Podcasts about economic review

In this episode of Uncommon Sense with Ginny Robinson, I'm giving my take (to the best of my ability—because I'm not a tariff expert and neither are most of the people chiming in right now) on Trump's gutsy new tariff move. It's the one that's got half the country cheering and the other half clutching their pearls. While the media yells “economic suicide,” I'm here to suggest that this strategy might actually work—but not overnight. We'll talk about the possibility of long-term gain, the reality of short-term discomfort, and the cultural obsession with instant results when what's often required is patience. I will also go over our collective short attention spans and why longer attention spans are needed for understanding complex issues like this. Every answer won't fit in a 15 second soundbite. At the end of the day, we'll have to pray, wait, and see. Some of the smartest plays take time to unfold.—https://noblegoldinvestments.com/learn/gold-and-silver-guide/?utm_campaign=21243613394&utm_source=g&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=&utm_term=noble%20gold&seg_aprod=&ad_id=698073353663&oid=2&affid=1&utm_source=google&affiliate_source=googleads_brand_bmbc&utm_term=noble%20gold&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADQ2DzJSJ_mi5cJo8dO2FNUs7uNy-&gclid=CjwKCAjwktO_BhBrEiwAV70jXtjSCyioSM2Hz1McTAlR3f8t3KCDDN3-XBWLaIzwJmiEGe0ztxIk5RoCnM0QAvD_BwE

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma e Biotech world.Private equity firms Blackstone and Bain Capital are close to finalizing a potential $3 billion deal for Mitsubishi's pharma unit, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma. In other news, five drugs have been flagged for unjustified price hikes in 2023 by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Incyte and Iteos are cutting drug candidates from their cancer pipelines due to disappointing data, while the FDA advisory committee has called for more research on Moderna's RSV vaccine after safety issues arose. Layoffs have been announced at Intercept and Editas, and there has been a slowdown in M&A activity in the pharma industry this year. US Pharmacopeia is looking for expert volunteers to work on medicine quality challenges.

In today's episode of the Psychedelic Therapy Frontiers podcast Dr. Steve Thayer and Dr. Reid Robison  talk about the recent FDA psychopharmacologic drugs advisory committee meeting that resulted in a majority vote against the approval of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD based on MAPS/Lykos study data. They discuss what the committee's concerns were, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) criticisms of the studies, the challenges of conducting psychedelic clinical trials, functional unblinding, how research and rater bias affects study data, and much more.https://psychedelicalpha.com/news/exclusive-therapists-and-trialists-from-lykos-phase-3-mdma-assisted-therapy-studies-push-back-on-icers-critical-draft-reportLearn more about our podcast at https://numinus.com/podcast/Learn more about psychedelic therapy training opportunities at https://numinus.com/training/Learn more about our clinical trials at https://www.numinus.com/clinical-trials Learn more about Numinus at https://numinus.com/Email us at ptfpodcast@numinus.com Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drstevethayer/https://www.instagram.com/innerspacedoctor/https://www.instagram.com/numinushealth/

In this episode, Joe interviews Dr. Amanda Holley: pharmacologist and regulatory consultant in nonclinical drug development, and previously a nonclinical pharmacology/toxicology reviewer at the FDA. With Lykos Therapeutics working towards FDA approval of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD, ICER (Institute for Clinical and Economic Review) recently published its draft evidence report, concluding that they couldn't endorse this modality. While disappointing to the psychedelic space, this report doesn't determine the FDA's official stance, and also really highlights a lot about how the FDA works, the knowledge gap between consumers and regulators, and how clinical studies should be designed in the future. Holley talks about the FDA's dedication to safety and data, and how, essentially, drug development comes down to a risk/benefit analysis.  She discusses:  Misconceptions about the FDA, especially related to psychedelics The path of a substance in early drug development and how breakthrough status works The complications with blinding psychedelics, the placebo effect, and how much therapy is a factor The contrast between productization and harm reduction: Should we be concerned with creating products, or understanding these substances better? How changing one molecule really does create a different drug and much more! For links, head to the show notes page. 

Sarah Emond (President and CEO, ICER) delves into the efficacy of gene therapy in enhancing patient outcomes and discusses the necessary adjustments the healthcare industry must make to accommodate the cost.

In this episode, Joe interviews Elliot Marseille, DrPH, MPP: founding director of UC Berkeley's Collaborative for the Economics of Psychedelics (CEP), a network of health economists and researchers analyzing the economics behind emerging psychedelic-assisted therapies. In the early days of drug research, efficacy was the leading factor in decision making, but as time has gone on, people are looking much more into the economics of everything: If a government is granted X amount of money, what should they spend it on that will be the most beneficial to the most people? How do you create models for future research and regulations based on the data we have now? Can there be a time in the near future when someone sits before Congress and says, “This is the exact societal cost of not making psychedelic therapy accessible”? He discusses: His early work with the SABA Foundation, studying at the economics behind HIV/AIDS treatments in developing countries His experiences working with Ram Dass and having a big psychedelic journey with Leo Zeff His issues with the recent ICER (Institute for Clinical and Economic Review) report which said they couldn't endorse MDMA-assisted psychotherapy Why we need more studies tracking people for long periods after psychedelic therapy, specifically analyzing their healthcare utilization over time and more! For links, head to the show notes page. 

