AH081 - Promoting Competition & Innovation: The Push for PBM Reform, with Rep. Jake Auchincloss

Transcript

Lightly edited for clarity.‍

[00:27] Justin Venneri: Hello and thank you for listening to Astonishing Healthcare. I'm Justin Venneri, your host and Senior Director of Communications at Capital Rx, and this week's episode should be a really fun and interesting discussion. I'm - and I can speak for my colleagues too - really grateful to have Congressman Jake Auchincloss with us in the studio today.  

He's serving his third term representing the Massachusetts 4^th and has a really great background and story behind his path to public service, including this year's appointment to the Energy and Commerce Committee.  

Representative Auchincloss, thank you so much for taking the time to join the show today.

[00:59] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: I appreciate you having me on, looking forward to talking about healthcare.

[01:02] Justin Venneri: I think most of our listeners to the show probably know you or have heard you, especially following your questioning of the traditional PBM executives back over the summer of 2024, and that was during the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. But could you start us off with a minute or two on your background and what's led you to your current seats and focus on bringing down healthcare costs?

[01:21] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Absolutely. I grew up in a family of medical scientists - mom, dad, stepfather, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles - and I represent a district of healthcare professionals, physicians, clinicians, nurses, biotech. So both in personal and professional spheres of my life, take really seriously particularly our biomedical sector and how do we deliver cutting edge medicines that change people's lives, that turn dread diagnoses into conditions that people can live with or even cure them entirely.  

And as I dug into the federal policy that either enables or inhibits effective biomedical policy, what really becomes clear is pharmacists are an undersung hero of this story. And so much of what pharmacists grapple with is a crystallization of what's wrong with our healthcare system more broadly, which is to say, a healthcare system that's increasingly captured by corporate interests, where incentives are deeply misaligned with actual health outcomes, and frankly, where the small operators, whether they're pharmacists or physicians or patients, just get bullied.  

And so I found that by sort of centering the pharmacist and the independent pharmacist in policy work on drug pricing, where you end up is with better drug pricing policy, not just for pharmacists to make sure. That we can sustain our independent pharmacies, but actually for patients, for biomedical innovators as well.

[02:44] Justin Venneri: That makes sense. And let's start off high level. The push for PBM reform. And we're a PBM, of course. I'm not going to jump up on a capital Rx soapbox here. I try not to, and I try not to get too salesy on the podcast. There were some key things straight stripped out of the spending bill at the end of last year, right? I think delinking and mandatory NADAC were part of that. And we've seen some states sign laws that have subsequently been blocked. What's the overall appetite like for reform heading into year's end here?

[03:10] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Strong in the rank and file. What I worry about is the health insurers lobbying influence in the Speaker's office.  

So, when that PBM reform package came to the House floor, and as you said, it was mandatory NADAC reporting, it was transparency, it was a ban on spread pricing and Medicaid, it was Part D delinking. I mean real stuff, right? Like these were not messaging bills. These were bills that had teeth behind them to help reorient this drug pricing system away from serving middlemen towards empowering pharmacists and patients and innovators. The votes were majorities of both parties. This was like renaming a postal office kind of margins on the House floor. And that doesn't happen very often, right? Particularly in healthcare policy, which can get extremely challenging on partisan lines.  

So this was very promising. And then the health insurance corporations which, you know, own these pharmacy benefit managers, the big three, they clearly got to the speaker. And I know what they say in these meetings, right. I've been in these meetings. They'll claim that the premiums will go up. They'll say if you try to cut out our gross to net rent seeking, we will have to raise premiums, and you don't want that and just kill this quietly. And that's clearly what happened.

[04:17] Justin Venneri: Okay, and part two of this question, what do you think the federal government does, should be doing as it relates to the US healthcare economy? What jobs should the government be doing to promote growth, competition, and health and wellness?

[04:28] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Absolutely. So big picture right now, health care premiums are going up double digits year over year. I talk to municipalities, I talk to employers, talk to families. They're seeing their premiums go up 15%, 20% here in Massachusetts. Wages are going up single digits. Profits if you're employer, going up single digits. Local taxes if you're a municipality, are going up single digits. So if health care premiums are going up double digits, everything else is going up single digits, what you are seeing is health care costs are eating the economy from the inside out. And that's not sustainable. It's not sustainable for Americans, not sustainable for the federal government, which spends a tremendous amount of money on health care through Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA tax exemptions, etc.  

