Collette Douaihy, 2024 Cannes Lions Pharma jury president, CCO at Dentsu Health and 2024 MM+M Health Influencer, explains the dearth of award-caliber, regulated pharma work from this year’s festival in the south of France. 

Plus, Marc Iskowitz, Lecia Bushak and Jack O’Brien review recent Supreme Court decisions impacting healthcare. These include the court’s biggest abortion-related rulings since overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago to its rejection of the Purdue Pharma nationwide opioid settlement to its rollback of the 40-year-old Chevron defense. 

Music by Sixième Son

Check us out at:

Follow us: 
YouTube: @MMM-online
TikTok: @MMMnews 
Instagram: @MMMnewsonline
Twitter/X: @MMMnews
LinkedIn: MM+M

To read more of the most timely, balanced and original reporting in medical marketing, subscribe here.

Note: The MM+M Podcast uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Hey, it’s Marc There’s a biblical opener that goes something like, “In the days when the Judges judged…” That’s an apt description for the summer months, when the judges for two of the biggest awards shows in the healthcare marketing biz do their judging – the U.S.-based MM+M Awards, now in its 21st year, and Cannes Lions Health, which started a decade ago and of course is part of the much older international festival of creativity.  Here at MM+M, we’re getting set to announce our Awards shortlist next week, on Thursday July 11. That follows two rounds of judging, both online to narrow down the shortlist and a virtual jury that met June 24-25 to pick the winners in all categories. Gold, Silver and HMs will be revealed at a ceremony in NYC next October. Cannes, meanwhile, convened its juries in mid-June, and their winners have already been announced. Among the seven Lions awarded in the Pharma awards – eight when you count the Grand Prix – there were Lions for creative use of data, inclusivity and storytelling in the service of health.  We saw technology that can detect diabetes in a human voice, a biometric sensor that records “racially inclusive” health metrics, and audiobooks for kids undergoing MRI scans. There were disease awareness campaigns and HCP training tools. None of the initiatives deemed award-worthy, however, recognized work in the regulated pharma space. Collette Douaihy, pharma jury president, says that, rather than suggesting a reticence among big pharma to enter, this imbalance is because the pharma brand-led work, in her words, just “didn’t make the cut.” This week on the show, Douaihy, who’s also global chief creative officer at Dentsu Health, takes us inside the jury room for the deliberations, discussions and flat-out debates that characterized the 2024 program, and explains why Pharma – specifically regulated Pharma – continues to be one of the hardest of the Lions categories in which to win. And in lieu of the weekly health policy and Trend segments, we’ll discuss recent Supreme Court decisions that affect healthcare, from abortion access to the opioid settlement and the overturning of the 40-year-old Chevron defense. This week on the show DUI who is also Global Chief creative officer at Denso Health takes us inside the Jury Room for the deliberations discussions and flat-out debates that characterize the 2024 program and explains why Pharma specifically regulated Pharma continued to be one of the hardest of the Lions categories in which to win and in lieu of the weekly Health policy and Trend segments will discuss recent Supreme Court decisions that affect Health Care from abortion access to the opioid settlements and the overturning of the 40 year old Chevron defense. a Marcus with editor at large and welcome to the M&M podcast medical marketing media show at Healthcare marketing RIT large Colette welcome to the amendment podcast. Thank you very much. It’s nice to see you again Mark. Absolutely. I’m so we’ll we’ll call you Coco. I know that’s kind of like your nan de gear. So to speak so Colette. Thanks so much for joining us. It’s real honor and privilege. So we get started with a general question here tell us about the experience overall, you know, being the head of this prestigious jury on the Pharma side. Actually, I never get sick about saying this it was the most wonderful experience this year. I really do have to say Being the jury president a lot of people were like, oh my God. It must have been like really hard and a lot to deal with and it was Not hard there was a lot but it was wonderful. I felt like I had an amazing jury team not only on the can lions side, but also the jury themselves they were phenomenal group of people. And as I tell people early on I learned that this this jury was hand-picked for deep Farm experience. So it made for really wonderful conversations within the jury room, and it was a very respectful fun environment and we had a lot of great time getting to know one another Yeah, that’s always a mix for better discussions. When you have people who go deep and in their experience, let’s talk about the work. You know, you had seven lions were awarded overall one goal to Silver three bronze and voice to diabetes was the gold winner are cue and magnetic voices got the silvers and then on the bronze side, there were two disease awareness campaigns and one hcp engagement campaign. I want to ask you to go through all those cocoa but kind of maybe give us a couple highlights in terms of how and how you think those winners exemplify the power of creativity. Yeah. So the work was