In this episode, Pam Divack sits down with Sarah Emond, President and CEO of ICER (the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review), an independent non-profit research organization that evaluates the evidence on the clinical and economic value of prescription drugs, medical tests, devices, and health system delivery innovations. They discuss the history of ICER and how it collaborates with stakeholders across the healthcare ecosystem, the key trends and industry pressures giving rise to an increased need for value assessments and comparative effectiveness research, how ICER is working to improve the US Healthcare System, and why this work is critical for aspiring healthcare leaders to track.

In this explosive Whiz solo podcast he lets loose a dual rant, starting by ‘red teaming' a report from an ‘independent nonprofit' and their red team of the MAPS clinical trials. Whiz reminds listeners to ‘follow the money' and questions the use of anonymous first and secondhand sources. He also wonders if it's possible to completely remove bias from any trial (it's not) and asks how a placebo group cannot know they didn't get real MDMA. The report from ICER (Institute for Clinical and Economic Review) is certainly a potential threat to rescheduling the drug for therapeutic use. Whiz shifts his fire to the Biden administrations criticism of the unfortunate drone strike that killed innocent civilians, while reminding listeners we did the exact same thing leaving Afghanistan, with no one being held accountable. He opens the podcast with an update on the No Fallen Heroes universe and the simultaneous efforts underway including docuseries, Healing Realty Trust, My Crew Doses, and NuGrowth Connections.

Treating inflammation in cardiovascular disease includes helping patients to understand the safety and efficacy of prescription and over-the-counter products. Joseph Saseen, Pharm D, FNLA, CLS discusses best practices in clinical decision-making, mechanisms of action , and guideline-based evidence for various anti-inflammatory medications.2023 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Chronic Coronary Disease: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001168CANTOS trial: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1707914ACC guidelines & clinical documents: https://www.acc.org/GuidelinesICER (Institute for Clinical and Economic Review): https://icer.org/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this freewheeling episode of Techcetra, hosts - Shouvik, Leslie and Deepti - discuss recent research from the University of Milano on how smartphone usage adversely affects young children when it comes to linguistic abilities. To correct such issues developed over a while, they then speak of Elon Musk-owned Neuralink and its 1st human trial. Amongst the pros, the hosts state how this invasive brain-computer interface might go a step ahead and be able to help people like Stephen Hawking. Finally, having discussed how Gen Z perceives information differently and having agreed upon how new technologies have always had the power to rewire our brains, they shift our attention to the newly released economic review by the Indian Finance Ministry. They marvel at how the Indian government is unique in stating the advantages and disadvantages of AI on employment. While Shouvik underlines how AI will contribute to 30% of India's 5 trillion economy goal, he also quotes the IMF study which suggests that 40% of the global economy is exposed to AI. At the same time, Leslie reminds us that about 90% of India works in the unorganized sector which might remain unaffected for the time being when it comes to job losses. Here, Deepti quotes Mr. Umakant Soni, Chairman of AI Foundry from a recent AI Rising episode. She highlights how data and desperation will be the 2 deciding factors for India's economic standing in the years to come. Tune in to gain an insight into your present so you can have agency over your future. And if you enjoyed listening to this episode then tune in to the recent AI Rising episode here: https://ai-rising-podcast.simplecast.com/episodes/india-is-the-supermarket-of-problems-building-ai-ecosystem-on-data-desperation

Tom Kavet, Vermont State Economist, joins Kurt & Anthony to discuss his latest report: "January 2024 Economic Review and Revenue Forecast Update"

“Higher for Longer?” Listen in to the Bermuda 2023/4 Economic Review and Outlook with Nathan Kowalski and Jonathan Kent Nathan Kowalski Nathan is the Chief Financial Officer and Senior Portfolio Manager at Anchor Investment Management Ltd. He sits on the firm's investment, compliance, and finance committees and has been with the company since 2003. Nathan holds a Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA), Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), and Chartered Investment Manager (CIM) designation and is a Fellow of CSI (FCSI).   Jonathan Kent, Business Writer Jonathan is a freelance corporate writer for clients in the international business sector and a business journalist. He is well known to many in Bermuda's business community, having previously worked for 15 years as Business Editor of The Royal Gazette. During his journalistic career, he also covered news and sports for UK national and regional newspapers and magazines, including the Daily Mail, The Independent on Sunday and the Grimsby Telegraph. Jonathan has an MSc in International Management from the University of Liverpool.