So what do we have to do? Really, what we have to do is take out costs through three mechanisms. First, we have to cut government regulations that are holding back competition. Competition is a good thing. Competition lowers prices. Great example of that is if we are seeing, within the drug pricing sphere, either evergreening by big pharmaceutical companies that hold back biosimilars or generics, we should push back on that, because when biosimilars and generics come to market, you see huge drops in prices.  

Just in the biosimilar market, put aside the generics for small molecule, just in the biosimilar market, there was probably about $100 billion of invoice spend on biologics that could go to biosimilar. They're already expired, their market exclusivity. But no biosimilar is on market. That's basically $100 billion lying on the table for the US health care system to take off the table with biosimilar production. So we got to promote competition there. Same thing of course with the PBMs, right? The startup PBMs, the flat rate transparent PBMs, should be empowered to compete against these big three monopolistic incumbents who take hundreds of billions of dollars off the table every year and no one can figure out exactly what they're doing to earn all that value.

Number two, we should be promoting technology that takes out cost. So, give you an example, one of the biggest drivers of cost is in the US healthcare system is long-term services and supports for the elderly population. That's growing at a tremendous rate. And the thing about long-term services and supports is it's very labor intensive. You've got full time caregivers around the clock, very expensive for Medicaid, very expensive for commercial insurers, or for life insurers. And technology for hospital at home, whether it's remote monitoring, whether it is fall prevention devices, whether it is interventions for social isolation done in conjunction with senior living facilities, both high tech and kind of basic tech, injecting different processes and technology into very labor intensive, low productivity segments of our healthcare that are growing fast in cost can really take out a lot of that cost.  

And then the final thing is we just gotta be willing to challenge corporate interests that are keeping prices high. Right? You look at the UnitedHealth Group and their upcoding of Medicare Advantage. You look at this unbelievable, just a bald greed of these group purchasing organizations that the for-profit insurers have put together overseas in Switzerland and Ireland. This type of self-dealing, frankly neither party has been aggressive enough and we've really got to peel the bark off of corporate interests that are trying to extract value from healthcare and they don't deliver anything in return.

Related Content

• The Role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers in Prescription Drug Markets Part III: Transparency and Accountability (Rep. Auchincloss at 4:31:00)
• AH052 - ERISA Insights: Challenges & Compliance in Modern Healthcare, with Nick Welle
• RELEASE: AUCHINCLOSS INTRODUCES BIPARTISAN PHARMACISTS FIGHT BACK ACT TO CRACK DOWN ON PREDATORY DRUG PRICING
• What is NADAC & How Does It Differ From AWP?

[07:28] Justin Venneri: Yeah, I think in general the promotion of competition, the support of new technology and the access to new technology certainly helps. And at home that's a great example because of the burden on the caregivers too, right? Anything that makes their job a little easier is great. It's a win, win, win.

[07:43] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: And it's not just technology for the treatment, it's also technology for prevention. So for example, we're on track right now for 15 million Americans to have Alzheimer's disease by 2050, 15 million. Each of those individuals would have three caregivers, roughly. That's 45 million Americans caring for another 15 million Americans with Alzheimer's. That's 60 million Americans either out of the labor force because of disease or because of caring for someone with disease. That's eye wateringly expensive of course, but also an opportunity cost for our economy, not to mention a tremendous moral and emotional burden on us. Like, how about we cure Alzheimer's disease?  

You know? Let's make that our moonshot. You got Elon Musk talking about going to Mars, Great if he wants to go to Mars. I'm much more interested in curing Alzheimer's disease as our moonshot as a country. That directly impacts tens of millions of Americans right now. And if you talk to the best scientists, they'll tell you very candidly, you know, we're still in the early innings of how to cure Alzheimer's disease. We can sort of squint and see some of the hypotheses. You know, we probably know how to do some screening, how to do some prevention, but we have a lot of work to do and it's hard to think of higher return on investment than investing in the data infrastructure, the talent, the basic science, the clinical trials for an Alzheimer's disease prevention program.

