[00:00:00]

Rick: Hey, welcome to the Healthcare Nation Podcast, your host Rich Genta with our producer Joe Woolworth. Joe, it's been a while. How are you doing, my friend? Hopefully you're staying warm.

Joe Woolworth: Yeah, doing well. I mean, it's been chilly here, but you're in Florida, right?

Rick: I am, yes. Yes. I'm kind. Gotta get a little bit of raise every once in a while. Keep the vitamin D levels up.

Joe Woolworth: Makes sense.

Rick: look, we've got a lot going on for this podcast. We're gonna really look at what I would call Trump's healthcare policies 2.0, month one. If we could say that. Joe, what do you think?

Joe Woolworth: I feel like month one in a Trump presidency this time around is like six months worth of stuff to talk about

Rick: We're living in dog years. Maybe we've got a lot to cover. We'll start with some high levels, then get into some some depth. Look as, as always, [00:01:00] just wanna to mention to our audience. We try to be balanced here. The pros and cons. I'm gonna try to hit them. Joe and I both give our opinions and I think that's what you want, and that's what we're here for.

So that's what we're committed to. In addition to being, I'd like to think a valid source of information and hopefully truth as you seek answers. So, Joe, what do we got?

Joe Woolworth: Yeah, I was thinking before we dive into the policy shakeups, let's just hit some rapid fire healthcare headlines. So measles and outbreaks explode in Texas.

Rick: I don't know about the exploding, but absolutely it's up there. Um, you know, they're grappling apparently with some of the most severe outbreaks that certainly Texas and the country has seen in like, you know, 30 years cases are doubling, you know every couple weeks. What it does is it, it really, I, I, I think, calls out the consequences of all this vaccine issue, that everyone is bouncing back and forth, whether it's a case of misinformation or just [00:02:00] compliance.

Look. Bottom line here is measles isn't just some rash and fever. We know this. It's potentially a very, you know, bad disease. I'm, I'm not gonna say that has been implicated with fatalities, especially for kids. So I think this is a warning about the dangers of things like, eroding public trust. If there's an upside here, look, it does highlight the severe consequences of what I would say vaccine misinformation.

The cons are really, look, you gotta, if you, if you frame this in the wrong way, you can also unfairly impact communities that have low vaccination rates and have unintended consequences. So more to come as we surveil this.

Joe Woolworth: All right. Next headline, Narcan. The life-saving drug that doctors still won't

Rick: Yeah. You know I've been on top of this for years. When you think about the, the fight with getting Narcan into the hands of folks who could use it, now we're not talking about health [00:03:00] professionals. We're talking about folks who are out there that in general communities, including u, including users.

I think the, the bottom line here is, is not enough of an uptake with it. It's probably due to bureaucratic reg tape, still some leftover. Stigma that has always hindered the, the, I think, distribution of Naloxone or um Narcan at scale. Historically. Look, this is a life-saving medication. It should be in the hands of folks beyond providers.

Even though these restrictions have loosened, it just is not getting the uptake that we need to see. I think that, look, we've got to address bureaucratic barriers. We've got to get around this stigma. We've got to get the word out. Um, but the bottom line is on the negative side, there's still, you know, prescription practices that may overlook other factors such as availability in communities that really need this being a barrier.

I don't know the details here, but I do know this. Gotta get the word out, gotta talk it up, and gotta relax. I think the [00:04:00] restrictions on the ability for providers to get this out there in the hands of folks who need it.

Joe Woolworth: Switching to mental health. We got a headline here. Mental health licensing reforms gain momentum.

Rick: Yeah.

Joe Woolworth: So more states are removing mental health related questions from licensing and credentialing applications. Why is this

Rick: Yeah. You know, any of us who have a license to, to practice, whether it's medicine or nursing, or nurse practitioner, whatever, usually in your, in your, reapplication renewal, they always ask for issues about, um, mental health issues. I think that the, that let's face the reality. The healthcare workforce is under immense pressure, inquiring about a provider, a clinician's history of mental health treatments, I think creates a culture of really perhaps, you know, anxiety, fear, you know, folks do not wanna share a lot of their

You know, intimate problems and issues that they may [00:05:00] have had over the years with mental health. So, could this deter professionals from seeking care? I, I think it could, there's no doubt about it. Is eliminating intrusive questions, a be all and end all? I, I don't know that either. I would say the upside here is removing questions definitely would encourage healthcare professionals to seek treat, right?

