Setting the Record Straight: McKesson’s Efforts to Help Address the Opioid Crisis
Today, the Washington Post and 60 Minutes released their latest round of coordinated stories on the nation’s opioid crisis. This time, however, they went beyond just getting the facts wrong. This time, they misled readers and viewers about McKesson’s role in the crisis and our settlement with the federal government last January.
To sensationalize their story, they focused on behind-the-scene quarrels between a handful of retired Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents and the government attorneys they work with, leaving McKesson and the settlement we reached nearly a year ago as collateral damage. The narrative they pushed was sensationalist, misleading and not credible. The public deserves a more balanced account of the story than they were given today.
McKesson was founded 180 years ago: that’s when John McKesson began delivering medicine to patients in his horse and buggy. Today, our delivery system is much more sophisticated and immediate (like the overnight delivery services that make our lives easier). But our commitment to better patient health reflects the same, unwavering dedication that prompted Mr. McKesson to start this business back in 1833.
Controlled substances – including opioids – are among the hundreds of thousands of medicines and medical supplies we deliver every day to pharmacies, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, physicians and other care settings. Opioids are extremely strong and potentially addictive medicines that treat intense pain. That’s why they require FDA approval and a doctor’s prescription, and why they are separately regulated by the DEA. Certain patients with cancer and other illnesses and injuries need these medicines to treat their level of pain. When and for whom are these drugs legitimately prescribed? I can’t – and shouldn’t – make that determination. It’s up to the doctors and pharmacists who interact with patients and make those risk-benefit treatment decisions.
When it comes to opioids, the federal government – through the DEA, an agency of the Department of Justice – is responsible for enforcing the nation’s controlled substances laws and regulations. That starts with DEA’s authority to set annual quotas for how many opioids can be manufactured. The DEA also determines through a registration process which doctors, pharmacists and distributors (like McKesson) are legally allowed to prescribe, dispense and distribute these potent medications. The DEA also is the only entity that has access to opioid prescribing and dispensing data for all doctors and pharmacies in all cities and states – the bird’s eye view to detect bad actors. Distributors, like McKesson, do not.
Last January, McKesson settled a dispute with the federal government over how we report “suspicious orders”. This settlement came after three years of discussions with the federal government as we worked cooperatively to enhance our reporting system.
I am proud to say that we at McKesson have built one of the nation’s most sophisticated controlled substances monitoring programs. Our program uses modern-day data and analytics to stay on top of the evolving diversion tactics of the bad actors who want to convert legitimate medicines into black-market drugs.
The Post and 60 Minutes stories are ultimately about a disconnect between a group of disgruntled DEA investigators who could not substantiate the claims they were making to their own attorneys. At least three of these retired investigators are now working with trial lawyers who are suing our company or our peers.
Playing the blame game may help sell ads and boost ratings. But it doesn’t help the patients who legitimately need these strong medicines, or the people who are addicted to opioids – or their families who are trying to help them put their lives back together.
As I said last October and many previous times, the opioid epidemic is one of our nation’s most pressing public health crises, and its impact on families and communities across the country is heartbreaking. McKesson has been and continues to be committed to being a part of the national solution. Here’s how.
First, we are committed to maintaining – and continuously enhancing – strong programs designed to detect and prevent opioid diversion within the pharmaceutical supply chain.
We are also joining forces with others to advance public policy recommendations and to support a variety of innovative solutions and programs, like a national patient safety system, that we believe can have a meaningful impact on this challenging issue. We are committed to engaging with all who share our dedication to acting with urgency to address this public health crisis.
For more information on all that McKesson is doing, please visit www.McKesson.com/FightingOpioidAbuse.
Legal Program Management, Strategy, Systems Process Improvement, eDiscovery, IGRM, Business Process Development
7 年Great article John!
Jack Of All Trades, Employee Of None (artist on hiatus)
7 年This is too much for most cancer, terminally and chronically ill patients to argue out politically. The group of disabled and chronically ill citizens who manage to find time for this activism and patient advocacy are nothing short of amazing, most have support networks to back them. To that end, it is heartening to see medical professionals, law makers, and pharmaceutical distributors communicate and sort out the facts for the best outcomes.
Advisor, consultant, coach, teacher and lecturer
7 年BS article
Advisor, consultant, coach, teacher and lecturer
7 年Straight BS....
Computer Professional
7 年In the 1990's I worked as the IT Director for a competitor of McKesson. We worked under the same laws that they did. We were required by the DEA to report all ARCOS (all narcotics plus a few other drugs) sales via tape to the DEA monthly. I found that the DEA was 2 years behind processing the data we sent. The suspicious sales reporting that we were required to perform was not defined by the DEA. The regulations stated that we needed to provide reports to them of "suspicious" usage, but nowhere was I ever told what constitutes a "suspicious" sale. We did the best we could, but in the end the DEA (as John has stated) was the only one with all of the data in hand to do suspicious sale reporting. It was very frustrating for us, as we wanted very much to do a good job. McKesson is a lot bigger than the one I worked for and has better data tracking capabilities, but in the end they are not in a position to put a stop to excessive prescriptions of narcotics by a particular doctor - they can only raise a red flag to their DEA agent.