[08:53] Justin Venneri: Yeah, I remember my past life doing a ton of research on the promising compounds that were coming through pipelines for Alzheimer's. And it's just been astonishing that nothing has actually worked.

[09:02] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Not working. Yeah.

[09:03] Justin Venneri: Yep.

[09:03] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Amyloid hypothesis and the rest really haven't played out and we just need first principles thinking on it.

[09:08] Justin Venneri: Agree on that point. And so I'd love to hear about the progress you've made, just switching gears a little bit, with your Pharmacists Fight Back bill. And I can link that and some other items in the show notes.  

Tell us the key provisions there and perhaps any underappreciated aspects of the bill from your perspective.

[09:23] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Very excited about this. The last Congress I introduced Pharmacists Fight Back, the strongest PBM reform legislation introduced at the federal level. And it was bipartisan in conception and in introduction and ultimately got about 60 co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle, which was a strong showing for an inaugural bill.  

This bill does a number of things. Probably the most impactful for pharmacists is that it guarantees NADAC-based cost plus pricing, plus a dispensing fee. So no more of this, for some drugs you're losing tons of money, for some drugs you're making all the money back, and you're on this roller coaster of liquidity every month - OPS, the big three PBMs are trying to do clawbacks, or DIRs, or other sort of tactics that are really in service of their interests but not yours as a small business owner.  

No, now we do mandatory NADAC reporting, and then you are being paid a restored for cost, given a cost plus margin, and then a dispensing fee. We also in this bill prevent steering and sort of skinny networks that the big PBMs would use to try to bully independent pharmacies and to self-deal for PBM affiliated pharmacies.  

Those are the central ones. There's other elements in this bill. I'm reintroducing this Congress. It'll be bipartisan again. We'll have it scoped to different committees’ jurisdictions to make it more likely to move. Now that we introduced last term with such bipartisan support, we're ready to move this thing and I'm confident that what we're doing is we're skating to where the puck is going.

[10:45] Justin Venneri: Oh, that's great.

[10:46] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Just one note is, even though you know this is not federal law yet, it's already I think being a template for state-level laws. And you raised that before, right? We're seeing that, as is healthy in this democracy, you're seeing states sometimes act faster than the federal government will and innovative policy and we're seeing these kinds of actions becoming the basis for some state level reforms - Georgia, New York, elsewhere.

[11:07] Justin Venneri: No for sure. And I love the hockey analogy as I still play these days, limping around at home with a little bit of a sprained knee because of it, but I’ll live. We definitely appreciate the push on NADAC as it’s our preferred price benchmark, because there really isn't a better alternative right now, at least that we can find.

Now, forgive me if this is a silly follow up question. There are at least a couple of other bills with PBM reform in them, right? How closely do you monitor progress with those, just out of curiosity?

[11:32] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: I'm a co-sponsor of most of them.

[11:34] Justin Venneri: Okay.

[11:35] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: PBM reform has been a bipartisan issue. I like to keep it that way. There's really no need to, in almost any respect, do partisan PBM reform legislation. I actually think at this point it probably sets back the cause to do it that way. I think of PBM reform as being three gears that sort of grind in synergy with one another.  

The first gear is legislation, state and federal, that helps to level the playing field. The second gear is litigation against the big three PBMs that induces HR managers and states to start thinking differently about their PBM contracts. Because when they see litigation, whether it's against Wells Fargo or J&J or others, it opens their eyes to the fact that they have a fiduciary responsibility now and need to take seriously that whatever they're signing through the HR department is actually in the best interest of their employees.  

And then the third gear is competition. So that, okay, we've got a more level playing field from legislation. We have HR managers now starting to ask better questions about the contracts they're signing. But then where are the options? It’s all for not if you don't actually have options other than the big three. To do this though, we need competition, we need startups on the market.  

