Most Favored Nation and What's Next

Most companies, and even policymakers, are betting big on importing international drug prices — but what does that really mean for cancer care in America? 

In this episode of Value-Based Voices, Jayson Slotnik, JD, MPH,  Partner, Health Policy Strategies, Inc., dives into the evolving landscape of drug pricing reforms, unlocking why policies like the Most Favored Nation (MFN) and the Global Benchmark could reshape how medicines reach patients, providers, and payers. You’ll discover how these models aim to lower drug costs by benchmarking against prices from other countries, and why that sparks fierce debate about innovation, access, and the future of American healthcare. Nick Ferreyros, Managing Director, Policy, Advocacy, and Communications, Community Oncology Alliance (COA), and Tim Dube, MPH, Senior Vice President, Policy & Regulatory Affairs, PCMA, unpack the complexities of the Guard and Globe models, revealing how they impact community oncology practices, Medicare, and even the pharmaceutical industry. They break down the technicalities of rebate mechanisms, international price comparisons, and the legal road ahead — all with a sharp focus on what it means for patients facing cancer.

This episode explores critical questions: Will these policies truly deliver lower costs without compromising quality? Are they just the beginning of a long legal and political fight? And how might they reshape the innovation landscape in cancer treatment? With perspectives from advocates and industry insiders, you'll see why this isn’t just about policy — it’s about the future of patient care, physician practice, and our healthcare system at large. If you’re navigating the high-stakes world of cancer care reform, this conversation is essential. 

Resources & Links:

•             Community Oncology Alliance (COA)

•             PCMA — Pharmaceutical Care Management Association 

Connect with the Guests:

•             Jayson Slotnik 

•             Nick Ferreyros 

•             Tim Dube 

Contact Value-Based Voices

- Follow AVBCC on LinkedIn  

- View our podcast lineup 

- Contact us at info@avbcc.org

Thanks for listening! 

Transcript

Jayson Slotnik (00:00.108)
Welcome to Value-Based Voices, a podcast from the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care. Each episode dives into the shifting terrain of cancer care in the United States, exploring what value means in today's clinical, policy, and patient-centered environments. Our mission is to spark informed dialogue, promote transparency, and equip every stakeholder, from providers to payers to patients to manufacturers, with the insight they need to navigate cancer care with clarity, confidence, and purpose.

Jayson (00:37.23)
My name is Jayson Slotnik, a partner in Health Policy Strategies and AVBCC board member, and I'll be your host for today's episode. Special thanks to AVBCC for this opportunity. And I'm really excited about today's podcast as I'm joined by two good friends of mine. We've been going at it in a friendly way for quite some time. I have the honor and the pleasure of being joined by Nick Ferreyros, Mr. Everything at COA. Say hello, Nick.

Nick Ferreyros (01:05.642)
Happy to be here.

Jayson (01:07.19)
Similarly, it is my honor and pleasure to be joined by Mr. Everything at PCMA, Tim Dube.

Tim Dube (01:13.592)
Yeah, thanks, Jayson. Happy to be here, too.

Jayson (01:15.598)
Let's start off with a little background. The most favored nation policy, which essentially means importing a price from a drug from a foreign country to establish it as the price here in the United States, has been around since the first Trump administration. Trump 1 proposed a rule that would do just that under Part B—replacing the ASP with a foreign price. And ultimately it failed in the courts and did not have time to cure because of the change of administration.

Trump 2, from almost day one, was talking about most favored nation. And over the Christmas holiday, the president proposed two models: one called the Globe, which impacts Medicare Part B—the Globe standing for the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing. And on the same day, CMS proposed the Guard model—Guarding U.S. Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs—which impacts, like I mentioned, Medicare Part D.

These two models were preceded by a voluntary model called the Generous, which impacted Medicaid, in which manufacturers could volunteer—which is different than the Globe and the Guard, as we'll get into, which are mandatory models—volunteer to offer an ex-U.S. price in exchange for better coverage under the Medicaid program.

And we are very lucky and blessed to have two experts in their respective fields join us today to give us a different perspective. As many of you know, my Health Policy Strategies works very closely with lots of manufacturers, innovators, drug companies. I officially call myself a drug dealer. But today we're going to hear different perspectives on these two programs. So hope to have an engaging dialogue on the Globe and the Guard.

And we're going to start with the Guard, as I mentioned, which impacts Medicare Part D. And therefore I'm going to turn to Tim. Tim, give us a brief introduction of yourself and then sort of what is PCMA's position on the Guard? How did you and how do your members perceive the Guard and its value?

