> Doctors only start prescribing a drug after it has been approved by the relevant governmental bodies for their usage. So if OxyContin got through the FDA, and was marked as safe for the usage it was advertised for, then I do not understand why you suggest that it's the fault of doctors that they prescribed it in those cases.
The caveat is that once a drug is approved for XYZ, doctors can, and do, prescribe it for anything else in their judgement.
Oxycontin wasn’t approved for chronic non-cancer pain, because it’s a poor choice for that, but that’s where the recurring revenue is and somehow accounted for most of its usage.
Short-term post-operative pain and cancer pain just isn’t that big of a market.
> The caveat is that once a drug is approved for XYZ, doctors can, and do, prescribe it for anything else in their judgement. The caveat is that once a drug is approved for XYZ, doctors can, and do, prescribe it for anything else in their judgement.
Yes, but pharmaceutical companies cannot market the drug for non-approved uses or discuss off-label use when promoting or selling the drug. That is illegal.
That illegal activity is exactly what the courts determined Purdue did - bribery, fraudulent marketing, and more. The issue is that Purdue broke the law (and that their sentences for breaking the law were way too light).
The caveat is that once a drug is approved for XYZ, doctors can, and do, prescribe it for anything else in their judgement.
Oxycontin wasn’t approved for chronic non-cancer pain, because it’s a poor choice for that, but that’s where the recurring revenue is and somehow accounted for most of its usage.
Short-term post-operative pain and cancer pain just isn’t that big of a market.