interesting this year because I think we had a range of work, you know, when we sat back as a jury and start to look at the range. Sometimes you can see all Invasion or all DTC work, but it was a real range of innovation hcp patient Centric work innovation. Apps so I would say it was a really nice range of work. And as far as the intro this year, we had a little less than the year before and I think we saw a lot of different themes rise up in the work and I think first and foremost what I love to talk about quickly with with the work that I saw this year was the rise of global inclusivity a lot of the works. Sometimes you can just see Innovation, but it was really about Innovation or creativity but with this lens of inclusivity which is, you know, fantastic to see that so it’s not a new theme it should be the theme right in a way. So I think inclusivity was a big part of that one of my Favorite pieces was thinking about travel for people with rare disease and it was amazing. It was not a lonely Journey for people with SMA which when you think about this being trapped in your own home, like how do you begin to navigate the world? And how do you have that help and understand what your up against and I think what was great about that piece was they were giving Humanity back to these people and I think you know humanity is always at the center of what we do in healthcare and Pharma. It should be at least so, you know, seeing that piece of work was really wonderful to see how people with SMA are navigating their worlds and travel and you think about it we get everything from Airbnb and how to navigate our world. Why shouldn’t be the same for people with with these debilitating diseases? As far as like voice to diabetes was an interesting conversation in the Jury Room. It’s a phenomenal piece of beginning of product innovation. It has the potential to do so much when it comes to diabetes for an underserved again, the inclusivity underserved population getting access to these diagnostic tools. So all so a phenomenal piece of work, it’s an app. I think the jury felt that it’s still had a ways to go. It was awarded for gold in Creative data, which was Really a great piece of data followed through by the potential of what this data can do. So as a jury we felt it needed to be awarded but we would love to see it come back and see what it can do next year or the following year. Like where does this piece go? And as far as our grand prix winner magnetic stories, we all love this piece. It was unanimous for sure. And that one the theme there was the rise of patient-centric work. It was really storytelling at its best. So when you think about these experiences, you know going through any kind of Journey and I think I recall a piece from last year in Farmer, which was the most beautiful sound when you’re going through any kind of cancer. Even rare disease your journey has to be seamless. It should be easy to navigate. There should be Humanity at the center. So when you think about magnetic stories and I actually had an MRI several years ago, and I didn’t realize that not only I’d be claustrophobic but I had to push the button. I can’t imagine for a kid going through one of these things that it could be very daunting and very scary. So this like I said a storytelling at its best creativity, they took these sound bites of the MRI machines and carefully crafted them towards the sounds from the machine to the impactful parts of a story for kids going through an MRI. So it really took something that could be daunting and made it fun and engaging for someone going through this and it was a wonderful piece and like I said shortlist right to Grand Prix, it was unanimous on how the jury felt of course was always those little debates that come up but We felt really good about this piece of work. It’s outstanding. So that was unanimous that got a silver, you know, the magnetic stories and then it also got the Grand Prix should have mentioned that earlier. So this is from Siemens healthineers by area 23 New York. And again as Coco said sound designer precisely synced each sound of the scan at exciting story moments alleviating fear. So that was as you said, you know storytelling at its best technology used to kind of as you said smooth the journey for these young patients and make it more human. Yeah Bravo to the team that worked on this because they sent through a lot of pieces and I listened to those stories with my earbuds and to kind of go back and really immerse myself and that experience and it really was storytelling and its best. It was very well crafted and very well executed. Sure, and you know, I’m sure there’s a number of themes as you pointed out like Equity Humanity storytelling that you kind of charge your jurors with in order to keep them focused on the North Star. We’ll get to that sort of a little bit later in terms of how you kind of the bar High first. I want to kind of switch gears and talk a little bit about some of the challenges, you know, the festival only started recognizing Pharma and health and wellness work 10 years ago 2014. And since then the program is suffered from a shortage of what I’ll call award caliber. Work in the regulated Pharma space and indeed. None of the six or seven awarded entries in Pharma were branded work and you know, you had Biogen and organon both for disease awareness work. What’s the reason for this is it because of big farmers reticence to enter heavily regulated work or is it just because this work is just