Tim (03:29.666)
Yeah, thanks, Jayson. So as Jayson noted, I'm Tim Dube. I lead PCMA's policy and regulatory efforts, including responding to all of the drumbeat of drug pricing rules and models—some of which you mentioned, some of which there are many more out there that have come out during this administration. Prior to PCMA, I spent time on the inside of government at HHS. I was working on the first major round of drug pricing reforms over at ASPE, including on the first initial International Pricing Index models.

So a little bit of direct experience on what we're talking about here. Before that, I was in the biotech world. If we're talking about MFN, I think we also need to broaden that lens a little bit and talk about direct-to-patient platforms. That's one of the ways that these prices are also coming through. These represent a significant shift in the drug pricing conversation. We're focusing now on getting the benefit of price negotiations—in this case, those negotiated by the government—directly to the patient rather than spreading the savings that other actors in the market have been negotiating throughout the healthcare system.

This is a fundamental shift. At PCMA, our members—which are all the PBMs you all know and love, plus a whole lot more PBMs—are embracing these changes. Many of our members and their affiliated pharmacies are actually partners with many of the manufacturer direct-to-patient platforms through the TrumpRx program, etc. And we're looking for ways to get lower prices into the healthcare system.

Our goal as these all unfold, though—and this is where we're spending our time—is making sure that the clinical value that PBMs do bring (safety checks, drug–drug interactions, patient care management programs, etc.) stays with the patient every step of the way. One of the concerns in all of this unfolding is that having many more ways to buy drugs separately from the healthcare system is actually a symptom of our highly fragmented healthcare system that we are trying to solve for.

And so we're just concerned generally that to the extent we're creating a bunch of different ways to sell products to patients, we're not solving for the complication of the system.

So onto Guard. We look at these MFN Medicare models—both Guard and Globe—as essentially implementing the IRA through other means. One thing that I would note is that Guard is using an inflation rebate provision of the IRA, not the Medicare negotiated price provision, to pull through essentially a new way to constrain the pricing of branded drugs. This is great. PBMs have been doing this forever. They were called price protection clauses in contracts. They were both in Part D and in commercial. They've now moved over to CMS administering them under the IRA. And they're in the Guard model essentially just re-benchmarking what that starting point is on the price.

It's pretty creative, truth be told, in a program that has otherwise very direct, strict prohibitions on government price setting—like Medicare Part D—or, as we'll talk about with Globe, statutory formulas on how to set reimbursement rates in Part B. They really had to put on their thinking hats. I think it remains to be seen whether this will hold up over time, but it's definitely one way to get at this.

So the other piece about Guard that's important to note is that it will operate behind the scenes. All of this math on whether there's a rebate owed is done after the fact. The rebate would be paid—if the international price is lower than the benchmark price—back to CMS, not to the Part D plan, not through the PBM, but directly to the government. That's the way that the current IRA inflation rebates work as well.

What this means is that to the extent that there are much lower prices available in the market at the MFN basis for the affected drugs, those prices will not pass through the Part D system at all. Beneficiaries won't see lower cost sharing. Part D plans won't see lower payments out to pharmacies. Also, pharmacies won't see any reduced revenue. So you're essentially taking the entire process and keeping it outside of the system as it is now.

That's something that we are a little concerned about. We think that if you're going to be getting lower prices in the market, the beneficiary should benefit from these. And the Part D plan should as well. We face tremendous premium pressure in Medicare Part D today, and this would have been a way to maybe relieve some of that. And so as we've been working with CMMI, that's one of the things that we've raised.

Jayson (07:49.966)
Thanks, Tim, for that introduction and the background on the Guard. I want to circle back to you a little bit more specifically on PCMA's position here. But first I want to bring Nick into the conversation. Nick, introduce yourself and then give us a little bit of background on the Globe and the impact it has on your members and what COA thinks about that model.

Nick (08:08.428)
Yeah, sure. Thanks, Jayson. Thanks for having me today. Nick Ferreyros, Managing Director at the Community Oncology Alliance. We represent independent community oncology providers—non-hospital-owned or operated cancer practices across the country. And when we think of Globe, Guard, IRA, or anything else, we think of it in terms of protecting patient access and ensuring the stability of community oncology, which we know to be a high-quality, local, affordable, and accessible site of service for Americans facing cancer.

And currently, the majority of Americans who receive cancer treatment in this country get it at a community oncology provider. So it is critical to both patient access and, when you think about the site-of-service cost differentials between other providers, how important it is to ensure community oncology stays a viable option in communities.