(7/7/23) The Fed's Trillion-dollar question is whether they can thread the needle between a strong market and economic data and the need to control inflation; the market must realize the Fed's not done yet. Market resiliency remains surprising. Who will play the part of Elon Musk in biopic film? Our next Candid Coffee teaser: Mid-year Economic Review. Stock exposure in late-stage portfolios: Shifting from accumulation to distribution mode. Avoiding the black hole of retirement; being initially conservative. Portfolio allocations are meant to be fluid. Variables like maxed-out SS, life expectancy; respecting the retirement guardrails. How do Millionaires spend their money? No processed food: Health = wealth; no cheap stuff; buy in the middle. Look for dependability in durable goods purchases. SEG-1: The Fed's Trillion-dollar Question SEG-2: The Big Shift: Accumulation to Distribution in Retirement SEG-3: The Big Shift, Pt-2 SEG-4: How Millionaires Spend Money Hosted by RIA Advisors Director of Financial Planning, Richard Rosso, CFP, w Senior Advisor Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer -------- Watch today's show on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0FtoN-4dZw&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1 -------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell | "What Bond Prices are Telling us About the Economy" is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDypZ7rQbHg&list=PLwNgo56zE4RA3snVQyugvOF5TwZ1Xu7bm&index=1 -------- Our previous show is here: "Employment Report Preview" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxNlWup0xM&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=3s -------- Register for our next web event: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/6816835709464/WN_ItmsNXpsRs2uKE6xOrJtdg ------- Get more info & commentary: https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #InvestingAdvice #Retirement #Distribution #Accumulation #Millionaire #Employment #Economy #FederalReserve #InterestRates #Markets #Money #Investing

(7/7/23) The Fed's Trillion-dollar question is whether they can thread the needle between a strong market and economic data and the need to control inflation; the market must realize the Fed's not done yet. Market resiliency remains surprising. Who will play the part of Elon Musk in biopic film? Our next Candid Coffee teaser: Mid-year Economic Review. Stock exposure in late-stage portfolios: Shifting from accumulation to distribution mode. Avoiding the black hole of retirement; being initially conservative. Portfolio allocations are meant to be fluid. Variables like maxed-out SS, life expectancy; respecting the retirement guardrails. How do Millionaires spend their money? No processed food: Health = wealth; no cheap stuff; buy in the middle. Look for dependability in durable goods purchases.   SEG-1: The Fed's Trillion-dollar Question SEG-2: The Big Shift: Accumulation to Distribution in Retirement SEG-3: The Big Shift, Pt-2 SEG-4: How Millionaires Spend Money   Hosted by RIA Advisors Director of Financial Planning, Richard Rosso, CFP, w Senior Advisor Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer -------- Watch today's show on our YouTube channel:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0FtoN-4dZw&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1 -------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell | "What Bond Prices are Telling us About the Economy" is here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDypZ7rQbHg&list=PLwNgo56zE4RA3snVQyugvOF5TwZ1Xu7bm&index=1 --------  Our previous show is here: "Employment Report Preview" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxNlWup0xM&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=3s -------- Register for our next web event: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/6816835709464/WN_ItmsNXpsRs2uKE6xOrJtdg ------- Get more info & commentary:  https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #InvestingAdvice #Retirement #Distribution #Accumulation #Millionaire #Employment #Economy #FederalReserve #InterestRates #Markets #Money #Investing

(6/30/23) Markets appear to be breaking out of the malaise; when does the market train run out of steam? Lessons from the Luling Watermelon Thump (IYKYK): a.) Don't eat all of the chicken all at once; b.) Don't owe nothing to nobody; c.) The heat won't kill you until it does; d.) Hay is gold; e.) Small amount of quality over a stack o' nothing (buy in the middle); f.) The past has a place, but don't forget the present; g.) You can fool yourself, but the pigs will still laugh at you. Mid-year Economic Review preview (it's July 22nd); How to boost your retirement income by 29% with annuities; must be planned for, not sold to. The 4% Rule is done. SEG-1: When Does the Market Train Run Out of Steam? SEG-2: Lessons from the Luling Watermelon Thump, Pt-1 SEG-3: Lessons from the Luling Watermelon Thump, Pt-2 SEG-4: How to Boost Retirement Income Hosted by RIA Advisors Director of Financial Planning, Richard Rosso, CFP, w Senior Advisor Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer -------- Watch today's show on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C0g2xXwOGE&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1 -------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell | "The Risk-Reward in the Markets is Limited" is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBMcx3r3KA&list=PLwNgo56zE4RA3snVQyugvOF5TwZ1Xu7bm&index=1 -------- Our previous show is here: "Is a Recession Yet to Come?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ProPPk4AvOw&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=4s -------- Article Mentioned in Today's Show: "Treasury Yield Curves – Is This Inversion Different?" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/treasury-yield-curves-is-this-inversion-different ------- Get more info & commentary: https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #InvestingAdvice #MarketExuberance #FinancialAdvice #RetirementIncome #Annuity #LulingTexas #LulingWatermelonThump #Markets #Money #Investing