We could agree on that. Without the fear of, say, professional consequences, repercussions on the, on the con side without proper safeguards. You know, there's concern about removing these questions that could lead to what I would say is not a real robust, you know or insufficient safeguards when it comes to.

Licensing someone and the assessment of a practitioner's ability to, to provide safe care. I think, you know, it's kind of a double-edged sword here. You've got to thread the needle on this. There's so many people, particularly in healthcare, I'll just say this, Joe, who are experiencing burnout and have, you know, anxiety, think about everything that's gone on [00:06:00] through the covid issue and pandemic.

A lot of folks were burnt out and stressed, so I don't think it is, fair to penalize folks who have that level of anxiety. Now, there are certainly conditions that warrant, you know, disclosure and I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Joe Woolworth: Yeah, that is a challenging one. I think a lot . Lot of people are pro, I mean, the, the perception of seeking out mental health is certainly changing in the last 10 years, becoming more and more acceptable. But then there's still that where the rubber hits the road like, well, I don't know if I want my doctor to be struggling with

Rick: Yeah, exactly. And, and you know, these are, I think probably we're looking at 30% of the population, certainly those who are admitted in hospitals who have a primary or secondary mental health diagnosis. So extrapolate that out there. I mean, it's a lot of people.

Joe Woolworth: Yeah, so next headline we got to talk about here. Bird flu vaccine approved, but will it work? The USDA conditionally approved [00:07:00] new bird flu vaccine as human cases start emerging in the us.

Rick: Yeah, we may have a vaccine theme going through here. We'll see. Look, the, the, first of all, this, this vaccine, I think dates back to 2001, right? This is, this is not a new and improved or brand new thing. So look, it could be less effective against current strains. Let's just call that out. I'm not an expert on that, but I think that's a reality.

I think it is a step towards, you know, looking at stockpiling what we need. If you take a look at just the, the price of eggs, these externalities that are happening because of bird flu, it's pretty significant, right? But relying on anything that's outdated could, I think, again, highlight the need for some focus, some accelerated development, some updating of the vaccines to combat things like

Not only bird flu, but what's around the corner if there's an evolving threat, right?

Joe Woolworth: So is this Rick? Is this a vaccine that was made in [00:08:00] 2001 but just now

Rick: No,

Joe Woolworth: and so.

Rick: no. The one that is approved, the approval for that is from 2001. So it's an out, it's an older vaccine. That's the one that we're using. So, you know, we've got, we've got many years on. On that. And you know, look, the reality is deploying the existing vaccine. You know, maybe it will give you some partial protection against the flu, mitigate its outbreak spreading.

That could be a good thing. The bottom line, and I know we're gonna talk about this in a second, is look, when you rely on outdated vaccines. They could have very limited efficacy over current strains. These things evolve. They mutate, you know, and that's why we've got to stay ahead of this now. We're certainly not talking gain of function or anything that's controversial in in that world.

It's just they're emerging threats that pop up and we've got to be ready. We've got to have an infrastructure to deal with that. I mentioned the price of eggs. Look, that is, I think, you know probably a [00:09:00] telltale sign of, of some of the directions these kind of outbreaks can take. That's a good economic indicator of how one of the negatives can manifest in someone's daily life.

I.

Joe Woolworth: All right. Well that wraps up our rapid fire through the headlines. Let's jump into the federal workforce shakeup. I mean, this has been all over the news. A week after reports surfaced that a thousand federal health employees were on the chopping block, the pink slips have started flying. Do. That's right.

So the veteran affairs VA cut a thousand plus employees, and the VA says that these cuts will save $98 million a year. To reinvest in veteran care. But is this just spin

Rick: Wow.

Joe Woolworth: wasn't ? I mean it's, it's like a little bit like there's part of it that's like, yeah, of course. Like you're taking 98 million from staffing and pretending like you're gonna invest it in what?

Rick: Yeah. Yeah, I, right, exactly. Look, two things. Number one, [00:10:00] commitment to veterans. Um, we of course support everyone who's served, I mean that's just goes without saying, is the VA system the best system? I don't think so. I think there's a lot of opportunities to make it a better system. Our veterans de deserve that.

The ones who are serving now, the ones who are gonna need it in the future, are there different ways probably to structure it? Absolutely. My big issue here before I get to to your question specifically, is when you go and arbitrarily start cutting without doing some due diligence. Look, we're talking a, a, a month in to the administration.

