SULLIVAN COUNTY –– Fighting back against the opioid epidemic, Sullivan County, like several local and state governments, joined a lawsuit against various distributors and manufacturers of prescription opiates in 2017.

During a special meeting on Thursday, legislators voted unanimously to join a class settlement of litigation relating to three distributors (MeKession Corporation, Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen Corporation), as well as the manufacturer Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutics.

As for the settlement with the distributors, according to the resolution, Sullivan County will receive a base amount of $2,805,643.23. If Sullivan County meets each of its incentives they will receive their first payment of $292,785.10 in February 2022. The resolution further states that under the best scenario, assuming all incentives are satisfied, Sullivan County will receive a total of $4,956,128.59.

In regard to the settlement with Johnson and Johnson (J & J), the county will receive a base amount of $470,626.31. However, if the county meets each of its incentives the total amount derived from the J & J portion of the settlement would be not less than $1,098,336.08. If incentives of the settlement are met, the county would receive the first three payments in February 2022 in the sum of $583,115.09, with additional payments remitted annually.

The mentioned settlement incentives are tied to programming, ensuring that the money local governments receive targets harm caused by the opioid epidemic in their communities.

The settlement legislators voted to join on Thursday does not include Purdue Pharma. That is expected to produce additional money, but the parameters of it have yet to be determined, as that process has been slowed by Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy action.

County Attorney Michael McGuire explained that Purdue Pharma is close to a resolution in their bankruptcy action, adding that it will likely be more than the J&J settlement monies, but may not be bigger than the amount from the combination of the three distributors.

Lure of advertising
During Thursday’s discussion, Legislator Alan Sorensen took a moment to address direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising, adding that only two countries in the world allow it, the United States of America and New Zealand.

According to Sorensen, in other countries, pharmaceutical companies can’t create an advertisement where they tell people to tell their doctor that they have ABCD and E symptoms, and then the doctor will prescribe them their medication.

“Our children are hearing that message from the very time they watch television advertisements,” said Sorensen. “They’re seeing it in magazines. It’s perverting our whole society. America is an overmedicated country, in part, because of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.”

Sorensen said it needs to end, and that Congress was supposed to review direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising periodically to see what the impacts were, since it was authorized in 1998.

“They haven’t done so,” said Sorensen. “They failed miserably, and I think unless we address that issue, we’re going to have this problem for the foreseeable future.”

Legislator Michael Brooks said they should consider a resolution or a letter to their state and federal representatives asking for direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising to be looked at.

“Beyond getting the money, I think we need to make that stand as a group,” said Brooks.

Sorensen explained that the class action lawsuit started with a few counties, and that it’s possible a domino effect could also happen with direct-to-consumer advertising. “I think it would benefit the generations to come.”