a Center for Public Health Law and Policy, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University , Phoenix , AZ , USA.
b Founding O'Neill Chair in Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center , Washington , DC , USA.
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2019;45(5):432-437. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2019.1618320. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
The recent $270 million settlement of Purdue Pharmaceuticals and the State of Oklahoma on March 26, 2019 concerning the state's opioid litigation is a harbinger of industry settlements to come. Thousands of opioid-related cases with impending trial dates may stimulate opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to seek new deals to escape historic liability. Against a backdrop of massive damage potential of a two decade opioid epidemic, reaching appropriate settlements is key. Parties to opioid lawsuits must balance an array of factors to assure industry accountability while preserving access to opioids among legitimate patients seeking palliative care. We examined major bases for opioid litigation across the U.S. Thousands of cases have been filed against opioid manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and others. Hundreds of these cases are consolidated in a federal district court in Cleveland, Ohio where trials are scheduled as early as October 2019. Grounds for litigation are highly varied. Multiple factors underlying responsible settlements include (1) a primary focus on contemporary treatment and prevention strategies supplemented by research innovations; (2) primary access to life-saving treatments for at-risk individuals; (3) fair and equitable allocation of settlement resources; (4) dedication to lawful, efficacious interventions; (5) cross-sharing of industry data and practices to promote good faith compliance; and (6) continued assurance of access to palliative care for deserving patients. Negotiated settlements must align with highly effective public health priorities. Crafting wise settlement agreements is necessary to assign responsibility for huge public harms and ensure future treatments that are prudent and efficacious.
2019 年 3 月 26 日,普渡制药公司(Purdue Pharmaceuticals)与俄克拉荷马州就该州的阿片类药物诉讼达成了 2.7 亿美元的和解协议,这预示着行业和解即将到来。数千件即将开庭的阿片类药物相关案件可能会刺激阿片类药物制造商、分销商和零售商寻求新的解决方案,以逃避历史责任。在长达二十年的阿片类药物流行造成巨大损害的背景下,达成适当的和解至关重要。阿片类药物诉讼的各方必须权衡一系列因素,既要确保行业承担责任,也要确保合法寻求姑息治疗的患者能够获得阿片类药物。我们研究了美国各地阿片类药物诉讼的主要依据。针对阿片类药物制造商、分销商、药店、药品福利管理公司和其他公司提起了数千起诉讼。其中数百起案件已在俄亥俄州克利夫兰的联邦地区法院合并审理,最早将于 2019 年 10 月进行审判。诉讼的理由千差万别。有责任的和解的主要基础包括:(1)主要关注当代治疗和预防策略,并辅以研究创新;(2)主要为高危个人提供救命治疗;(3)公平、公正地分配和解资源;(4)致力于合法、有效的干预措施;(5)行业数据和做法的交叉共享,以促进诚信合规;(6)继续确保有资格的患者获得姑息治疗。谈判达成的和解必须符合高度有效的公共卫生优先事项。制定明智的和解协议对于承担巨大的公共危害责任以及确保未来明智和有效的治疗措施是必要的。