When you take on massive structures, infrastructures that have history, when folks depend upon it, you've gotta be very careful, very, very mindful about this. So I think labeling these reductions as cost savings overlooks the. The impact on service quality. I've, I've done a lot of, cost cutting in my career, and I think you've really have to take into account how that's going to [00:11:00] impact the person you're there to serve.

In this case, veterans were looking for, for clinical care, right? Healthcare.

Joe Woolworth: Do you have, do you have any idea, Rick, what percentage the, the thousand employees is of the entire workforce?

Rick: I, I think that, you know, this is like 2% of its workforce, right? It could, it could have, but, but you know conversely it could have big repercussions for I think the nine or 10 million veterans that rely on its services. I mean, that, you know, if you reallocated $98 million, right? This is the upside. You could free up resources.

That could potentially be applied to other ways to format it, but I'm not getting rid of the 98 million. Right. That's what, what you said earlier. So we talk about a wholesale reduction,

Joe Woolworth: Drive.

Rick: know, or are we talking about a, a a recasting of, of it,

Joe Woolworth: If you were to take the, the 98. Million and reinvested in something other than staffing. What, what would be something that 98 million could be helpful for veterans to invest

Rick: you know, [00:12:00] this is one of those I think, Eric, it's a great point. You, you really don't know that unless you take a look at the entire VA structure. How much goes to ? Brick and mortar hospitals to ambulatory care, to care for veterans in the home, for care for veterans who are not in need of hospitalization, but need some sort of care outside of a hospital setting.

There's so many areas where we could leverage technology. And make it a better system, including perhaps vouchers for veterans to use at any hospital of their choosing. Why not use that? Not unlike Medicare that's been put out there, for a while? I, I think at the end of the day, look, the negative here is when you reduce staff, this could lead to everything from increased workloads, workloads for the folks who were there.

Um, and you know, what we don't want is compromising the quality for our veterans. So that's, that's a big issue. I get the reducing expenses here. I think the va, you know, is in need of probably an [00:13:00] overhaul. I just am concerned about the, the speed and velocity to which we're making these cuts or dos, making these cuts.

Joe Woolworth: I think it's interesting the, the VA said that they, the cuts will be reinvested. I wonder if that's the plan of Doge is to reinvest it or just to save

Rick: Yeah, I don't know. And this is where the more to come really comes in because if it means we reinvest this and that, it, it gives you better efficiencies, better care quality that we can recoup savings. Right. A return on investment. That makes sense. I have not seen that. And yeah, that's the kind of analysis though, Joe, but I think we really need.

Joe Woolworth: Right, but it doesn't seem like that's what's being covered in the news. The information is a little bit scant on topics like this. Like, oh, it's getting, it might save us money,

Rick: It, it, it is. And on, you know, I, I, I wanna be fair about this. Look, I think there's a lot of waste. I think there's a lot of inefficiency across all the probably agencies we're talking about, including the va. But there's, there's a method and [00:14:00] a methodology that you have to take when you start. I think going into systems that have been around and function for many, many years, understanding that, hey, you could take out a very vital component of that.

Which could lead to some, again, unintended consequences.

Joe Woolworth: So, um, 1000 jobs at the va. Next up, the CDC slashes 1300 jobs, so they just asked 1300 employees. What does this mean for public

Rick: Yeah, look, I mean, we've, we've, we've talked about this before, the CDC, I think going through the Covid issue, the whole pandemic, I think they could have done a much better job with handling, managing, leading through that. Regardless of the administration, whether it was the initial Trump administration or Biden administration, I think there were serious gaps there that led to, I think, a lot of questions for individuals about the trust factor and the CDC being, I think, the source of truth for, for many [00:15:00] people.

But the bottom line is this, we just talked about the measles outbreak in Texas, right? When you re reduce the CDCs, well, let's call it essential functions. Which, you know, directly ticks and ties to people working there, their workforce. That gives me concern about our capacity to manage threats, in this case, public health threats.

It's a, it's a reality efficiency, absolutely important. What they should prioritize, absolutely important, but I don't want to, you know, get into a situation where we don't effectively arm . Foundational public health infrastructures that lead us at risk for, for other challenges. That's the reality. So I think perhaps a better way to look at the, the, the c, DC is what's their priorities?

You know, for me, they should be working on moonshots, not necessarily, you know, some other things that I've seen in, in, in the press and in policy. , but getting back to streamlining them, you know, [00:16:00] as an agency, the c, d, C, it could absolutely eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies. I'm all for that, but I think we need to take a look at any kind of reduction, which impairs their ability to monitor and respond to any threats that would impact our public health.