And really, when we think about Globe, Globe is essentially what Tim and you, Jayson, talked about—taking this most favored nation rubric and applying it to Part B, that is, physician-administered drugs, benchmarking to international reference prices.

And you know, I don't think you'll ever have an oncologist—you’re certainly never going to have me—arguing that drug prices are just fine and we don't need to be doing anything about it. The concept of financial toxicity has been very well discussed in community oncology and in oncology for decades at this point. The challenge is how you go about doing it. And it's very similar to the Inflation Reduction Act, where the devil starts to get down to the details.

For Globe and Guard, as Tim talked a little bit about, it is a rebate mechanism, which is actually great. We have to hand it to CMS—they did a very good job in crafting this and building a very smart and wise model for how this is approached and how the government can achieve its savings while holding providers harmless in that ultimate equation and ensuring we can really keep the lights on.

Nick (10:23.598)
But we as an organization have not taken a very strong position on it for that exact reason: it does hold providers harmless. It does seek to lower drug costs. It has a limited scope right now to the number of drugs that it will be covering. I think if the conversation advances beyond right now—there's a lot of dialogue around codifying this MFN approach in others or throughout the entire system—we might have some comments on that. But right now, as Globe and Guard are structured, to the consternation of many of your, Jayson, your drug-dealing friends, we have not gone out and taken a strong position on it because, as I said, CMS was very wise in how they structured this.

Unlike how we have structured the Inflation Reduction Act and that process, and I'm happy to talk a little bit about that when we get there.

Jayson (11:21.688)
So thanks, Nick, for those opening comments. And I agree on behalf of my clients. When it first came out, the CPI mechanism was and is an interesting way for them to get at creating a lower drug price. It was certainly different. Tim, you mentioned you worked on the IPI in the first administration. And so kudos to the agency for figuring that out. I mean, there's a lot of legal issues—we'll get to that in a minute.

But obviously it's no surprise that BIO and PhRMA and the individual companies, even those that have signed a deal with the government, are opposed to this policy very strongly. They just fundamentally believe that importing a socialist price regimen into this country is bad for patients, it's bad for innovation.

But Tim, is PCMA—you mentioned that you have some concerns about patient savings. Obviously, the manufacturing community, the innovator community, has the same concerns. Did PCMA submit public comments? How public, how vocal will PCMA be if this rule is finalized? We'll get into that in a minute. But did you submit comments? What issues did you raise with the government, with CMMI?

Tim (12:34.382)
We raised really two pieces. One is exactly your point—that there's no mechanism here to drive savings to patients specifically. The other thing we raised—and you referenced the Generous model in the beginning—there's some language in the Generous model as it's been updated that seems to maybe exclude participants in the Generous model from Guard and Globe. It's not as black and white as one would have thought that kind of exemption would look like.

That sort of leaves us with a question of whether any meaningful drugs will actually be included in the model going forward if that exemption holds. Sixteen large companies have signed these agreements, and it's not all of their drugs, but it's a number of their drugs. The way that CMS would run this is that any drug with an MFN—they would run through the model unless they're excluded. You're kind of running out of meaningful drugs at that point.

A different set of manufacturers outside of those 16 companies are now in talks with the administration, we understand, to also sign agreements, which could start knocking off additional drugs from potential inclusion in Guard and Globe. If you're only talking about a handful of small biotech companies’ products, A) that seems a little unfair to them, and B) it seems like the impact will be very minimal at that point.

And this is a lot of infrastructure—dividing all Medicare beneficiaries into a 25% test group and a 75% control group and standing up essentially two systems in terms of what the pricing is going to look like on the back end with the inflation-based rebates. That seems like a lot of work for a very small number of drugs for no benefit to patients.

And so most of our commentary was related to wanting to better understand how manufacturers come into the model, how they come out, and what that process looks like, and what CMS understands the actual impact of the model to be.

Jayson (14:25.538)
Did PCMA urge CMS to withdraw the rules? What was the conclusion of your comments?

Tim (14:32.386)
We just asked them to address these questions before finalizing. I think there's a pretty good chance that they move forward with a final model by the end of the calendar year. They were looking maybe to move a little faster, but I think there are a lot of important questions they need to wrestle with first. And CMMI models like these, when they're first aired out in a large proposed rule, take a while for them to reconcile the comments and really think through what the stakeholder community has raised.