And of course, as I said, these three gears grind in synergy. So as these startups come onto the market, whether it's Capital Rx or other transparent flat rate PBMs, they're going to encounter a lot of incumbency bias and a lot of frankly, unfair play. And we've seen this in Louisiana, right, the state of Louisiana, when they issued a contract for PBMs, it was a contract that only the Big 3 could compete for because it required some kind of bonding that was like more than a billion dollars. Right? Like you just. If you're a startup PBM, you couldn't put down that kind of bonding. That's an example of the kind of tactic that, okay, now we come back to the legislation and litigation to further level that playing field and further create a healthy competitive market.

[13:19] Justin Venneri: Yeah, it's definitely been an uphill battle, but it certainly seems like, from all the signs we see and others that we compete with, that the buyer here, the payer, has gotten a lot smarter in recent years and is much more aware of the issues. Kudos to the Consolidated Appropriations Act and Department of Labor, but also just the heavy lift of education and evidence, right?

And on that note, prices and data. During your recent hearings, we've heard you dig into some specifics, like really nicely, whether it's referencing NADAC or drug prices or potential savings related to biosimilars, like you were alluding to earlier. I'm curious, when you start to dive into the data, how receptive are your counterparts? And the House committee was awesome, of course. But what happened in the wake of that? And how do people respond to the data you're bringing to the table?

[14:03] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: It's highly resonant because if a constituent of mine went into Star Market and bought some bagels, and the bagels cost $7 in Star Market, and they walked across the street and they bought those same bagels at Stop and Shop and they cost $400, they'd be like, well, I mean, what's happening? The bagels are the same bagels. What's going on here?  

And when you talk about generic drugs, though, you are literally talking about price swings in that same range. I mean, you can walk across the street between different pharmacies and have the price for drugs have a variance of 10x, sometimes even 100x. Right? And there's a lot of reasons for that, and you know them better than me. One of the core reasons, though, is the abuse of specialty steering by the big three PBMs, where they slap this label on generic drugs called specialty, which has no clinical meaning, it's entirely a business formulation. And they use that designation to justify what is really just rent seeking. They're just taking margin. And by exposing that with the data that I laid forth in the hearings, I think you're just confronting people with a reality that doesn't make sense, right? People want bagels to roughly cost what bagels cost wherever they buy them. And the same thing is true for drugs. And, you know, as you said, NADAC and NADAC cost plus pricing is the way that we got to get there.

[15:14] Justin Venneri: One thing that has popped up a lot recently, if we can talk a little bit about price controls, do you think that will work here? How might the industry adapt?

[15:22] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: So the short answer is price controls - I don't believe in price controls. Price controls have been tried across a variety of sectors throughout history, right? Whether it's rent controls or gasoline controls or wage controls in World War II and the 1970s. And what they do is that they lead to shortages. It's kind of Econ 101 is that when you try to do price controls, you get shortages of the good in question.  

What actually lowers prices is competition. Over and over again we see that what lowers prices is competition. That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't negotiate prices. I think opponents of the Medicare drug price negotiation bill that was passed under Biden will say it's a price control. There's some validity in that statement in the sense that, yes, the government has a huge amount of negotiating leverage and it can feel, I think, to the industry as though they can't really say no. But it is a negotiation. They can in fact say no. There's nothing wrong with using your buying power to negotiate a better price. I mean, that is what markets do. You use your buying power to negotiate good prices.  

What I think is important though is that we don't lose sight on the most effective mechanism that we have to make drugs go cheap, which is genericization. You have a period of market exclusivity that the innovators have earned because they've taken big risks on their biomedical portfolio. Most of them fail, a couple of them succeed, they earn back a return on that investment, risk-adjusted return on that investment, and then it goes generic without undue delay. And that genericization process is the reason why Americans actually pay less for generic drugs than Europeans pay for generic drugs. And 93% of all drugs that are prescribed are generic drugs.  

So this is how you get low prices, whether it's biosimilar for large molecule or generic for small molecule - competition. The problem that we have is that the PBMs, through specialty, through steering, have basically manipulated that genericization process to keep prices higher than they need to be. And the pharmacists are some of the biggest victims of that alongside the patients.

[17:09] Justin Venneri: I'm curious about prices elsewhere. You know, we've seen articles and data published for years now about the crazy variances. On the medical side, orthopedics comes to mind, you know, the cost of a hip replacement or knee. Are you working on anything or paying attention to the medical side of the equation too?