(6/30/23) Markets appear to be breaking out of the malaise; when does the market train run out of steam? Lessons from the Luling Watermelon Thump (IYKYK): a.) Don't eat all of the chicken all at once; b.) Don't owe nothing to nobody; c.) The heat won't kill you until it does; d.) Hay is gold; e.) Small amount of quality over a stack o' nothing (buy in the middle); f.) The past has a place, but don't forget the present; g.) You can fool yourself, but the pigs will still laugh at you. Mid-year Economic Review preview (it's July 22nd); How to boost your retirement income by 29% with annuities; must be planned for, not sold to. The 4% Rule is done.   SEG-1: When Does the Market Train Run Out of Steam? SEG-2: Lessons from the Luling Watermelon Thump, Pt-1 SEG-3: Lessons from the Luling Watermelon Thump, Pt-2 SEG-4: How to Boost Retirement Income   Hosted by RIA Advisors Director of Financial Planning, Richard Rosso, CFP, w Senior Advisor Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer -------- Watch today's show on our YouTube channel:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C0g2xXwOGE&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1 -------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell | "The Risk-Reward in the Markets is Limited" is here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBMcx3r3KA&list=PLwNgo56zE4RA3snVQyugvOF5TwZ1Xu7bm&index=1 --------  Our previous show is here: "Is a Recession Yet to Come?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ProPPk4AvOw&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=4s -------- Article Mentioned in Today's Show: "Treasury Yield Curves – Is This Inversion Different?" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/treasury-yield-curves-is-this-inversion-different ------- Get more info & commentary:  https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #InvestingAdvice #MarketExuberance #FinancialAdvice #RetirementIncome #Annuity #LulingTexas #LulingWatermelonThump #Markets #Money #Investing

(6/9/23) Carvana's crash: Who wants to buy a car from a vending machine? Personal Financial Strategies and habits; from everything-Bitcoin to everything-AI. The fastest Shrinking Jobs in America: McDonald's kiosk revolution; "Soylent Green" and "The Purge" in real life? Financial losses in elder fraud are on the rise; cryptocurrency scams. Subscription purchase scams. The explosion of AI. Moderation in Technology use: Gen-x moving away from smartphones to flip phones. Economists expect the Fed will pause and remain on hold. Danny's tales of kids' lemonade stand plans, ice cream trucks, and Richard's new "Donuts and Dolls" food truck idea. Teaser for next Candid Coffee Mid-year Economic Review. SEG-1: Personal Financial Strategies & Habits SEG-2: The Fastest-shrinking Jobs in America SEG-3: Moderation in Technology & The Fed on Hold SEG-4: Kid Business: Lemonade Stands & Ice Cream Trucks Hosted by RIA Advisors Director of Financial Planning, Richard Rosso, CFP, w Senior Advisor Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer -------- Watch today's show on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7usjxMSvHI&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=2672s -------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell | is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2asRoGHK6Xs&list=PLwNgo56zE4RAbkqxgdj-8GOvjZTp9_Zlz&index=1 -------- Our previous show is here: "The Markets' Bet: No Recession" " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uvPN2nT0pc&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=4s -------- Articles Mentioned in Today's Show: Relative Rotation – Unlocking the Hidden Potential Part 1 https://realinvestmentadvice.com/relative-rotation-unlocking-the-hidden-potential-part-1 ------- Get more info & commentary: https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #InvestingAdvice #CryptoCurrencyScams #PersonalFinance #JobLosses #Technoloy #FederalReserve #LemonadeStands #IcecreamTrucks #BlueBunny #BlueBell #Markets #Money #Investing

(6/9/23) Carvana's crash: Who wants to buy a car from a vending machine? Personal Financial Strategies and habits;  from everything-Bitcoin to everything-AI. The fastest Shrinking Jobs in America: McDonald's kiosk revolution; "Soylent Green" and "The Purge" in real life? Financial losses in elder fraud are on the rise; cryptocurrency scams. Subscription purchase scams. The explosion of AI. Moderation in Technology use: Gen-x moving away from smartphones to flip phones. Economists expect the Fed will pause and remain on hold. Danny's tales of kids' lemonade stand plans, ice cream trucks, and Richard's new "Donuts and Dolls" food truck idea. Teaser for next Candid Coffee Mid-year Economic Review. SEG-1: Personal Financial Strategies & Habits SEG-2: The Fastest-shrinking Jobs in America SEG-3: Moderation in Technology & The Fed on Hold SEG-4: Kid Business: Lemonade Stands & Ice Cream Trucks Hosted by RIA Advisors Director of Financial Planning, Richard Rosso, CFP, w Senior Advisor Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer -------- Watch today's show on our YouTube channel:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7usjxMSvHI&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=2672s -------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell | is here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2asRoGHK6Xs&list=PLwNgo56zE4RAbkqxgdj-8GOvjZTp9_Zlz&index=1 --------  Our previous show is here: "The Markets' Bet: No Recession" " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uvPN2nT0pc&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=4s -------- Articles Mentioned in Today's Show: Relative Rotation – Unlocking the Hidden Potential Part 1 https://realinvestmentadvice.com/relative-rotation-unlocking-the-hidden-potential-part-1 ------- Get more info & commentary:  https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #InvestingAdvice #CryptoCurrencyScams #PersonalFinance #JobLosses #Technoloy #FederalReserve #LemonadeStands #IcecreamTrucks #BlueBunny #BlueBell #Markets #Money #Investing

Our breakdown of the markets in the first quarter followed by a look ahead to the second. • Learn more at thriventfunds.com • Follow us on LinkedIn • Share feedback and questions with us at podcast@thriventfunds.com • Thrivent Distributors, LLC is a member of FINRA/SIPC and a subsidiary of Thrivent, the marketing name for Thrivent Financial for Lutherans.

