McKesson sued for lax opioid oversight

McKesson’s board failed to audit the company’s methods to detect suspicious shipments of opioid painkillers, even after agreeing to do so in a court settlement, according to board minutes unsealed as part of a shareholder lawsuit.

Bloomberg reports the lawsuit, filed in October, centers on allegations that McKesson paid little attention to a 2008 settlement where the company agreed to stricter monitoring of opioid shipments, included a three-tiered system that would flag buyers who exceeded monthly thresholds for prescription opioids.

Even though the board’s audit committee identified “serious deficiencies” in the system months after the settlement, including not assigning thresholds to some customers, the board didn’t discuss the system or request another review for five more years.

“With this new disclosure, pressure is now squarely on the special independent committee to clean house, otherwise shareholders are going to take matters into their own hands,” Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a McKesson investor, said in a statement. “It is patently clear this board has failed its shareholders, its employees and the American public.”

Read more at the link below:

""
John Gregory, Senior Writer

John joined TriMed in 2016, focusing on healthcare policy and regulation. After graduating from Columbia College Chicago, he worked at FM News Chicago and Rivet News Radio, and worked on the state government and politics beat for the Illinois Radio Network. Outside of work, you may find him adding to his never-ending graphic novel collection.

Around the web

The American College of Cardiology has sent a letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that outlines some of the organization’s central priorities and concerns. 

One product is being pulled from the market, and the other is receiving updated instructions for use.

If the Trump administration continues taking a laissez-faire stance toward AI—including AI used in healthcare—why not let the states go it alone on regulating the technology?