not making the cut. It’s just not making the cut really we have seen a lot of pieces. In fact two years ago. I was on the jury for Farmer and there were two as you like to say pharmaceutical or product LED pieces and you know, some of those products were Innovative into themselves, but the way they were executed from a storytelling perspective were meticulously crafted again, right really great pieces, and I you know, I think some of them took silver and gold to fight remember correctly. And you know this year there was a lack of that because it didn’t feel fresh for farm. And I think you’re talking some what little bit about the criteria that we looked at. Like is this kind of work that’s going to stop you and your tracks make you remember it recall the taglines take the ordinary and make it extraordinary. That’s what those two pieces did two years ago, which was fixing and now you know for freestyle Libre, which is Really was really beautiful well-crafted storytelling and you could squarely say they fit in farm of for pharmaceuticals. It’s not about big Pharma is not entering into these categories. It’s either the it’s not making the cut or it has a lot of competition. Right? So let’s we actually had a healthy debate in the room this year about opening. We called it opening up the aperture in Pharma, which really talks about There’s a lot that form holds now, right? There’s product Innovation, you know at the Forefront and in fact, you you mentioned Mark in the last couple of years. We see technology leading that Forefront right? So you had I’ll always be me which was two years ago in farm last year, you know, it was scrolling therapy our piece that Den Sue created Denzel Health put in which was a beautiful piece of product Innovation to help people, you know from a therapeutic standpoint and then this year it was all so product Innovation, but again putting that patient at the center, so when you think about Pharma it doesn’t always have to be about the pill itself or the pharmaceutical drug medication or devices itself it very well could be about product Innovation. And how are we making these Journeys easier for patients less stressful. Um quite frankly more fun, right that that was at the heart of scrolling therapy was making that experience fun and engaging for patients who otherwise otherwise felt degraded doing their exercises in front of a mirror by themselves, you know, I’ll always be me was about banking your voice but doing it in such a thoughtful beautiful way through digital storytelling and and banking the voice in a much shorter time than it has been done in previous years. So again this product Innovation. Yes, sometimes it’s not when I say product Innovation, it’s about the therapies and where these products are going. To make that Journey easier and then you have the pharmaceutical drugs like the commercials the Big Brand campaigns and things like that. So I believe the aperture so did the jury that has opened up in Pharma? In the end if it benefits the patient and patient outcomes, it has a place in Farmer. So it’s still a very highly regulated category. They will still go through some of the same scrutinies to do that, you know to make sure that these are going to have good patient outcomes that are you know, legal and Regulatory approved all those kinds of things. So again, I don’t think it’s about not wanting to enter I think it’s about keeping Farm a fresh. Yeah, sure. Yeah, thank you for explaining that rationale really interesting to your take on that. Let’s just go one level deeper, you know essential which which runs the awards has made several changes over the years like in 2018. They separated the pro bono work from the brand let work but the Pharma juror is still need to kind of toggle between different types of work with different sets of regulatory and Commercial demands. Like you’re talking about product Innovation. You have a large amount of innovation slash Health Tech work. Do you still see it as an Apples to Apples showing of work? You know, where do you think there are other changes that are needed to kind of separate even further from that regulated work from the non? Well, it’s funny because like I said our jury got into it and I think often the question or the debate in that jury room is this farmer work, right? that debate You know when on for a little bit, right and I think some of the fear but the worry is Will Will pharmaceutical brand work still take the lead in there and I wouldn’t say it’s Apples to Apples when you’re comparing this type of work. I think the farmer category in general holds a lot of different sub-categories and that’s where these pieces belong so I think if you see less or it’s not hitting, you know, the Kenworthy work, which is what we kept saying to ourselves. Is that craft meticulous and you know, does it deliver on the brand product or the deeper purpose is the communication clearly articulated to the audience that it needs to we asked ourselves and we set the criteria all along the way and ultimately saying is it can worthy and does it fit in the category that it’s in and we believed that most the work does but no it’s never Apples to Apples. That’s what I mean about opening up that aperture and what sits in Pharma and all that means is it’s Farm is a highly regulated industry. Yes. You can say in do more and unbranded type of work. Disease awareness but it doesn’t mean it’s not going to be scrutinized the same way some of the pharmaceutical drugs may be