[17:23] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Most of my focus, just because it's enough to keep one man busy, has been on drugs - pharmacists and drugs. But you're 100% right. And there has been work done on mandating transparency in prices. So the No Surprises Act passed before I got into Congress, mandated that hospitals issue machine readable and human readable prices for all their services. But the idea being that eventually this would start to become transparent to consumers of healthcare. So that, yeah, if you need a hip replacement, you can see there's four different sites of care and offering similar quality levels.

Here are the different prices.  

Because again, as you said, competition shopping can draw prices down. I would say that that has not been fully implemented. I think we're probably lagging on implementation of No Surprises, and we need better enforcement of that legislation to mandate transparency on prices.

[18:09] Justin Venneri: Okay. And the future precision medicine, value-based care.

[18:12] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Yeah.

[18:13] Justin Venneri: I think you have some strong opinions on how to achieve or help drive us toward a value-based world. What role should the government play in this regard?

[18:21] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Well, do it ourselves, right? I mean, for 15 years there's been lots of healthcare conferences where smart people talk about value-based care and we haven't seen enough of it. And drugs is a great example of where we should be leaning into this. Let's take one that everyone's familiar with, right? The GLP-1s. They're budget busting right now for a lot of employers, for a lot of municipalities. I've been talking to some small towns in my district who are seeing a big chunk of their health insurance premium hikes are coming just from the GLP-1s and demand for it. Same thing with, you know, Medicaid.  

Now the pharmaceutical companies will say, well, the value is tremendous. We're seeing not just reduced obesity, we're seeing reduced incidence of diabetes, we're seeing reduction in compulsive behaviors more generally, whether it's alcohol or gambling or smartphone use. I mean, this thing is like a miracle drug. Okay, actually the evidence to date though is it's actually hard to look at any peer reviewed evidence and see how much cost is getting taken out of the healthcare system directly from the GLP-1s right now. Some of that's patient adherence and that'll improve as it goes from an injectable into an oral small molecule. Much better patient adherence. Some of it just takes more time, I think, to actually see the cost get taken out of the system.  

So I'm not ideological about it. I think this is clearly a pretty significant breakthrough in medicine and it's probably going to have pretty significant ramifications. But we shouldn't just take pharma's word for it. If they're so darn optimistic, give them some skin in the game. They should be signing value-based contracts with Medicaid agencies, with employers that say, all right, we're going to take a 10-year view of this. We're going to have KPIs for payouts, and we want to see that we actually have patients who are healthy. We want to see the offset in hospital bed days. We want to see the offset in ER visits from the use of GLP-1s and you'll get paid out accordingly.

[19:54] Justin Venneri: That's an interesting idea. And so is the argument we've run into, right, is like, where's the data? Okay, well it takes time. Okay, well how much does it cost to get to the point where you have the data to show that the medical costs came down because the adherence was solid on the pharma side. So it's definitely an interesting quandary. And I agree with you. It's always like, oh, just put GLP-1s in the water because they help with everything. It seems like it's going that way.

[20:15] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Yeah. And like I'm a big booster for biomedical innovation. I want more of it. But we want to be orienting our healthcare system towards paying for performance and not just for volume of widgets or pills. It's like, what's the actual outcome we're looking for? And it's actually probably easier to do that in some ways in the drug space than it is in other spaces and we should lean into it much more aggressively.  

Another good example is a Massachusetts based biotech came out with a drug that is a non-opioid acute painkiller. This is a big deal. We got tens of millions of Americans who are very vulnerable to opioid addiction after back surgery or other types of surgery when they're suffering from acute pain. This is a very effective painkiller that is non-opioid based. Same thing though, I think it's fair to say, well, let's put this on a value-based kind of contract. Let's actually see, one, how effective it is, what the adherence is, how much it actually offers offsets follow on opioid addiction. You're offering kind of holistic benefits to our healthcare system more broadly. Let's crunch some numbers on it.

[21:08] Justin Venneri: Yeah, that's one thing we're excited about, just being able to pull data together. So you have the pharmacy, the medical and hopefully over time you can see what the impact is.  