Jayson (15:01.166)
So thank you. So Nick, you mentioned in your opening comments that COA did not submit any public comments on this, but there must have been some debate amongst the leadership of COA and, of course, with your members. What were the initial reactions of the members? What were their concerns about the model, and why ultimately do you think COA did not submit comments?

Is it something beyond just the fact that the positions will remain whole? But it adds a lot of administrative burden because some of that CPI penalty goes back to the patient to reduce the 20%. I mean, so there is an administrative issue here for the docs. They remain whole in some way. You guys are doing that under the CPI.

So I have a couple of questions in there—give us a little greater insight, to the extent you can, on how COA reached its conclusion. And then what would need to be—like Tim said, there's going to be more information here—what's your tipping point for COA to engage? Because I think, with all due respect, COA has a louder voice at the agency because you're closer to the patients and the physicians than perhaps the manufacturers are, particularly in this environment. And even PCMA may have a little bit more influence there.

So Nick, walk us through a little bit more behind the scenes and what that tipping point could be.

Nick (16:22.796)
Yeah, so again, it's really not that complicated. The way that these models are designed is fundamentally not going to impact our practices right now. Now, a lot of people have come to us and said, “You better watch out—the long-term net effects will be negative,” but we've yet to see the projections of that.

That's not to say that we support the models. That is to say that as designed right now and as rolled out right now, there is limited ability for us—when we see something like this, when we see a challenge present itself—to go in with a straight face and say, “This is the impact on our providers in our community,” and be able to point that out. Right now it's a hypothetical future-state impact.

I think philosophically, we do not support this concept of price setting. We do not support CMMI mandatory national demonstration projects. That is a very slippery slope. And we've always had a challenge with that.

Also, no senior receiving cancer treatment wants to be told—or not told, as it were—that you are in a government experiment where we are dictating this, that, or the other elements of your care. Even if it's not directly setting the therapy choices, at the end of the day, payment drives practice. And so they're going to need to think long and hard about the impact on patients.

As Tim has pointed out, patient cost sharing is a very important factor we think about here. But I also want to zero in on something Tim said earlier: these entire models are a symptom of our healthcare system. And we have the most unique, N-of-1 healthcare system in this country. So being able to import prices from other countries isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

It's not like we're going to say Imbruvica in Germany and Imbruvica in the United States and we're going to have the exact same price. Because you have this entire convoluted system. No dig at Tim, but we have the PBMs in the system. We have 340B discounts in the system. Other countries do QALY and HTA decision-making when deciding what drugs to cover.

I have a very personal family story where my brother received cancer treatment in a European country and he was not given access to the latest and greatest treatments. He had something that was a 20-year-old course of treatment as first line. And it left him with some very unfortunate side effects.

That's a decision that we—you know, I can remember 15 years ago during the Affordable Care Act discussions—remember “death panels”? We were having very real discussions about bureaucrats dictating what treatments could get who and could get what treatment. And we purposefully said we were not going to do that here in this country.

I'm not saying that that's what this is, but I'm saying we have to be careful as we think through the future state of proposals. But Globe and Guard, as I mentioned earlier, are really well thought out, really well designed as far as insulating the provider communities from that downstream negative effect that would trigger us to get involved.

Jayson (20:01.666)
Well, Nick, thank you for that transition. You raise a really good point. One of the significant legal and policy issues you mentioned is QALYs—quality-adjusted life years. And as both of you know, they are explicitly excluded from consideration under the Inflation Reduction Act’s negotiation principles and what the manufacturer public comments, the innovators they are saying to CMS, look, you Congress, you've already explicitly excluded this. And now here you are, CMMI, hey, you CMS, right?

Congress excluded this and now you're bringing these in — exactly to your point, Nick. As we transition the conversation to what is going to happen in the future, right? Appreciate your thoughts about what your position is now. I believe the rules will be finalized. I believe there will be litigation. I believe the manufacturers will sue on the point I just made and some other esoteric constitutional and policy issues.

Tim, do you share that sentiment — that the rules will be finalized? I think you said that before. There will be litigation. And do you see a role for PCMA in this litigation, given the potential impact it has on your members and, more specifically, the patients you serve?

Tim Dube (21:20.174)
So, a lot to unpack there. I agree with you that I think they'll finalize it, right? I also think that this administration, including the first time they were in the White House, doesn't care if someone sues them. They're going to push the envelope, test exactly what they need to test. We saw this with the 340B Medicare outpatient hospital rule — they put it through, they got sued, they lost, they're doing it the right way now through the survey of hospital acquisition costs. And we'll see if that holds up going forward.

