McKinsey – Serving as a Double Agent?

0 1,226

In April 2022, the United States House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a report, finding that 22 McKinsey consultants were permitted to simultaneously work with the federal government and with opioid manufacturers, such as Purdue Pharma. The report also notes that the consultants leveraged their connections with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to obtain more consulting work with drug makers and tried to influence government officials – including former Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar – to advance the interests of its opioid clients.

McKinsey Consultants Working for Both FDA and Opioid Manufacturers

According to the report, there were 37 FDA contracts that were staffed by at least one McKinsey consultant who either simultaneously or previously worked for Purdue. For example, in 2011, at least four McKinsey consultants working on a $1.8 million FDA contract to enhance drug safety and address “the adverse impact of drugs on health in the US” were simultaneously working for Purdue—including on projects designed to persuade FDA of the safety of Purdue’s opioid products.  One project involved writing “scripts” for Purdue to use in a meeting with FDA on the safety of pediatric OxyContin.

The report also points to a McKinsey partner, who in 2017, began work on a $2.7 million contract to modernize FDA’s Office of New Drugs. The problem is at the same time, that same McKinsey consultant was advising Purdue on how to maximize the market potential of a new opioid and another potentially lucrative new drug, both of which Purdue would file with that same FDA office.

McKinsey Used its Connections and Influence

The report also finds that McKinsey consultants tried to leverage their government contacts and experience to obtain private sector business opportunities, including in 2014, when a McKinsey partner wrote to Purdue’s CEO that McKinsey brought an “unequaled capability based on who we know and what we know,” highlighting the firm’s work for “State and Federal Regulators,” including “FDA, who we have supported for over five years.” Less than one week later, McKinsey confirmed multiple engagements at Purdue, including a project led by a McKinsey partner who frequently consulted for FDA to prepare Purdue for an FDA Advisory Committee meeting on one of its opioids.

McKinsey Consultants May Have Deleted Important Documents

Finally, documents obtained by the Committee found that as early as May 2017, McKinsey partners talked about ways to keep their documents from being discovered as part of Purdue’s ongoing lawsuits. Some of the ideas put forward were putting presentations on a “neutral template,” without Purdue’s logo, and only showing paper copies of presentations to Purdue. One McKinsey senior partner seemed indicate with the latter approach, “it will live only on our laptops and then we can delete.”

In July 2018, senior partners at McKinsey continued to discuss destroying documents related to work with Purdue, with one of them emailing a note to himself to “delete old pur documents from laptop.”

Reactions

Representative Carolyn Maloney, chairwoman of the Committee, released a statement saying that the “report shows that at the same time the FDA was relying on McKinsey’s advice to ensure drug safety and protect American lives, the firm was also being paid by the very companies fueling the deadly opioid epidemic to help them avoid tougher regulation of these dangerous drugs.” Representative Maloney went on to state, “McKinsey’s conduct is even more egregious considering its central role in driving a public health crisis that has killed half a million Americans and continues to claim tens of thousands of lives every year. The American public will soon learn even more about McKinsey’s role in the opioid epidemic thanks to the hard work of state Attorneys General and their landmark $573 million settlement.” She called for McKinsey to “answer for its actions.”

McKinsey posted a statement to its website, noting that the company “stand[s] behind the positive impact of our work,” and that it will “review the report by the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and will continue to cooperate with the Committee to address further questions.” In the statement, however, the company states that it does “understand and accept the scrutiny around our past client service to opioid manufacturers. This work, while lawful, fell short of the high standards we set for ourselves. Last year we reached settlements with all 50 state Attorneys General in order to provide fast, meaningful support to communities across the United States that have been affected by the opioid crisis.”

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.