I hope you listened to episode 399, which was Part 1 of this two-part exploration of my manifesto, meaning my aims and my path or framework to achieve those aims. Regarding the first part of my manifesto, episode 399 from two weeks ago, here's the tl;dl (too long, didn't listen) version; but please go back and listen to that show (Part 1) because it's about you—and it's a compliment and a thank you, and you deserve both. Just to quickly recap, Part 1 of my manifesto is that I started this show because I want to, and wanted to, provide information to those in the healthcare industry trying to do the right thing by patients, to get you the insights that you might need to pull that off, to create a Coalition of the Willing, as I've heard it called. When we get reviews like the one from Megan Aldridge, a self-proclaimed Relentless Health Value binge listener, I feel very gratified because it makes me feel like I'm chipping away at this mission and in a non-boring way. Thank you, Megan. Along these lines, there was also a recent review from Mallory Sonagere, who says she listens to learn new things and to be a little sharper at how she approaches her day job. And just one more I'll mention: I loved the review from Mark Nixon calling Relentless Health Value the best healthcare podcast out there. Every review like this I take as validation that maybe I can count some measure of success toward achieving the mission to empower others on their journeys to make it better for patients or to transform the healthcare industry. But this whole endeavor to create a manifesto is also borne out of me struggling personally to figure out what “having personal integrity” in this business actually means when it comes to deciding what to do and what not to do, when it comes to deciding who or what to try to help or support or who or what to step away from either passively or actively. I mean, how this podcast gets funded is my business partner and I pay for it with money from our consulting business and from some tech products that we have on offer. Who do we choose to take on as clients, and what are we willing to do for them or help them with? These are questions that literally keep me up at night. And this is what this episode, Part 2, is all about. It's about my struggle and how I attempt to navigate my own path forward. And holy shnikeys, it's tough to find a path, especially when you have the sort of perspective that I've wound up with over these past however many years. It can feel like no matter what I do, there's negatives as it relates to the Quadruple Aim. You raise one of the quadrants, and something else for somebody else certainly has the potential to be negatively impacted. We cannot forget here in the short term, but, for sure, often in the longer term as well, it's a zero-sum game. Every dollar someone takes in profit under the banner of improving health or even saving money is a dollar that someone else paid for. Is the amount of profit fair? Where'd that money come from? Is there COI (conflict of interest), and if so, what's the impact? I think hard about things like this. An inescapable fact is that there has been a financialization of the healthcare industry, and that includes everybody who also gets sucked into the healthcare industry whether they want to be or not (ie, patients/members and plan sponsors and, oftentimes, physicians and other clinicians, too). But the financialization of healthcare means that most everybody at the healthcare industry party has a self-interest to either make money or save money. And sometimes the saving money means saving money for themselves, not necessarily anything that is ever gonna accrue to patients or members. Now let's say I'm trying to determine if I want to take on a new client or decide if I personally want to promote or do something or other. This self-interest that abounds all around matters here because it means it is often very tough to find some kind of “pure” initiative to hitch your wagon to. The crushing reality that we all face is you gotta earn a living. The other reality is that often the person that benefits from the thing you want to do (ie, the patient) is not gonna pay for it. And frequently, physician organizations won't either. If everybody was lining up to pay to get something fixed, the problem would not be a problem, after all. But the only way your moral compass is the only moral compass in play is if you're doing whatever you're doing for free, really, or by yourself—and thus you are not encumbered by anybody else or any self-interest beyond your own … and your own motives are the only motives that you can control. I hear all the time initiatives and coalitions and advocacy organizations and even research funded by grants … these things also get bashed as suspect because who'd that money come from and whose “side” are the funders on. Nikhil Krishnan wrote on LinkedIn the other day (and I'm gonna do a little bit of editing, but yeah). He wrote: “Patients have low trust in healthcare because they think every stakeholder is incentivized not in their best interest. Many patients think the hospitals want to keep them sick, the [carriers and plan sponsors] don't want to pay their claims, the drug companies want to keep them on their meds, etc. And we can't pretend like that … isn't true.” Every party, every stakeholder has some measure of self-interest. They have to; otherwise, they'd be out of business. It's all a matter of degrees. No big group, no entire category gets to stand on the high ground here when you think like a patient. There's great hospitals and great people who work at hospitals, and then there's people doing things that cause a strikingly large percentage of patients to fear going to the hospital for clinical and/or financial reasons. Pick any other stakeholder and I'd tell you the same thing. Any other stakeholder. It's basically up to us as individuals to do the right thing. In every sector of the healthcare industry, there's good eggs and there's bad eggs and there's eggs in the middle just doing their day jobs as instructed. Personally, I want to be a good egg, and that's what my manifesto is all about. Let me dig into this a bit further for just a sec and then I'll continue with my personal manifesto for how I find my own path of integrity through all of this confusion. Here's another anecdote. Stuff like this I make myself crazy thinking about: I was listening to a podcast, and one of the guests said, “I wanted to get my MPH [Master of Public Health] because I felt a personal calling to be altruistic.” Then, 120 seconds later, he says something like, “So then, when it came time to pick my internship, I hunted around to find the one that paid the most money—and that's how I wound up working for an HMO in the '90s.” Consider how that strikes you. How do you feel about that guy right now, who, by the way, has gone on to support some very interesting and probably impactful initiatives? There's this commonly used phrase, “Let's do well by doing good.” So, back to that HMO intern. Let's just say we all agree that these HMOs were not unconflicted organizations. We all know they had a reputation for putting profits over members, and a reason they went out of business was because they denied care. They refused to pay claims for patients who had AIDS. And it turns out that the friends and families of people with AIDS are incredibly well organized and sued the crap out of the HMOs, which may have expedited their demise. You know what the intern was doing at the HMO? He was helping them with data analytics, and his personal goal was to use that data to improve patient outcomes. So, okay … here's the thought experiment: Do we want this HMO taking money that they're gonna take anyway and then not adding the value that they potentially could add with their data because they don't have any smart, dedicated, highly compensated interns working there to keep the ship