So I don't think they'll hold up finalizing a rule because of the lawyers on the inside. I will say that the CMMI team within HHS OGC is paying a lot of attention to this and working very hard to make sure that what gets out the door can stand on its own. So esoteric claims or whatnot that the pharma manufacturers might have — they worked really hard to figure out how this inflation rebate penalty piece could be the hook.

What I do think — what really telegraphs that they're concerned about it holding up in the long run — are two things. One is that their deals with the manufacturers right now are time‑limited. So to the extent that those expire and are not renewed, I don't know how these models work. If there's not an agreement under Generous, those companies aren't exempt and then the price comes in. These are the domino questions that we had in our comment letter. We weren't sure exactly how that would work.

So now you see the CMS Administrator, Dr. Oz, and you see the President asking Congress to codify MFN pricing for the Medicare program. That, to me, signals that they're concerned about the long‑term viability of these models — not that they won't put them out, but that they're looking for a way to make sure the legacy is cemented.

And if we get to that point — legislation that essentially codifies government‑administered price setting based on QALYs, based on another healthcare system altogether, not taking into account the uniqueness of America and the way we do things here — that's a very important debate for this country to have, for all the reasons Nick laid out before. And I'm interested in the debate and to see where people come out on it. To what extent are the lower prices worth it? Or do we value innovation, patient choice, physician choice, and things like that? Or are we really going to put the screws to healthcare cost containment and address it this way?

Jayson (23:44.558)
Thanks, Tim. But before — I'm going to come back to you and ask you a little bit more about whether PCMA, once the rules are finalized, sees itself getting vocal within the courts. But Nick, over to you. Similar question, right? How is COA monitoring this? What are your thoughts about it being finalized? And — like I'm going to ask Tim after you — COA has a history of being very vocal on policies that harm the practice of oncology and the patients you serve. Do you see COA getting vocal if the rules are finalized as is, or even with minor tweaks?

Nick Ferreyros (24:24.31)
Well, going to also answer part of the question you gave Tim. I think, frankly, this is the new normal. This concept is here to stay. Our ecosystem — patients, providers, manufacturers, middlemen, intermediaries, hospitals — everybody needs to understand this has been channeled from both sides of the aisle. Love it or hate it, drug price reform in its many shapes, flavors, and colors is here. And MFN is the acronym of the day on the Hill. And they are laser‑focused on it.

You said the magic word, Jayson — codified. They're being asked to codify. There's a lot of pressure being put on codifying. We're in a midterm election year. We're going to be coming up in a few years on another presidential cycle, as crazy as it sounds. And so we start that process very soon, and everyone wants a campaign win.

Whenever I talk to audiences, I always say that every single elected official in this country campaigns on lowering healthcare costs. And I usually put “costs” in quotes because what does cost mean? Cost does not mean the sticker price. Cost means what it pays to the consumer at the end of the day.

They've tried very hard. The Inflation Reduction Act was the campaign topic du jour in ’23/’24 going into the last presidential election. It was the big thing everyone was campaigning on. And the reality on the ground in Main Street America is that drug prices — their overall healthcare costs — have not gone down. In fact, they've continued to go up and up and up. And so that has not taken the pressure off Congress or the administration to address this.

They're going to be laser‑focused on this. We at COA are very focused on it despite not having commented in this round. We are paying attention to where it goes, where the greater MFN discussion goes. And really our number one concern right now is the Inflation Reduction Act and how that goes into Part B drugs — physician‑administered drugs — starting in 2028.

Because as written right now, it is not a rebate mechanism. It is a whole other set of complicated formulas. You get maximum fair price, and that's what physician reimbursement gets based off of. That will result in a 50% decrease to physician add‑on payments. And practices rely on that to keep the lights on, to pay for uncompensated services. And it will be a practice‑ending event if it's not careful.

So it's rather ironic that CMS very wisely developed Globe and Guard to do that rebate mechanism and not impact the average sales price and physician reimbursement — whereas they've left the IRA on the side, unfixed right now. So we're really focused on a technical fix there. The key takeaway I would say is: this is not going away at all.

Jayson (27:40.598)
I agree with that. Nick, thanks for those comments. So Tim — PCMA. Rules are finalized. Do you think PCMA might take this to the courts, or no? Too esoteric? Too hard to tell?

Tim (27:55.52)
I think it's too soon to tell. I think we have more existential issues in our lane. This, to us, looks a little bit like a pharma food fight that they'll need to hash out on their own, and we'll be fighting our own fights.

