New York’s Met museum to remove Sackler name from exhibits

Sarah Cascone

artnet.com

Originally posted 9 DEC 21

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has dropped the Sackler name from its building. The move is perhaps the museum world’s most prominent cutting of ties with the disgraced family since their company Purdue Pharma’s guilty plea to criminal charges connected to marketing of addictive painkiller OxyContin in 2020.

The decision, which came after more than a yearlong review by the museum, was reportedly mutual and made “in order to allow the Met to further its core mission,” according to a joint statement issued by the Sackler family and the institution.

“Our families have always strongly supported the Met, and we believe this to be in the best interest of the museum and the important mission that it serves,” the descendants of Mortimer Sackler and Raymond Sackler said in a statement. “The earliest of these gifts were made almost 50 years ago, and now we are passing the torch to others who might wish to step forward to support the museum.”

Institutions have faced increasing pressure to sever relations with the Sacklers in recent years as part of a growing push to hold institutions and other cultural groups accountable over where their money is coming from. (Other donors that have come under fire include arms dealers and oil companies.)

Seven spaces at the Fifth Avenue flagship bore the Sackler name. The biggest was the Sackler Wing, which opened in 1978, and includes the Sackler Gallery for Egyptian Art, the Temple of Dendur in the Sackler Wing, and the 1987 addition of the Sackler Wing Galleries.

The day of the announcement, Patrick Radden Keefe, the author of Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty, visited the museum to find that the family’s name had already been removed.

The information is here.

U.S. judge tosses $4.5 B deal shielding Sacklers from opioid lawsuits

Brendan Pierson & Mike Spector, Maria Chutchian

Reuters

Originally posted 16 DEC 21

A federal judge overturned a roughly $4.5 billion settlement that legally shielded members of the Sackler family who stand accused of helping fuel the U.S. opioid epidemic, a decision that threatened to upend the bankruptcy reorganization of their company, OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon said in a written opinion on Thursday the New York bankruptcy court that approved the settlement did not have authority to grant the Sacklers the legal protection from future opioid litigation that formed the linchpin of Purdue’s reorganization.

Purdue said it would appeal the decision.

"While the district court decision does not affect Purdue’s rock-solid operational stability or its ability to produce its many medications safely and effectively, it will delay, and perhaps end, the ability of creditors, communities, and individuals to receive billions in value to abate the opioid crisis," Purdue Chairman Steve Miller said in a statement.

The Sacklers had insisted on the legal shields, known as nondebtor releases because they protect parties that have not filed for bankruptcy themselves, in exchange for contributing $4.5 billion toward resolving widespread opioid litigation.

The Sacklers threatened to walk away from the settlement absent the guaranteed legal protections.

Representatives for the Sacklers did not immediately respond to a request for comment late on Thursday.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement he was pleased with the ruling.

"The bankruptcy court did not have the authority to deprive victims of the opioid crisis of their right to sue the Sackler family," Garland said.

The info is here.

Note: If you have not watched Dopesick on Hulu, please do.  Excellent portrayal of the level of harm and psychopathology with members of this family.

Holding Insurers Accountable for Parity in Coverage of Mental Health Treatment.

Paul S. Appelbaum and Joseph Parks
Psychiatric Services 
Originally posted 14 Nov 19

Despite a series of federal laws aimed at ensuring parity in insurance coverage of treatment for mental health and general health conditions, patients with mental disorders continue to face discrimination by insurers. This inequity is often due to overly restrictive utilization review criteria that fail to conform to accepted professional standards.

A recent class action challenge to the practices of the largest U.S. health insurer may represent an important step forward in judicial enforcement of parity laws.

Rejecting the insurer’s guidelines for coverage determinations as inconsistent with usual practices, the court enunciated eight principles that defined accepted standards of care.

In 2013, Natasha Wit, then 17 years old, was admitted to Monte Nido Vista, a residential treatment facility in California for women with eating disorders. At the time, she was said to be suffering from a severe eating disorder, with medical complications that included amenorrhea, adrenal and thyroid problems, vitamin deficiency, and gastrointestinal symptoms. She was also reported to be experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and marked social isolation. Four days after admission, her insurer, United Behavioral Health (UBH), denied coverage for her stay on the basis that her “treatment does not meet the medical necessity criteria for residential mental health treatment per UBH Level of Care Guidelines for Residential Mental Health.” The reviewer suggested that she could safely be treated at a less restrictive level of care (1).

Ms. Wit’s difficulty in obtaining coverage from her health insurer for care that she and her treaters believed was medically necessary differed in only one respect from the similar experiences of thousands of patients around the country: her family was able to pay for the 2 months of residential treatment that UBH refused to cover.

The info is here.

Insurance companies aren’t doctors. So why do we keep letting them practice medicine?

William E. Bennett Jr.
The Washington Post
Originally posted October 22, 2019

Here are two excerpts:

Here’s the thing: After a few minutes of pleasant chat with a doctor or pharmacist working for the insurance company, they almost always approve coverage and give me an approval number. There’s almost never a back-and-forth discussion; it’s just me saying a few key words to make sure the denial is reversed.

Because it ends up with the desired outcome, you might think this is reasonable. It’s not. On most occasions the “peer” reviewer is unqualified to make an assessment about the specific services.

They usually have minimal or incorrect information about the patient.

Not one has examined or spoken with the patient, as I have.

None of them have a long-term relationship with the patient and family, as I have.

The insurance company will say this system makes sure patients get the right medications. It doesn’t. It exists so that many patients will fail to get the medications they need.

(cut)

This is a system that saves insurance companies money by reflexively denying medical care that has been determined necessary by a physician.

And it should come as no surprise that denials have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable patient populations, such as sexual-minority youths and cancer patients.

We can do better. If physicians order too many expensive tests or drugs, there are better ways to improve their performance and practice, such as quality-improvement initiatives through electronic medical records.

When an insurance company reflexively denies care and then makes it difficult to appeal that denial, it is making health-care decisions for patients.

The info is here.

The Sacklers were drug dealers who put money over morality.

Chris McGreal
The Guardian
Originally published September 17, 2019

If only we could feel Purdue Pharma’s pain.

The directors and owners of the company that did so much to create America’s opioid epidemic are professing distress and bewilderment at the rejection of what they claim are its good faith efforts to help the victims.

Even as Purdue announced plans late Sunday night to file for bankruptcy, its top officials were making unctuous claims that their concern was to combat an epidemic that has claimed more than 400,000 lives. Anyone who stood in the way was depriving suffering Americans of the help they need, they claimed.

Members of the Sackler family who own Purdue have offered to turn over the company to a trust which would funnel future earnings to treatment and other measures to deal with the tragedy. They would also sell Mundipharma, a British-based sister company, and hand over the payment. The Sacklers even said they would give up a part of the huge profits of OxyContin, which made the family multibillionaires.

Some of the state attorneys general and cities suing Purdue have accepted the deal as the best prospect for getting anything out of the company and said the bankruptcy filing was part of the arrangement.

Other attorneys general rejected the move, claiming it was an attempt by Purdue’s owners and executives to hang on to the bulk of the profits of drug dealing and buy their way out of individual accountability. Some of those states are also suing the Sacklers directly.

The info is here.