scrutinized. It’s really in the end. It’s about creativity and is the work truly remarkable. Is it truly memorable and hasn’t had a profound impact on the audience that was intended for Okay, it’s not always about the pill in other words and the day we used to say and I’m going way back. We used to say, you know, when we start these kinds of initiative pill plus all pill plus meant was like, okay, you’re gonna take that medication and as long as it meets the criteria of is it right for you? Talk to your doctor. Is it going to help you? What’s beyond the pill? What does that patient Journey look like where can you get like I said back in the day. It was about brochure and websites and things like that. And I’ve seen this industry grow and the world quite frankly into this. Amazing digital world. So today you cannot be a farmer brand and not think about the patient at the center and what they’re going through. I remember having workshops with We would call an Amazon one time. We called in the Ritz-Carlton to just talk about customer service worked with LinkedIn. All these different Apple was another one and Google came in and talked to us and when you think about these big brands. they can be easily emulated in Farmer or thought through of like How are they looking at the patient customer experience? How can we apply some of this in Pharmaceuticals? How do we make that Journey easier? And I think you know magnetic stories did a beautiful job. They took a simple MRI procedure for children and made it very creative if you want to say like, you know just Innovative, it was creative. So in the end that’s what the shows all about is is creativity at its best. Sure sure, and you know if we look at sort of the balance of entries to 232 on the farm aside versus 1,200 and health and wellness. So we see relatively few are choosing to tread that more heavily regulated path. So it is still you know, a rarefied area from that perspective. How do you ensure that regulated stuff and you’ve been talking about this a little bit as we go but how do you ensure that got a fair shot? You know in terms of how did you instruct your jurors to make sure that they’re regulated stuff forces the maybe some of the oranges so to speak in the apples to oranges balance that there would the pharmacist that was really getting a fair shot. Well, so it’s very separate what goes like I think. Can has gotten much better at what goes into health and wellness and what goes into farming you have to decide where it goes, right? And of course you can enter twice into different completely different categories, but not the same piece and the types of categories. I might not be saying that exactly right but in the end as a jury, we were all steeped in Farmers so we know what should get a fair shot. And and when I say a fair shot, like I said, some people say is this even Pharma if it benefits the patient in the end and it is in this category and it is a highly regulated piece of equipment Innovation, then it belongs in this category. Farmer will always have its ups and downs as far as submissions go right and that’s quite frankly what is happening in the industry? Whether you you have a lot of literally pharmaceutical Innovation at the product level happening that you can capitalize on that. It has a lot to do with our clients and what they see as marketers for a brand. So in the end we the jury sit on the other side of what is going to come our way and we will always be fair and honest about everything getting a fair shot. But ultimately we have to say to ourselves. Is that can worthy and is it creativity at its best? So you can’t just and I was very careful this year to say you. Just because it might be every day work. Does it deserve a medal? No not if it’s not can worthy work. It doesn’t so you have to really look at that storytelling and the craft and everything that goes into Kenworthy work and does it get metal and that in the end is the criteria that helped us decide what the winning work was? Let’s even if you ask for some of the work the heart surgeons book, right? So for hcp’s really it was a book, right but so beautifully crafted a phenomenal idea. How do you keep hcps engaged in learning their skill set? So again, is this book Gonna Change the World maybe maybe not but point is its creativity at its best to an audience that can otherwise be inundated with not so innovative ways to keep their skill set up. So we love this piece for its pure creativity. It was off the charts craft at its best and we thought it was a piece that should be awarded. Right. So you’re you really articulated that well cocoa. So you have the thing that makes the Pharma jury unique. Is that while you’re grappling with is this the highest creative standards? You’re also saying is this Pharma work, you know, so it’s got to meet its the Devotion to True Pharma and the highest creative standards then it’s Pharma lion worthy. And that’s how you made sure that the Pharma and Work whether it was a pill or whether it was a device an MRI, whatever it was HTTP in case you’ve got that first shots. So thank you for expressing that one last question will let you go. You know, we’re talking about obviously work. That is creativity. That’s best. How do we make sure that the creative bar steadily advances in Pharma? You know, it’s funny. We were encouraging I was on another podcast and talking and in the similar question came up and I think as creative and as agencies, we need to go back and revisit that that