Jayson (28:14.414)
Yes — so that will be a separate podcast, perhaps, Tim. We could take it up at a different time. So as we head toward the end here, I want to go to two quick questions in the lightning round.

Number one: you both mentioned the significant pressure for a most favored nation policy to be codified. So — yes or no, and I'll give you a sentence or two to explain yourself. Nick, does Congress pass a most favored nation law?

Nick (28:39.118)
No, I don't think so. I think right now, just look at the procedural hurdles to getting there. It's a bit of a long shot. But that doesn't mean it's going away. That doesn't mean the discussion is going away. It is still very much on the table. I just don't think it's happening in the next 12 to 18 months.

Jayson (29:04.55)
Tim, same question to you.

Tim (29:06.24)
Agree — they can't or they won't. I think we need to have real conversations on healthcare cost control, but there's no juice left to squeeze on drugs because of the IRA.

Jayson (29:18.424)
Yeah, just in all fairness and transparency, I agree with you. I don't think there will be a codification of MFN in this Congress. But depending on how the midterms turn and how a PDUFA discussion goes, I could see — I agree with both of you that this issue is not going to go away. And we could see some rumblings in the next Congress as you surround that PDUFA about using cost as a condition of FDA approval and avoiding the whole MFN importing issue as well.

So, I agree with both of you — this is not going away, and we'll see what happens.

But second lightning‑round question: litigation. And you guys may not be as close to it as I am, given — like you said — my clients. Do you have a sense? I know you've heard, you've said that CMMI is paying close attention. There will be litigation on this once finalized. Do you have a sense of the likelihood of success? Are you close enough to it?

Tim (30:24.898)
I couldn't really hypothesize. I'm sure there are constitutional‑type arguments like there were with IRA. Maybe they'll find some process problems to slow it down. But I'm not close enough to the substance on that.

Nick (30:42.092)
Yeah, I'm not an attorney — I just play one on webinars and podcasts. I will say, the best comparison… well, I think two things.

One, this is a perfect example of why, writ large, we have had concerns with CMMI — it is a pretty legally strong route for the administration. We always call it the administration's toolbox for when it wants to develop health policies that can't get passed through Congress. And so you always have to pay attention to CMMI and how it is used and how these models are developed and implemented, because it can be very concerning that there's a wide latitude given to administrations in how it can use CMMI for these types of projects.

Again, that's not a dig at Globe and Guard — it's very well and thoughtfully designed. So I would say you just have to pay attention there. And I can't speak to the exact legal ramifications, but people have been unsuccessful in the IRA litigation, and CMMI is a much cleaner route for getting this done.

Jayson (31:55.406)
Well said, Nick. When we all started reading the briefs by pharma on the IRA, we were sort of — wow, there's a lot of really good legal arguments here. And then, as I learned in my first couple of weeks of law school, you never tell anybody there's greater than a 50–50 chance on litigation. And we're seeing that on the IRA.

And similarly here on Globe and Guard — as Tim said, there are a lot of good constitutional arguments here. There are some good policy arguments, as Nick hinted at, regarding the patient and importing QALYs. But at the end of the day, you can't really say there's more than a 50–50 chance on the litigation.

The good news here is that there's a lot more to come. So expect a lot more podcasts on behalf of Value‑Based Cancer Care.

I want to thank Nick and Tim for your time this afternoon and for preparing and the pre‑calls and all of your friendship and guidance. I've always enjoyed our conversations. Appreciate everything you have taught me. And so thank you very much, Nick.

Nick (32:53.966)
Thank you for having me.

Jayson (32:55.88)
…and Tim.

Tim (32:56.632)
Yeah, thanks, Jayson. This was great.

Jayson (32:59)
I appreciate everything you guys have done, like I said, and we look forward to many more conversations. So this wraps up the episode of Value‑Based Voices, brought to you by the Association for Value‑Based Cancer Care.

Like I mentioned, thank you to Tim and Nick for sharing your insights, and to you, our listeners, for joining the conversation. All of us are available on LinkedIn — you can reach out to us for any other comments or questions you may have.

Jayson (33:21.504)
If you found today's discussion thought‑provoking, be sure to subscribe to Value‑Based Voices wherever you get your podcasts, and stay tuned for more episodes that spotlight the voices shaping the future of oncology.

Thank you to AVBCC, and again to Nick and Tim and our organizers, and wishing you all a good rest of your day. Thank you very much.