That's a, that's the bottom line here. It's just, it's not unlike the military.

Joe Woolworth: Sure. Yeah. Do we have any sense of how many. What percentage the 1300 employees is of the CD. C, are they a larger organization than the

Rick: I, I don't think they're, they're not as big as the Veterans Administration, but I think that the . The,

Joe Woolworth: So it's

Rick: yeah, the, the essential component, the indispensability of those individuals might be weighted differently. I think the other thing is just the programs that they're working on, you know, and, and we'll probably get into this, I'd rather stop Ebola, you know, at its source.

And if that's in the Congo in Africa, stop it there. Then have it come in to O'Hare in [00:17:00] Chicago. Um, that's just a reality and you can't do that without deploying some elements of public health, into some of these areas for education, for treatment et cetera. So I think these are some of the issues that need to be looked at.

Joe Woolworth: Yeah. All right. Moving on from some cuts to executive orders, the executive orders

that have,

Rick: is one of your favorites, right?

Joe Woolworth: yeah, I think it's, it's a really interesting thing that, um, you know, you hear both sides of it. And just to be super fair, like the country voted and we wanted to shake stuff up and man. Here's some executive order.

He was signing him like crazy on Valentine's Day. It was like he was signing little Valentine's to everybody. . So the executive order is reshaping. Healthcare is where we wanna focus, and we're talking about making America healthy again. The commission. RFK Junior, chairing a new commission. He he got affirmed.

I saw his speech from the Oval Office. What's the angle?

Rick: Maha, right? [00:18:00] That's it. Yeah. We're, we're, we're there.

Joe Woolworth: like a delicious,

Rick: Yeah. Yeah. Listen, right? Maha Maha instead of Mahi mahi, I Look, we all, I, I just can't believe politically what we're looking at. It's pretty interesting when you go back in time and you think about. You know, Ted Kennedy, the lion of the Senate, and how he, you know, really supported everything from Obamacare, the a, CA, how that has evolved into RFK Jr.

And some of his stances. Same thing with Mitch McConnell. Look, there couldn't be a more, I think, you know, active person who tried to thwart everything from the Affordable Care Act and, and and the accountable care. Side of that Obamacare, then Mitch McConnell, yet he voted, I believe, against RFK Junior.

He was a polio victim as a child. So you could see his stance on vaccines probably very different. [00:19:00] All that said, you know, and,

Joe Woolworth: Do you think his actual stance is what people think it is, or do you think it's a politicized

Rick: well, I think he, I think he gave the thumbs down. You know, Mitch McConnell so surprised at that. Now look, if, if you had polio as a kid and,

Joe Woolworth: Oh, I was, I'm sorry. I meant to ask more RFK stance on vaccines. I think most people assume from just picking up random headline stuff, that he is a hundred percent against every vaccine,

Rick: I don't, no, I don't think he's.

Yeah, I think he's dialed that back a bit. I don't think he's a hundred percent against every vaccine. He, he put out there. I think recently that there was more choice for the individual. What that comes down to is what is going to be readily available, what will be invested in, what can we look at.

We talked about the bird flu vaccine being from 2001. If you don't fund some of these programs to keep vaccines up to date, then we call that into question. Look, all that being seen, I think there, that RFK Junior. And we discussed this before, he, he's, he's got some good, thoughts and, and I think [00:20:00] ultimately policies on everything from dies and food, et cetera.

So there's some important stuff that they're going to be working on. I think when you, when you break it down, if he's going to focus on America's health problems, right. And if the, this executive order, this commission is going to . Make a hard pivot to chronic disease prevention, nutrition, environmental regulations processed foods, pesticides, agriculture's, role in disease,

Man, I am all for that. I think that is a big issue. And I have, there is nothing in my mind that says that would be a, a, a bad policy to pursue and to put the resources behind it. But here's, but here's the risk. I think when you redirect funding away from, you know, traditional public health, we talked about it a second ago.

Vaccines, you know, averting, you know, disasters and threats that can . Come from that it, it's problematic, [00:21:00] right? So the upside is, look, preventative health, chronic disease, environmental factors, all of that. Absolutely. I'm, I'm with him. But we should be mindful about redirecting any kind of funds, you know, that could put us at risk for emerging diseases threats.

Look, there's, there's stuff going on right now in China that's a, a new form of a virus. We've got to be mindful of that. It's all about protecting. The nation when you, when you look at public health measures. So there's a balance between the two, but that's a great point, Joe.