award winning work and truly understand it sometimes you know with the shows over and everyone kind of gets back at it. That’s one way to keep it top of my school back and look at that and look at the journey Farm has been on why when the year that it wasn’t awarded versus a year that it was awarded and you know, Close comment pretty mean. Yes, exactly Grand Prix and or necessarily in general like some people want to see even get a bronze or gold again is a can Worthy. Is it introducing something new and fresh. So what I would say is that’s one way to keep things relevant top of mind is going back and revisiting some of this work, but ultimately getting in with our clients and showing them what good looks like and doing these roadshows after the festivals over helping them understand. And having these conversations is truly important for clients to understand what it takes for award-winning work. What do budgets look like that, you know, like when we talk about craft one of the things all of us are saying is that Making sure our clients are. Saving money for that craft making sure that they’re planning for it if you will so we have work to do on our own to make sure we’re keeping the work that’s been awarded and why it’s been awarded and understanding those themes and trends. And we also have to help our clients understand especially if they want this caliber of work and they’re going for that is helping them understand what it takes to do award-winning works. So it’s super important to have these conversations with them as well post can Festival. Great, great. Well cocoa. This has been really fascinating, you know, thank you so much for taking us inside the Jury Room and explaining how this unique category gets judged as well as how we keep the creative bar rising and steadily advancing as it has been. Thank you so much. Really? Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for your time. It was great. So Jack and Lesha this week we looking back on a very active week last week by the Supreme Court which made a number of rulings with direct impact on Healthcare and we thought we would devote the rest of the show to discussing some of those ramifications Jack. Where should we start? It’s kind of hard to figure out where we start, you know, the Supreme Court earlier this month cited in the myth of birthstone case unanimously that there was going to be access to this abortion pill and that was the first Bellwether that we got. Oh this where the Supreme Court’s Gonna Roll in terms of health. They then had a leaked decision that upheld access to emergency abortion in Idaho still kind of gets to a subjective nature of what emergency care and abortion means and then we had the very controversial decision in the Purdue Pharma case where the Supreme Court basically said that the sacklers couldn’t hide behind the bankruptcy filing as a relates to Purdue farming could be legally subjected to further litigation as relates to the opioid. Demick, and they’re aggressive marketing of Oxycontin that had a mixed reaction among stakeholders who were seeing as basically kind of rolling back what has been some hard-fought relief for those affected by the opioid epidemic and then there was the Chevron decision. Like you said that it has a still too, you know, we’re recording this on Tuesday afternoon still people unpacking what that’s going to mean for federal authorities and federal agencies specifically the FDA as it relates to being able to regulate their own Industries. There’s been so much that’s going on. I mean even really know where to unpack I guess we can start off with the Purdue Pharma one Mark you and I were talking before the show started and just how on the one hand it’s like there. Is this school of thought where okay, the sacklers are now going to be potentially subjected to further litigation. I think there are a lot of people in this country that want to see the sacklers in jail for their contributions to the opioid epidemic at the same point. Is that a practical or reasonable expectation? I don’t necessarily know and there were Means that were already going to be set aside for what happened with Oxycontin impact on the opioid epidemic kind of a truly a mixed bag. I know we say that on the show sometimes like truly. I don’t know what you make of that from a stakeholder perspective. I think it’s kind of in line a little bit with some of the other cases we’re going to discuss where the court dissent didn’t necessarily rule on the merits of the case per se but they just kind of remanded the case to a lower court for further deliberation. And that was kind of the situation here. They were kind of ruling on the settlement per se other than the fact that the settlement included shielding the Sackler family from future liability, which they weren’t able to do because the bankruptcy code does not accommodate that when a party has not actually declared bankruptcy themselves. And so it was more of a procedural kind of reasoning behind that decision and you know this there’s pluses and minuses on the one hand. I think a lot of people had taken issue with the fact that you know, the sacklers have twice pled guilty to wrongfully marketing. Medicines which is something that people in our industry take very seriously the responsibility to Market medicines. Ethically, not only legally, but ethically as well and the secular has all been admitted. They did not do that and yet part of the settlement was that the company would be reorganized