Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family have agreed to pay a staggering $7.4 billion to settle lawsuits across 55 U.S. states and territories. The lawsuits accused the company of fueling the opioid epidemic through its aggressive marketing of OxyContin, a powerful painkiller linked to widespread addiction. While the settlement aims to provide some financial relief for communities devastated by the crisis, critics argue it lets the Sacklers off too lightly—they won’t admit wrongdoing and are shielded from future civil claims.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about the money—it’s a reckoning for one of the most infamous chapters in America’s opioid crisis. Purdue Pharma’s role in pushing OxyContin while downplaying its risks has left lasting scars, and this settlement is a partial attempt to address that harm. But with the Sacklers avoiding personal liability, it raises tough questions about whether justice is being served or if corporations can still buy their way out of accountability. For communities grappling with addiction, the funds might help, but the emotional and societal costs run much deeper.

State attorneys general have finalized a massive $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, effectively ending the Sackler family’s ownership of the company. The deal also bans the Sacklers from any future opioid sales in the U.S. and channels billions into addiction treatment and prevention programs nationwide.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just another corporate settlement—it’s a landmark moment in the fight against the opioid epidemic. Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers have long been accused of fueling the crisis through aggressive marketing of OxyContin. While the money will help fund recovery efforts, critics argue the Sacklers themselves aren’t facing enough personal accountability. Still, it’s a step toward holding Big Pharma responsible and getting resources to communities hit hardest by addiction.

Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family—the makers of OxyContin—have finally struck a deal with all U.S. states and territories, agreeing to pay $7.4 billion to settle claims over their role in fueling the opioid crisis. This ends years of legal battles, though critics argue the Sacklers themselves are still shielded from personal liability.

Editor’s Note: This settlement is a big step toward holding Purdue Pharma accountable, but it’s also a reminder of how messy justice can be. The money will help fund addiction treatment and prevention, which is desperately needed. Yet, the fact that the Sacklers aren’t admitting wrongdoing—and won’t face personal financial ruin—leaves a bitter taste for many who’ve lost loved ones to opioids. It’s progress, but far from perfect.

Some compounding pharmacies are still selling knockoff versions of popular weight-loss drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound, even though the official shortages that originally justified these alternatives are over. These pharmacies are skirting regulatory lines, raising questions about safety and legality in a booming but loosely policed corner of the online pharmaceutical market.

Editor’s Note: Weight-loss drugs are in huge demand, and while shortages drove people toward compounding pharmacies as a stopgap, some of these businesses aren’t backing down—even if it means bending the rules. That’s risky for consumers who might not realize they’re buying unapproved versions, and it puts regulators in a tough spot trying to rein in a fast-moving, profit-driven gray market.

A mom who depends on SNAP (the federal food assistance program) to put meals on the table for her kids is worried about upcoming changes that could slash benefits for millions. The program might tighten rules on what groceries can be bought, reduce monthly funds, or even kick some families off entirely—leaving many unsure how they'll manage.

Editor’s Note: SNAP isn’t just a policy debate—it’s a lifeline for real families. If benefits shrink, more parents will face impossible choices between rent, medicine, or feeding their kids. This isn’t just about budgets; it’s about hunger creeping back into households that were barely staying afloat.

A fresh AP-NORC poll reveals that a majority of Americans believe programs like Medicaid and food stamps aren’t getting enough funding—contrary to the GOP’s push to slash spending on these safety nets. In short, the public isn’t buying the argument that these programs are overfunded.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just another partisan spat—it highlights a clear disconnect between what lawmakers are prioritizing and what voters actually want. With rising living costs and economic uncertainty, cuts to these programs could hit vulnerable households hard, and the poll suggests the political backlash might be sharper than some in Congress expect.

As UK lawmakers weigh the controversial decision to legalize assisted dying, hospice providers—who specialize in end-of-life care—are finding themselves in the middle of the debate. This piece dives into their perspectives, exploring how they balance compassionate care with ethical concerns, and what legalization could mean for their work.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just a theoretical debate—it’s about real people making impossible decisions at the end of life. Hospices are on the front lines, so their views could shape whether the bill passes and how it’s implemented. If you’ve ever wondered who’s actually dealing with the consequences of these laws, this story gives you a glimpse.

New York lawmakers have passed a bill that would let terminally ill patients choose to end their lives with prescribed medication. The decision now heads to the governor’s desk, where it could become law—joining a handful of other states that allow medically assisted suicide.

Three Democratic governors—Gavin Newsom (California), JB Pritzker (Illinois), and Tim Walz (Minnesota)—are pushing to scale back state-funded health care benefits for undocumented immigrants, a move that’s sparking backlash from progressive groups and immigrant advocates. These governors, all seen as potential 2028 presidential candidates, appear to be walking a tightrope between fiscal concerns and their party’s left flank.