Having spent considerable time in the industry, I am seldom surprised when a prospective client expresses their disappointment with the support they received from their current DEA consultant or DEA Compliance Manager. Despite having impressive qualifications on paper, the outcomes often fall short of expectations. As a litigation expert, I frequently encounter the work of various DEA consultants (who shall remain unnamed), whose clients or former employers are facing significant challenges due to questionable decisions made by these seemingly qualified consultants. After careful consideration, I’ve identified three primary reasons for these disappointments:

1. Lack of Motivation: Often referred to as “golf money consultants,” this group typically comprises individuals who have retired from government positions and are seeking to supplement their retirement income through consulting. Their engagement is not driven by a desire to innovate, build a legacy, or tackle significant challenges. Failure on their part has minimal personal consequences. They continue in this role until either the demand for their services wanes or their reputation suffers, at which point they usually join a larger firm that can leverage their background for continued income.
2. Inadequate Vetting of Experience: Consider a hypothetical scenario where someone works in a bakery for decades, attending various training programs and receiving promotions, yet never actually baking bread. If this person then claims to be a baking expert, it highlights a severe gap in vetting experience. Titles and training may suggest expertise, but without direct experience in the necessary skills, such as baking in this analogy, the individual’s ability to deliver on specific needs is compromised.
3. Lack of Business Understanding: This group, which I call “one-dimensional thinkers,” may excel in regulatory or law enforcement roles but lacks a comprehensive understanding of the healthcare industry, particularly the pharmaceutical supply chain. Their rigid approach and failure to grasp the industry’s complexities can lead to the development of policies that harm legitimate patients and trading partners by not addressing their specific needs.

In conclusion, the challenges faced by clients with DEA consultants stem from a combination of motivational gaps, insufficient vetting of real-world expertise, and a lack of industry-specific understanding. These factors contribute to the underperformance of consultants who, despite their promising backgrounds, fail to meet the complex demands of DEA compliance and consulting. The key to avoiding such disappointments lies in thorough vetting of consultants’ actual experiences and achievements, as well as ensuring their motivation and understanding align with the intricacies of the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. This meticulous approach can help identify consultants who are genuinely equipped to navigate the challenges and contribute to successful compliance and operational excellence.