Joe Woolworth: I think this is an extra politically charged issue for people historically. I think many of the issues that RFK is championing are democratic issues. And I think that is a source of so much of the fear slash contention that he's gonna do it wrong. Although most people are very excited about these issues being tackled.

And like I said, I'm oversimplifying, but I think that's definitely in the mix here. People want these things, but I think many of the people on the Democratic side [00:22:00] don't want RFK being the champion for it. And I think that's informing some of the discomfort that's

Rick: Yeah, you know, I did an informal poll with some individuals that I got a chance to speak with. I listed the policies. Many were democratic, many of them were Republican but blinded them and basically said, just check the box and what you support and what you don't. Over overwhelmingly. I mean, there were, it was, it was 50 50 on, on each side, but the intermingling of what folks supported was surprising to me.

You had folks who were, who were historically very conservative Republican, who had a number of what we would call democratic policies in their checkbox, and many, many Democrats who I would consider liberal, who had many of the conservative Republican. Policies in, in, in their box. So when you, when you, when you blind things, when you take a look at, at things from policy perspective, [00:23:00] it really goes, I think, a little bit deeper into an individual's, what their, we'll call it, their values, their ethos.

But I think that's a, that's a, that's a great point when you look at that, maybe it does influence how folks perceive and, and what the, know, that citizen uptake is for some of these ideas.

Joe Woolworth: Right. All right. Switching gears for an aid freeze. So this has been all over the news. The healthcare followup from this, the administration has paused foreign aid for global health programs. What's the impact of

Rick: Yeah. And we, we just kind of alluded to this. Look, in the short term less money goes to stopping malaria, hiv aids. Pandemic preparedness programs in other countries. Why do we do that? So they don't come here? That's, that's, that's the simplest way to say it. In the long term, we could be creating bigger health threats for ourselves, right?

Diseases don't care about borders. We know this. Right? When we pull back on global [00:24:00] health efforts, outbreaks overseas seem to rise, right? And eventually they show up here at an airport across the border, you know, you name it. And then we're, then we're dealing with a situation like Covid or the early days of, of hiv aids, right?

So look, freezing foreign aid, it definitely saves money. I think there's a lot of programs we should look at. There's no doubt about that. . Um, but the, the negative side is that when you cut global funding right, it does increase the risk of future pandemics for us. We cannot forget that. Right? Potentially costing us far more in mitigation strategies, response efforts, and, and, you know, everything that goes into recovery.

Joe Woolworth: Yeah. And so this just full disclosure is meant to be a joke about what I'm about to say. The, I saw a funny meme and it was basically. Elon, who's the champion of Doge [00:25:00] running that program saying like, my approach to fixing this is very similar to it. Try turning it on and turning it off again. It seems like to be the approach happening for many of the things.

Just pause, just stop and we'll reboot it and see if it gets any better.

Rick: Yeah. And think about that in healthcare, I don't think so, right? It doesn't work that way, right? You can't just dial, you can't turn off a ventilator and turn it on. You can't take a nurse away from the bedside and think that someone's gonna receive care. You can't keep a doctor from seeing a patient. So it's a complicated issue.

I'm not saying here that it's not, um broken or that it doesn't need improvement, or that there isn't fraud and abuse, but it's complicated. And just like anything, it's like diffusing a bomb. You don't wanna cut the wrong, you know, wire in there and have it just blow up for everyone.

Joe Woolworth: Easy to lose sight that there's real people on this other side of the decision that are being impacted by these

decisions. Yeah.

Rick: That's, that's what it's all about. Absolutely.

Joe Woolworth: All right, so [00:26:00] moving on to budget cuts in healthcare consequences. Let's talk about the proposed 1.5 trillion. I can't even wrap my mind around that number, if I'm being honest. 1.5 trillion. In budget cuts. If we can cut 1.5 trillion

Rick: Yeah.

Right.

Joe Woolworth: I mean, that's an

Rick: Yeah,

Joe Woolworth: number. So Medicare and a CA subsidies, they're on the chopping

Rick: yeah. We worry about that. I've, I've worried about that the most. And look, look, healthcare's over a $4 trillion ticket for the United States. So it is a, it, it's an incredible, incredible amount of, of, of, of our economy, right? And these, these cuts across the board, when you take a look at it, big implications.

But, but we talk about Medicare.