pointed in a decent direction? I mean, I guess if I know I'm gonna spend a dollar as a member of that plan, I'd prefer to get as much as possible for my dollar that is already being spent. Maybe from that perspective, this guy is doing well by doing good. You see how this gets messy when you take a theoretical statement and then apply everyone's real-world prejudices and predilections to it. Here's a last point to ponder, and this is another thought experiment … so, just heads up and then I'll get to the point here: Say you are asked to help with a program run by a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan to provide those in need of transportation a ride to their annual wellness exam. Do you help? Those who listen to this show will fully understand there's a lot of self-interest involved in getting patients to the annual wellness exam because … risk adjustment. Also, star ratings. Listen to the show with Betsy Seals (EP375 and EP387) if you need the full story here. Short version is, MA plans can't upcode, either fairly or aggressively (if they are so inclined), if the patients don't show up for their annual physical. So, there's a lot of money for them at stake. But, then again, are physicals important for patients? Do they improve patient care and health? If we think yes, then again, is this doing well by doing good to help patients get to their appointments? After literally years of asking myself questions like this—and most of them were not thought experiments—I came up with my manifesto. And there are three parts to it, and I will go through each of them. But here's my manifesto in full: If the thing results in a net positive for patients, then I will do it. The timeframe is short-term or medium-term. And the assumption is that it will take a village and I am not alone in my efforts to transform healthcare or do right by patients. Here's how I think about the first part of my manifesto: If the thing results in a net positive for patients, then I'll do it. And keep in mind, I could talk about this for seven hours; so everything I'm saying is oversimplified to some degree and has as many nuances as there are stars in the sky. So, to calculate the net-positive impact, I think through what good the thing could do and weigh that against the negatives. And there are always negatives because, most of the time, the work that I do anyway has to get paid for by somebody and that somebody has some self-interest. Self-interest means that they are attaining something that furthers their business goals. Let me list two major upside/downside contemplations: 1. How much good does the thing actually do for patients? I think about this. What's the value here? Is it a little? Is it a lot? Will this thing be a distraction for clinicians, because time is often the most precious currency? If we're talking about some kind of navigation or utilization management, what's the reason someone wants to do this? Is the reason clinically and, for reals, evidence driven? Or are we predominantly doing this to enrich shareholders or save plan sponsors money in ways that are not a win-win for patients in the clinic right now trying to get cancer treatments for their kid? I try to think like a patient and be as impartial as possible. 2. Money. Where's the money for this thing coming from, and who wins in this particular initiative (ie, is it a win-win and patients win something worthwhile)? Now, the company doing the funding has got to win, too; otherwise, they wouldn't fund the thing. That's where it gets subjective, and, as aforementioned, do I care if the company in question wins if the patient wins, too? Or is this company so damn evil at its core that I am willing to sacrifice the opportunity to do a good thing for patients in order to not have anything to do with said possible funding entity. Or am I cutting off my nose to spite my face because this is a really important thing for patients and this particular company is the only one that's gonna fund it? Because tragedy of the commons or whatever else. Again, this gets dicey really fast. Let me poorly paraphrase a little exchange I saw on LinkedIn the other day that had me completely preoccupied during my work-from-home midday walk around the block for at least three days. Somebody wrote (maybe that Master of Public Health intern), “Given how intractable it feels to me to try to reduce healthcare spend, I think I'm going to try to help patients get more value out of the dollars that are currently being spent by them or on their behalf.” Do you think that's a worthy goal? Well, not everyone does. Somebody in T-minus 8 seconds responded, “That's a toxic way of thinking. Everyone who is not actively working to reduce healthcare spend by putting patients in cash-pay models is part of the problem.” This is a good segue into the second part of my manifesto. The first part is: If the thing results in a net positive for patients, then I'll do it. Here's the second part: The timeframe is short-term or medium-term. And here's what I mean by that. My main focus is helping patients right now. This is what this has to do with the aforementioned exchange on LinkedIn wherein someone was trying to figure out how to get more out of the dollars we're currently spending and someone else said that's toxic, because we should rip it all down and build a better model. There's incremental change, and then there's disruptive change. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Apparently, Mr. This Is Toxic doesn't agree with me, but as I said in the last episode, there's that Buckminster Fuller quote: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” And sure, I like to aspire to that as much as the next person. But does aspiring to a big hairy goal mean completely forgoing any incremental ways that patients can be helped immediately, like right now? If you ask me—and you're listening to this, so you de facto asked me—incremental change will probably actually support and beget disruptive change. So, incremental versus disruption is not a battle royale. These things are not diametrically opposed. They're probably actually aligned. I could go on a tangent here to explain why, but I'm not going to … except to say tipping points. But forget about that for a sec. Here's the more basic question: If all parties are interested in transforming healthcare, legit, how does someone trying to do it incrementally, or improve value for patients right now, in any way negatively impact someone trying to be disruptive and/or trying to change financial models? Keep all this in mind and now let me get back to my manifesto. I'm worried about patients, and I'm worried about them largely right now, short term to medium term. So, if I have the opportunity to help a patient—and I think about my two grandmothers (God rest their souls) here, but both of them would have died in the healthcare system multiple times in avoidable ways had my family not been there advocating for them—if I have the opportunity to help a patient, I will do so as long as I believe that the impact is a net positive in the shorter term. Disruption is a longer-term operation. Some have said it's a generational change. When I see stuff like Toxicity Guy wrote on LinkedIn, I really try to understand what his point is, as I always try to understand what people's points are. Could he be arguing that no one should work to improve care right now or try to maximize what we get for the bucks that we've already been shelling out? And, if so, for what reason … so that what happens? So that resentment about poor-quality care builds up to a boiling point such that everybody shuns the status quo and moves to a new care model and financial models faster? Is that the aim of Toxicity Guy? To force a let-them-eat-cake moment for the purposes of triggering a faster revolution? I've probably thought about this guy's motives and his potential impact harder than he has. In my