Caitlyn Edgell*
Abstract
In 1996, pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma initiated a marketing campaign that represented the opioid OxyContin as a non- addictive medication essential for pain management. In the last 24 years, Purdue Pharma generated billions of dollars in revenue from the sale of OxyContin. However, mass addiction to Oxycontin and other opioids accompanied Purdue Pharma’s success. In the U.S., over 11 million people have misused opioids and, on average, over 100 people die each day from opioid-related overdoses. This widespread addiction, also known as the “opioid epidemic,” led the Department of Health and Human Services to declare a public health emergency in 2017.
Forty-nine states recently filed lawsuits against Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, Purdue Pharma’s owners, for their contributions to the opioid epidemic. The actions of Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers have imposed a great cost on society, both in lives lost and in financial burdens on the states. In response to the lawsuits, Purdue Pharma proposed a settlement deal worth between $10 billion and $12 billion. Per the settlement, Purdue Pharma would declare bankruptcy and transform into a new company that produces opioid-overdose-reversal and addiction-treatment medications. States’ responses to the settlement have varied, with about half of the states rejecting the settlement and half accepting it.
This Comment addresses whether states should accept or reject the settlement offer from Purdue Pharma. Ultimately, this Comment recommends that all states should accept the settlement because it offers the best chance for states to receive compensation for the opioid epidemic and provide needed anti-overdose drugs to those impacted.
*J.D. Candidate, The Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Law, 2021.
[FULL TEXT]
The Flagship Publication of Penn State Law