Joe Woolworth: Does that imply that this cut is more than if it's a $4 trillion industry, that this cuts more than 25%, almost

Rick: you know what, Joe? I think this is spread across more than just healthcare or what we think of with healthcare, so I wanna put that out there for, for our audience. But regardless, when you take a look at what is an 800, I think plus billion dollar reduction on the healthcare side, [00:27:00] this could directly crosswalk to

Look, you take away, money, you could have less coverage you take away, availability and access to certain things. Costco could go up and it could be even tougher to be eligible. If you even think about implications, say to Medicaid at the state level, if you're the federal government withholding some matching funds or block grants, big implications for me when I look at this.

What you don't want is for Americans who have coverage to lose coverage. 'cause what happens then? They have worse health outcomes. They end up at the emergency department. They end up being admitted to the hospital. The hospital ends up, you know, trying to do their best with minimal resources. It creates an issue with clinical outcomes, financial impact to everyone.

How individuals are treated from a, you know, dignity perspective and just stresses out the system, right? I am all for budget cuts that [00:28:00] reduce the national debt, but again, I think we've got to think through this because what you don't want is millions of people to lose coverage or have less coverage, marginalized coverage that is going to directly lead to higher costs, more admissions to the emergency department.

Hospitals that will see financial distress. This is a reality. Now, there's a lot in that we need to, to absolutely change the system. We know that models of care need to be changed. We know that we need to leverage technology. We know that care in the home makes more sense than care in the hospital in many, many settings.

We know that there is a looming demographic tsunami with respect to baby boomers, and I think young folks who want a different way to have agency over their own healthcare. All of that needs to be in the mix, and what I'm afraid is, again, when you just go in and arbitrarily put a number out there and a cut, you're missing the upside of trying to reframe and reboot the system.[00:29:00]

Joe Woolworth: Yeah, so I mean, there's so much going on here. Final takeaways. Bottom line, what should people take away from, from all of these

Rick: Yeah, let's, lemme just frame it up like this. Look one month in, and I think healthcare policy. Key agencies. A lot of individuals, certainly folks in the federal workforce that are in the world of, of, of healthcare delivery or even policy are in a state of high anxiety. You don't know what's going to happen next.

I in general, I would say this Brace for change, right? Brace for impact. If you are relying on Medicare, Medicaid, pay close attention. If you work in the field, if you're in a policy position, if you're provider space. If you are an individual has that as your healthcare. Be aware of what kind of changes and ask yourself as well, what kind of healthcare system do you really want in the future?

Because what's happening now is going to directly impact what that model will look like. It's happening as we take the show. And [00:30:00] I think, you know, once you make these changes, these are big changes. It's gonna be very hard to, you know, put things back the way they were.

Joe Woolworth: So buckled

Rick: Yeah, buckle up. Double check your healthcare insurance.

Get that flu shot if you're inclined to do it while you still can, because it's gonna be quite a ride. And we, Joe, you and I are gonna be here to, you know hopefully be a guide as we go into the uncharted territory moving forward. Let's stay positive. I think there's a lot that needs to be changed.

Let's not be. Reckless. You know, one of my credos has always been be fearless, but not reckless. We certainly don't wanna be reckless with healthcare because as you said, it impacts people's lives.

Joe Woolworth: Yeah, I'm reminded that statement keeps coming in my mind about, um, you know, people don't change until the pain of change is greater than the pain of staying the same, and I think it's an interesting position for us to be in because I don't think. The majority [00:31:00] of Americans would give the American healthcare system an A plus, but then when it comes to actually making the changes, it's gonna be difficult and complex like you've said.

So I agree, like I kind of want to be rooting for it, but at the same time, hopefully we're not doing things that can't be undone, um, or pulling on threads that accidentally unwrap the

Rick: Yeah, you don't, well, you don't wanna leave anyone behind. You don't want to blunt innovation with overregulation. You want to make sure that from, a delivery side, that our providers have everything they need, right? Doctors, nurses, et cetera. And you also wanna make sure we're building a system that's gonna be there for you know, us as individuals when we're older for our children and for generations to come.

And I think that's what's always at stake. You know, we've got elections every four years, but some of the changes here are [00:32:00] impacting systems. We mentioned the VA that have been around for a long, long time, and you've gotta be very mindful when we do that. So, Joe, great show my friend. Good to see you, and I will see you in person in the studio very soon.

And for our listeners, thank you for your support and keep us tuned in on your favorite podcast channel or on YouTube. We, at the Healthcare Nation are here for you. So Joe, have a great day, my friend.

Joe Woolworth: All right. Good to see you, Rick.