4 ms·

Sorry but I have a hard time believing the FDA didn't know anything about McKinsey's ties to pharmaceuticals. The scenario here is likely ProPublica coming to

by boh 5y ago

Sorry but I have a hard time believing the FDA didn't know anything about McKinsey's ties to pharmaceuticals. The scenario here is likely ProPublica coming to the FDA and asking why they hired McKinsey since it has ties to Pharma. FDA comes back and says McKinsey never "technically" told them. So that's the story. Any public agency that hires McKinsey can assume a conflict, since McKinsey has clients in every industry. That's partially why they hire them, to get insider views on the industry they regulate/deal with.

mousetree 5y ago
Agreed. It's very clear on McKinsey's website that they dp work for pharma companies.
mousetree 5y ago
Agreed. It's very clear on McKinsey's website that they do work for pharma companies.
conductr 5y ago
> The news of McKinsey’s opioid work apparently did little to dampen the FDA’s enthusiasm for the consultancy. In March 2019, just after the news broke, the agency signed a new contract with McKinsey — extending the firm’s multiyear effort to help the FDA “modernize” the process by which it regulates new drugs. I agree too. I think the FDA hires them exactly because of their clients. They want to modernize their processes, they need intel from industry. How else does McKinsey get this intel besides working with industry? It’s very much a meet in the middle process. The FDA doesn’t want to completely disrupt industry and they’d like to know their new regulations are able to be implemented and probably also care to some degree how painful they are for industry. However as regulators, they could never Work side by side with the industry in this effort. It wasn’t disclosed likely because it was part of the value and McKinsey, through conversation with FDA, thought it was understood. FDA hired them again, so I’m interpreting that as a sign of them not actually thinking a COI occurred, or a material lack of disclosure.
- kesselvon 5y ago
  It's dumb because McKinsey is not going to undermine their pharma contracts, so any advice they're going to give will be inherently biased. At that point, might as well have the big pharma companies write a wish list and send it on.

by boh 5y ago

mousetree 5y ago

Agreed. It's very clear on McKinsey's website that they dp work for pharma companies.

mousetree 5y ago

Agreed. It's very clear on McKinsey's website that they do work for pharma companies.

conductr 5y ago

> The news of McKinsey’s opioid work apparently did little to dampen the FDA’s enthusiasm for the consultancy. In March 2019, just after the news broke, the agency signed a new contract with McKinsey — extending the firm’s multiyear effort to help the FDA “modernize” the process by which it regulates new drugs. I agree too. I think the FDA hires them exactly because of their clients. They want to modernize their processes, they need intel from industry. How else does McKinsey get this intel besides working with industry? It’s very much a meet in the middle process. The FDA doesn’t want to completely disrupt industry and they’d like to know their new regulations are able to be implemented and probably also care to some degree how painful they are for industry. However as regulators, they could never Work side by side with the industry in this effort. It wasn’t disclosed likely because it was part of the value and McKinsey, through conversation with FDA, thought it was understood. FDA hired them again, so I’m interpreting that as a sign of them not actually thinking a COI occurred, or a material lack of disclosure.

kesselvon 5y ago
It's dumb because McKinsey is not going to undermine their pharma contracts, so any advice they're going to give will be inherently biased. At that point, might as well have the big pharma companies write a wish list and send it on.