manifesto, in my worldview, I don't let grandmas suffer right now so that someone else has a better narrative, even if I am in full support of what that person is trying to do and the mission that they are on, which, by the way, is a longer-term one. This gets me to the third part of my manifesto: The assumption is that transforming the healthcare industry will take a village and I am not alone. When I state this outright, it's gonna seem self-evident; but sometimes it's hard to not push blame here like Toxicity Guy, so I say this sort of in his defense. Here's the point of contemplation: There's maybe four big parts of the healthcare industry at a minimum. We have those trying to fix SDoH (social determinants [or drivers] of health). We have those trying to fix medical morbidity (ie, are patients on evidence-based pathways and taking meds appropriately, limiting polypharmacy side effects/cascades). Once a patient is in the healthcare system, what happens then? Then we have those working hard to improve behavioral/mental health. And lastly, everything going on with what I'm gonna call FDoH (financial determinants of health)—patients making decisions or having decisions made for them due to financial implications for them or for somebody else. Lots of stuff rolls up under these categories, but even just listing out these four things, we got a hell of a lot of work to do to improve the lot of patients and taxpayers and make it easier to do business in this country. I always try to keep in mind that it will take a village. Just because someone is working on getting patients housing or eating better does not imply that they don't care about employers struggling to curb claims billing waste, fraud, and abuse—and vice versa. It's just not everybody can do everything. For me personally, I tend to focus my attention on helping as many patients as possible get on what would be for them the optimal treatment plan or best care pathway. That does not mean I'm anti-someone working on getting more competition in the payer space. Nor does it mean I'm against trying to curb the price of overpriced (as per ICER [Institute for Clinical and Economic Review]) pharmaceutical products or legislate to rein in hospitals doing stuff that, in my book, they should not be doing. I am all for getting all of these things done. I just do not have the bandwidth or the depth of expertise to do everything myself. I would suspect that no one does. As my grandma used to say (and anyone who attended a slumber party seance in eighth grade might know), many hands make light work. You get 15 girls each holding out but two fingers, and you can lift up your friend, no problem. When I keep in mind that it takes a village, it helps me curtail the tendency to become paralyzed in my quest to help patients because I can see a potential problem it might create somewhere else in the industry or somewhere else down the line. I have to trust that one of my fellow villagers is holding down that end of the fort. Here's a quote from J. Michael Connors, MD, that he wrote in his newsletter: “When you point one finger, three are pointing back at you … It's like everything you learned in kindergarten seems to be so applicable to our approach to healthcare. Sadly, the game of finger pointing and pushing blame on others is killing real innovation in healthcare.” This is so real, which is why inherent in my manifesto here is my efforts to remember we are all on the same team (all the good eggs, anyway). That it takes a village, that there will be some things that some people are doing that I maybe don't fully agree with. There might be groups who don't accomplish much. There are certain people doing well (ie, doing self-interested things) but, at the same time, creating a better place for patients. As long as, in general, we are all following the same North Star, we'll achieve much more spending our time focused on our own missions and not worrying about what other people are doing. And when I say “not worrying about what other people are doing,” I mean people in the “good egg” village. I do not mean I intend to stop calling out conflicted and net-negative self-interested behavior, because this is what some people in the village should hopefully have their eyes on and get busy working against. The village here, it's a Venn diagram. At the point where other people's circles intersect with my mission or what I think would be better for patients, these are the people I can work with and collaborate with. These are the people that I'd take their business or I'd try to help them if I can. My manifesto is to determine when something is a positive for patients and then to find others who will win as a result of that thing happening. Then I can study why this is a win for those others, which is always going to be some self-interested why. And then I can think through what the negatives are if their self-interest comes to fruition. Is it still a net positive? If yes, proceed. Look, this making it better for patients, this transforming healthcare, it is hard, dispiriting work. It's a long slog. I'd like to suggest we encourage each other. Can we be the wind beneath each other's wings when we find a kindred spirit? Can we focus on the points of intersection and spend our energy deepening what's going on there? So again, here's my manifesto: If the thing results in a net positive for patients, then I'll do it. The timeframe I'm concerned about … short-term, medium-term. The assumption is that it will take a village to transform healthcare and I am not alone. I feel kind of exhausted having finished that. But let me ask you this: What is your manifesto? If you have one or if you have thoughts on this, go to our Web site and click on the orange button to leave a voice message. My hope is to do an upcoming show sharing what you think.   For more information, go to aventriahealth.com.   Each week on Relentless Health Value, Stacey uses her voice and thought leadership to provide insights for healthcare industry decision makers trying to do the right thing. Each show features expert guests who break down the twists and tricks in the medical field to help improve outcomes and lower costs across the care continuum. Relentless Health Value is a top 100 podcast on iTunes in the medicine category and reaches tens of thousands of engaged listeners across the healthcare industry. In addition to hosting Relentless Health Value, Stacey is co-president of QC-Health, a benefit corporation finding cost-effective ways to improve the health of Americans. She is also co-president of Aventria Health Group, a consultancy working with clients who endeavor to form collaborations with payers, providers, Pharma, employer organizations, or patient advocacy groups.   03:16 “It's a zero-sum game.” 03:26 Is the amount of profit fair? 03:37 What is an inescapable fact of the healthcare industry? 03:54 What does the financialization of healthcare mean? 04:19 Why does the self-interest in healthcare matter? 06:18 “It's basically up to us as individuals to do the right thing.” 10:03 What is the first part of Stacey's manifesto? 10:18 How does Stacey calculate the net positive of an impact? 10:41 What are two major upsides/downsides that Stacey contemplates? 13:31 Why are incremental change and disruptive change not mutually exclusive? 17:40 “I always try to keep in mind that it will take a village.” 19:19 Why finger pointing is killing innovation in healthcare.   For more information, go to aventriahealth.com.   Our host, Stacey Richter, discusses our #healthcarepodcast and where she sees the path moving forward. #healthcare #podcast   Recent past interviews: Click a guest's name for their latest RHV episode! Dawn Cornelis (Encore! EP285), Stacey Richter (EP399), Dr Jacob Asher, Paul Holmes, Anna Hyde, Dea Belazi (Encore! EP293), Brennan Bilberry, Dr Vikas Saini and Judith Garber, David Muhlestein, Nikhil Krishnan (Encore! EP355)  

