Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the chicken-feed dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Drug companies reach $260 million settlement, averting first federal opioid trial

Four large drug companies could resume talks on Tuesday to try to reach a $48 billion settlement of all opioid litigation against them, after agreeing with two Ohio counties to a $260 million deal to avert the first federal trial over their role in the U.S. opioid epidemic.

Drug distributors AmerisourceBergen Corp, Cardinal Health Inc and McKesson Corp and drugmaker Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd agreed to the deal that removed the immediate threat of a trial that was to begin on Monday in Cleveland.

The parties could resume talks as soon as Tuesday aimed at a broader settlement of thousands of opioid lawsuits brought by states and local governments, according to Paul Hanly, an attorney for the towns and counties.

Under Monday's local settlement, the distributors, which handle around 90% of U.S. prescription drugs, will pay a combined $215 million immediately to Ohio's Cuyahoga and Summit counties that were plaintiffs in Monday's trial.

Israel-based Teva said it was paying $20 million in cash and will contribute $25 million worth of Suboxone, an opioid addiction treatment.

Teva, the world's largest maker of generic drugs, said it will make its contribution over three years.

[Ed Note - Since the time of submission it appears that most, if not all of the linked article has been revised with no indication that one or more updates have been made.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Sally_G on Wednesday October 23 2019, @05:10AM (6 children)

    by Sally_G (8170) on Wednesday October 23 2019, @05:10AM (#910672)

    Is there anything "wrong" with wanting to see the guilty punished? How likely is it, that morally corrupt people who made their wealth by getting people addicted are going to contribute significantly to the recovery of those addicts?
      Removing the power, wealth, and influence of the Sackler family actually does seem like part of a long term solution. I also noticed that original poster did not call for the executions of the Sacklers, or even for long term imprisonment. Take their stuff, and distribute it to those agencies most likely to help the addicts recover is likely more effective than expecting the Sacklers to become addiction specialists.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by deimtee on Wednesday October 23 2019, @05:32AM

    by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday October 23 2019, @05:32AM (#910675) Journal

    ... expecting the Sacklers to become addiction specialists.

    They are addiction specialists, just not in a way that is helpful.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @06:11AM (4 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 23 2019, @06:11AM (#910678) Journal

    Is there anything "wrong" with wanting to see the guilty punished?

    It is if you stop there!

    (I guess that's yet another one who didn't get I'm not objecting to the punishment, but say "It is not enough, need to consider the whole problem to be called 'thinking' and not just kneejerking"!)

    I also noticed that original poster did not call for the executions of the Sacklers, or even for long term imprisonment. Take their stuff, and distribute it to those agencies most likely to help the addicts recover is likely more effective than expecting the Sacklers to become addiction specialists.

    Well, I didn't notice the point where Runaway says "distribute to those agencies most likely able to help addicts recover" - neither in his original post [soylentnews.org] nor the subsequent one [soylentnews.org] in the thread to which you are replying. I'll gladly stand corrected if you can provide a proper citation.

    (it was only later, on a separate branch [soylentnews.org] that he did, and I was the first to recognize it [soylentnews.org])

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 1) by Sally_G on Wednesday October 23 2019, @07:49AM (3 children)

      by Sally_G (8170) on Wednesday October 23 2019, @07:49AM (#910697)

      In that initial post, there seems to have been a tacit approval of the agreement under discussion. It would seem that the assumption of responsibility, and funding of existing solutions, satisfies his sense of justice, for these companies. Purdue is to be held to a higher standard, due to his perception of greater responsibilities. That is how I read his post. We would need Runaway to comment here to verify any of that.

        More some other day!

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 23 2019, @08:34AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 23 2019, @08:34AM (#910704) Journal

        Well, I'm don't have telepathic abilities and English is not my primary language.
        Too many "seems" and too much "reading between the lines" for me, so I do what I can and I don't infer implicit meanings when not explicitly stated.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 23 2019, @01:59PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 23 2019, @01:59PM (#910793) Journal

          That's alright c0lo - we can't all be lucky enough to grow up in an English speaking country.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 23 2019, @01:58PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 23 2019, @01:58PM (#910792) Journal

        There is less "tacit approval" in my post, than there is "tacit acceptance". I don't really like it, so I'm not in approval. But, I do recognize that the settlement approaches something like justice, and I'll have to accept that it's the best we're going to get.