts cannot be examined directly but must rather be
reconstructed. Simply asking an agent her intentions is not a satisfactory
solution. When McKinsey leadership puts out a statement saying, “any
suggestion that our work sought to increase overdoses or misuse and worsen a
public health crisis is wrong”,[35] their incentive to lie about its intention is
obvious.
When asked about the role McKinsey played in the opioid crisis, a consultant
responds, “we may not have done anything wrong, but did we ask ourselves
what the negative consequences of the work we were doing was, and how it
could be minimized?”.[39] This lack of judgment makes any claim to good
intentions impossible. Additionally, the ways in which McKinsey acted, or the
company’s performance, clearly fueled addiction. Some of these actions, like
offering rebates for cases of addiction, also suggest that addiction was factored
into judgment and written off as an appropriate cost of doing business.
-x-
of Philosophy, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/akrasia/v-1.
Merriam-Webster. “Blitzkrieg”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/
[3]
dictionary/blitzkrieg.
of 2018. https://cdn.uconnectlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/74/2019/08/20
18_Undergraduate_Career_Plans_Survey_Report.pdf.
Companies at the Center of the Opioid Crisis”. The New York Times, 29 June
2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/business/mckinsey-opioid-crisis-
opana.html.
Marshall, John. “Why You See Such Weird Drug Commercials on TV All the
[9]
https://www.ethicalsystems.org/trust/.
2017, https://www.hopebythesea.com/blog/prescription-opioid-doctor-
kickbacks/.
Physician’s Weekly. “Is Pain Really The 5th Vital Sign?”. 28 October 2013,
[13]
https://www.physiciansweekly.com/pain-5th-vital-sign.
Anson, Pat. “AMA Drops Pain as Vital Sign”. Pain News Network, 16 June 2016,
[16]
https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2016/6/16/ama-drops-pain-as-vital-
sign.
Statistics”. https://drugabusestatistics.org/opioid-epidemic/#west-virginia.
Laws”. https://www.wvlaw.net/comparative-negligence-law/.
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/duty-of-care.html.
Farlex. “Public
[26]
Nuisance”. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/public+nuisance.
Statistics”. https://www.livestories.com/statistics/west-virginia/mingo-county-
opioids-deaths-mortality.
enrichment/.
Berlik, Lee E. “Fraud: What It Is, and What It Is Not”. The Virginia Business
[29]
https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-laws-and-regulations/civil-
conspiracy.html.
Abetting”. https://crowdsourcelawyers.com/criminal-law/aiding-and-abetting-2/.
injury-lawyers/intentional-acts/.
Definition”. https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intentional-omission/.
TheLaw.com LLC. “Intention”. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/intention/.
[34]
Pharma”. 5 December
2020, https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/media/mckinsey-statement-on-its-
past-work-with-purdue-pharma.
Accountability”. https://www.pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-
ethics/ethics-in-crisis-management/lesson-1-prominent-ethical-issues-in-crisis-
situations/ethical-principles-of-responsibility-and-accountability/.
2009, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/.
Scope”. British Medical Journal, 16 July 1994, Vol. 309, No. 6948, pp. 184-
188, https://www.jstor.org/stable/29724194.
Court?”. https://lisagdouglas.com/why-do-so-many-court-cases-settle-out-of-
court/.
MacDougall, Ian. “McKinsey Never Told the FDA It Was Working for Opioid
[44]