into like a public benefit corporation that people sort of had a kind of a principle kind of objective to that and they also, you know, the pluses and minuses are that the people are going to get a shot at now, you know, perhaps going after the sacklers personally. I know you said Jack a lot of people want to see them take responsibility. There was a hearing back in you know, October 2020 a congressional hearing where they had a chance to take responsibility. They did not do that. But on the other hand, it’s a prize families of getting money is from this settlement sooner and there’s as we know there’s a lot of people that really are hurting from the opioid epidemic. So plus is in mind is to this decision. Yeah, it’s one of those things too that we were talking about the fact that so much money had already been agreed to and set aside. Has been an issue as it relates to dispensing these opioid settlements not only with the sacklers, but with other companies that have played guilty or admitted false as it relates to their marketing and their dispensation of opioids during the epidemic is then how you about spending that money? It’s not only just to have that money in place. But then it’s you know, John Oliver did a great breakdown on Last Week Tonight a few weeks ago talking about the fact that this money goes to States and jurisdictions and it’s kind of a free-for-all in some regards people are not if they’re not even using the money to begin with and go to whatever Source Services doesn’t actually have to be harm reduction or trying to remedy the wounds that were caused by the epidemic less. I want to bring you in here because it is one of those things where it’s like You can see both sides, but you can see like oh, yeah, it’s a good thing that like there’s going to be a potential for the sacklers to be held to account. But even as Brett Kavanaugh noted in his dissent which I think shows also the fractured nature of this case you had Kavanaugh just as so to my or chief justice Roberts and Elena Kagan on one side and then you had a mix of conservative and liberal judges on the other side. You know, he had said this was hard fought relief for these families for the people that were impacted by the opioid epidemic. And now that kind of all goes back to square one in the way. Yeah, you know, it’s it’s a complicated very very long-term battle that’s been going on for a while now and this ruling kind of proves that it’s going to continue because you know, I believe it was in the spring of 2022 that the sacklers and Purdue Pharma reached that six billion dollar settlement with nine State Attorneys General basically in exchange for immunity from future lawsuits for members of their family. And in theory, as you said that’s six billion dollars was supposed to go to state and local governments to opioid family victims of the opioid addiction and their families potentially to harm reduction programs potentially to programs that would help address the ongoing epidemic. So opponents to the recent ruling basically that settlement is null and void. Are you that that money isn’t going to get to the to the people who need it as soon as they need it but on the other hand one could argue that family members of the sacklers were definitely trying to sort of Shield themselves from full responsibility in the future and you know, there’s there’s definitely some valid criticism of that as well. So it appears that they’ll probably be facing future lawsuits around this issue. I imagine there’ll be more settlements to come later on down the road whether that money is going to actually reach the victims who need it and their families as a whole other story as you mentioned because States and local governments can kind of decide what they want to do with it. So, yeah, I mean, you know, this this very long term ongoing opioid battle that we’ve been watching for years now is going to keep going on. Yeah, and I just want to read one more thing before we kind of pivot over to the the Chevron development that happened this week. There was a statement that the Sackler family had sent to me and I imagined to other media Outlets that were covering this case where they had said quote the unfortunate reality is that the alternative talking about the alternative to this settlement that was agreed to a couple years ago is costly and chaotic legal proceedings in courts across the country. Well, we are confident that we would Prevail in any future litigation given the profound misrepresentations about our family and the opioid crisis. We continue to believe that a swift negotiated agreement to provide billions of dollars for people and communities in need is the best way forward. So that’s kind of them laying out how they see it again. You can it kind of goes back to that old adage where it’s like one the hand is worth two in the bush. Like could you get more potentially down the line? Could you get more money? Could you get some sort of repercussions where you see people behind bars? I guess he could but like do you all so sneer at 6 billion dollars, you know it in a weird way. It’s kind of like playing a huge game of dealer No Deal where it’s like do you take This where it’s like you’ve got something substantive or do you kind of let it fall by the wayside and go back to square one, but that’s and then you get into the whole marketing aspect. We could do a whole episode just talking about the ramifications from the the marketing aspect, but I want to talk a little bit