And everyone talks about health equity. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to promote equity in healthcare. I think I've heard you say before that you're trying to support local regional hospitals and access to care there at that level. Anything else you're working on or doing or feel passionate about in regards to health equity?

[21:34] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: I'll point to two things. One is one of the most equitable things that happens in healthcare is when a small molecule drug goes generic. As I said earlier, Americans pay less for generic small molecule drugs than any other people in the world. And so if you have effective medicine that now becomes, you know, dollars to buy, you are reaching an entire population of people who otherwise would be fighting for access to pretty expensive labor-intensive care inside hospitals. Now they can take oral drugs to prevent renal failure or prevent heart disease, or prevent Alzheimer's, hopefully one day, right?  

So to me, a big part of health equity is that you don't have to reinvent the wheel. It's like, hey, we have this mechanism, genericization of drugs that actually is a tremendous achievement for equity and we should be making sure that that motor spins really, really fast, including doing things like fixing the pill penalty in the IRA, because we actually want more small molecule drugs, not fewer. So getting that up to 13 years, but then ensuring that it goes generic without undue delay, it's a win for health equity.  

Other thing to highlight is community health centers. Community health centers treat about 10% of Americans, cost about 1% of our overall healthcare spending, and they do really effective primary preventative work that offsets a tremendous amount of follow on healthcare. They are really meeting people where they're at with the services that they need that keeps them from getting more serious conditions.  

And it's bipartisan. Even RFK, with whom I disagree on just about everything, is a CHC backer. And I'd like to see Congress promote community health centers more.

[23:01] Justin Venneri: Before we get to the last question, which I ask everyone, a little curveball for you. You mentioned a little hockey analogy earlier. We're at the start of a few sports seasons here. I'm just going to ask about the NHL. Let's stick with hockey. Are you a Bruins fan?

[23:12] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Yes, I am.

[23:13] Justin Venneri: Okay. How are they going to do this year? Who's your pick for the Stanley Cup?

[23:15] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: You're asking me for my prediction of how far they go?

[23:18] Justin Venneri: Yeah, it's tough without Marchand.

[23:20] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Yeah, I mean, listen, you're talking to a guy who represents a bunch of Boston Bruins fans. So I think my answer is I think they're hoisting the cup.

[23:26] Justin Venneri: All right, all right. Parade in Boston. So, last question. And we got to keep a compliance hat on. I know you've seen a ton in the work you do. What's the most astonishing thing you've seen related to our discussion today and your work on health reform that you can share? Tell us a quick story, you know, close things up.

[23:43] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: I don't know if I would say it's a story. Let me articulate a theme that I see that is really across a lot of my work, is that our healthcare system is built to use medicines as a source of margin. Whether it is the payers, whether it is the big three PBMs, whether it's frankly state agencies, whether it's the federal government, whether it's employers, whether it's the hospitals through 340B. Everybody says one thing, which is they want medicine to be cheap, but everybody's incentive when you dig into it is actually for the list price to be high and the net price to be low and for everything in the middle not to be passed on to the patient, but instead to be skimmed.  

The core for us to have a rational drug pricing policy in this country is to stop treating medicine as a source of margin and instead treat medicine through a biotech social contract where we want people inventing new medicines, we want them earning a return on their investment, and then we want those medicines to go generic without undue delay and be dirt cheap.

[24:40] Justin Venneri: I completely agree. It is a wild thing to see that gross-to-net bubble and how big it's gotten over the years. And I think the latest IQVIA report has us pegged at over $1 trillion in gross spending on drugs this year, which is AJ always says - our CEO - back when he started, it was a little over a $100 billion. So like we're sitting here with a 10x and the US population certainly isn't up 10x. There's definitely something going on there that can be deflated.  

Jake, thank you so much for taking the time today. Really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and insights with us and hope everything goes well for you when you go back into session and look forward to staying in touch.

[25:12] Rep. Jake Auchincloss: Justin, thanks for having me on. Be well.

Want to stay apprised of the latest Capital Rx news? Sign up for our monthly newsletter!

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. The views expressed are those of our guests, do not constitute professional advice, and may not represent Capital Rx's position on any matters discussed. We make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the content; information is subject to change and may not be updated.

‍

‍