about the chevron case too because I think that’s something that people weren’t there were so many eyeballs on the myth of press down case how they were going to rule in the Purdue Pharma case and now you’re looking at Chevron and it’s it’s interesting to see that this overturning of basically 40 Years of precedent has already kind of emboldened certain lawmakers to say, okay, we’re going to take a look at the FDA and we’re going to take a look at the healthcare industry Senator Bill gassy said that he’s already putting March in Authority back in the crosshairs following the decision to overturn the Chevron defense, which required course to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory Provisions. He had sent a letter to a HHS secretary hobby or Sarah on June 30th, unless I know that martians something that you would cover too. So it’s interesting to see that like something that was On the docket a few months ago with how the Biden Administration was even looking at dealing with the FDA Republicans are even starting to come to the floor but Mark I want to throw it over to you first in terms of just like what you make there seems to be a lot of concern. I guess you could say of like what this means the FDA survives this one bullet with the myth of Prestone case and now it’s like oh, well Chevron is overturned, you know, it could be a real Reckoning for the agency. It will both the abortion cases, you know, the Prestone case and the also the Supreme Court case where they you know, they first they mistakenly posted a draft of the abortion ruling on their website. It’s between that and the leaked a couple years ago. Somebody says which and you know the court and eventually ultimately ruled six to three to allow abortions in Idaho emergency rooms, those two cases that in the first stone case kind of invite more lawsuits and the abortion area abortion even though with the Overturning of Roe v Wade, you know, the rationale or into the court majority in that opinion was that the court should not be in the business of regulating abortion. But now it’s certainly, you know, this kind of puts it squarely in the courts jurisdiction, but, you know getting back to Chevron. You know in the wake of that decision as you said, you know Jack it’s expected that there will be a more Federal rules will be challenged in courts and judges will have more discretion to invalidate agency actions. You mentioned March and writes some of the other areas that I was reading that could be implicated here could take longer to develop new drugs and medical devices, you know, because the Chevron defense since the 80s had required judges to defer to federal agencies interpretation of ambiguous federal laws. So now, you know, there could be before agencies like the FDA prove a drug or medical device that could take longer to do that to make sure that they’re showing up those decisions so that they’re able to withstand any kind of legal challenges similarly, you know, the ruling could mean new court challenges for the Biden administration’s Medicare drug negotiation policy and increase pressure on Congress and federal courts to as I said hone their Knowledge of health policy another interesting one I saw was right to the NIH rules related to clinical trial transparency with its requirements around regulation of publicly funded clinical trials could be subject to challenge now. So basically, you know, those those science-driven organizations that traditionally Congress has kind of deferred to we could see you know, the subject of legal challenges. Yeah. It’s interesting. I think Kaiser health news which we aggregate a lot of different stories from our website, which I think plays it very middle of the road and kind of doesn’t I wouldn’t say use alarmist tactics or anything their headline was that this court case the feeling shockwaves across the industry. So I think if anything it’s an indication of you know Health Care is taking a closer. Look at this one in terms what’s going to mean going forward. I want to bring you in with any thoughts that you had again the covered the Martian rights conversation a few months ago, but the others as Mark said alive different ramifications out there. Yeah. I know I was catching up on the news and particularly this Chevron case ruling today. I was like, wow so much has happened actually just in the last week with all these cases, but particularly this one stands out to me even at the end of last year when I was doing my 2024 Health policy, you know future outlook and I was interviewing a lot of Health policy experts almost everyone was saying not much is going to happen in 2024, you know, very unlikely that any major legislation or like major, you know cases are going to be overturned and things like that, you know leading up to the election. So sort of caught a little bit by surprise by this one and just the extent of the possibility of the impact it might have and obviously we don’t really know yet what the impact it will be before what I’ve been reading It’s seems like there’s potential for so many different regulations to be challenged in so many different ways depending on the location the district court and these rules can be interpreted in different ways in different states or different municipalities and that has the potential to make health care a lot more complicated not just for providers and people in the industry but also for patients obviously and as Mark mentioned, you know, there’s a variety of ways that might happen routine government functions, like deciding the rate to pay doctors for treating Medicare beneficiaries can be challenged and changed depending on Court decisions. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare service policies like nursing home Staffing mandates Home Health reimbursement Cuts disproportionate share Hospital payments can also be legally challenged. And what I’ve been reading is that companies and Industry players who are suing federal agencies and suing the government now have a better chance of prevailing when they claim that the federal government is overstepping its role, you know, that might come into play. Obviously we’ve seen with the inflation reduction act in the Medicare negotiation provision. There’s been a lot of Pharma companies who have sued the federal government over that and don’t know if that’s going to impact that at all, but it’ll be interesting to see how industry players and Company healthcare companies, you know, if they start using this ruling as a sort of reason to kind of launch loss suits and kind of get their way a little more that’ll be an interesting impact to see potentially play out and I wanted to include a quote here that I read in Kaiser health news from Andrew twinnem matsiko who is director of Health policy in the law initiative at Georgetown University. This is really going to create a tectonic change. In the administrative regulatory landscape the approach since 1984 has created stability when the FDA or CDC adopt regulations. They know those regulations will be respected that has been taken back. So, you know, we won’t have any Darth of things to write about in sort of the legal regulatory front. I’m sure in the coming years because of this so it’ll be you know, interesting to see how it plays out. And unless you’ve done so much coverage, too of like the CDC coming out of the pandemic and saying we need to do better in terms of messaging and communicating and having our Authority respected as related to the pandemic or is really anything, you know, when there was impact a couple years ago or yeah, we’re dealing with this emergence of like how much do you really look at the threat of bird flow and then it’s like now you have a ruling that basically really got any sort of authority that has to be respected. Yeah. It really complicates the cdc’s communication strategy now, it is really something that we will have to keep an eye out for going forward Mark. Was there anything you wanted to add before? We just kind of do a wrap up of some of the other actions from the Supreme Court as a relates to to health short just kind of piggybacking on unless she’s last comment. There was one other Supreme Court ruling that does invite new lawsuits in addition to Chevron. And that is this past Monday the Court ruled to lift the statue of limitations on challenging. Older government rules so and I think I read this the same quote or similar from the same Source slasher that you did from the Georgetown Legal Center for Health policy. And he was saying that someone who doesn’t like the regulation that the current Administration has put forward the world’s their oyster, you know, even regulations that have been there for decades could be opened up to new challenges and you know, this is kind of you know, 2122 was, you know known as a groundbreaking docket for the Supreme Court, you know with with the Dobbs decision and other decisions affecting abortion. And this one I think is going to go down in history as being also one of the most decisive, you know for from a health care perspective as well. So absolutely and there are a couple other cases I think are just worth mentioning the Supreme Court also made a ruling about homelessness that basically allows elected officials and law enforcement authorities. They can find a rest people who live on the streets or sidewalks. There’s been some concern about you know, there’s been this greater focus on the social determinants of health and certainly how people who are homeless or between living situations are going to be impacted by that. So there’s a health implication there the Supreme Court also rejected to appeals brought to them by the Children’s Health defense, which is founded by Independent presidential candidate in anti-vaccine activists Robert F. Kennedy Junior and Supreme Court said, this is something that will keep an eye on for next year that they will hear a challenge to the transgender care band for minors in Tennessee, which could have larger Applications it relates to transgender care. So a very busy period leche I think you need to go back to some of those people that said it was going to be a quiet year and say what what happened on that front, but yeah, the Supreme Court has given us plenty to talk about and it’ll be interesting to see what else they take up as they started to plot out their term for the fall and where those Healthcare implications obviously I think the straps are on one really brings a lot of that into finder Focus. Yeah a very busy time for the Supreme Court and very busy time as we head into the July 4th weekend, so we’ll wish everybody a very restful one at that and we’ll see you on the other side. That’s it for this week. The mmm podcast is produced by Bill Fitzpatrick Gordon. Our theme music is by Susie him sohn rate review and follow every episode wherever you listen to podcasts new episodes out every week and be sure to check out our website. Mmm for the top news stories at Farmer marketing.