Taking stock of the major themes and market developments within the final chapter of 2022. What's carried over into 2023? • Learn more at thriventfunds.com • Follow us on LinkedIn • Share feedback and questions with us at podcast@thriventfunds.com • Thrivent Distributors, LLC is a member of FINRA/SIPC and a subsidiary of Thrivent, the marketing name for Thrivent Financial for Lutherans.

Dans cet épisode de Sujet Capital, James Parkyn et François Doyon La Rochelle discutent le sujet suivant à propos des placements et de la planification financière:  Actualité: Revue des statistiques des marchés en 2022  Sujet principal: Leçons de 2002 et perspectives 2023   - Statistiques de marché – Parkyn Doyon La Rochelle – décembre 2022: Statistiques de marché - Parkyn Doyon La Rochelle - décembre 2022 - PWL Capital  -Balado #45: L'investissement en Obligation dans un Nouvel Environnement de Taux d'Intérêt: Épisode 45 : L'investissement en obligation dans un nouvel environnement de taux d'intérêt — Sujet Capital  -Balado #44: Banques Centrales et Récessions: Épisode 44 : Banques Centrales et Récessions — Sujet Capital  -Balado #43: Planification du Revenu de RETARITE: Les Retraits de votre Portefeuille devraient-ils varier en fonction du Marché : Épisode 43 : Planification du revenu de retraite : les retraits de votre portefeuille devraient-ils varier en fonction du marché ? — Sujet Capital  -L'Article Dimensional: Market Review 2022: After a Down Year, Looking to the Past as a Guide | Dimensional  -L'Article de Jason Zweig: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who Knew That Stocks Would Fall? - WSJ  -L'Article de Larry Swedroe: Fourth Quarter 2022 Economic Review and Outlook - Articles - Advisor Perspectives  “The Psychology of Money” écrit par Morgan Housel: The Psychology of Money: Timeless lessons on wealth, greed, and happiness: Housel, Morgan: 9780857197689: Books - Amazon.ca 

In this episode of Capital Topics, James Parkyn and François Doyon La Rochelle discuss the following portfolio management and financial planning subjects:  In the News: 2022 Market Statistics  Main Topic: 2022 Investing Lessons & 2023 Outlook   -Market Statistics – Parkyn Doyon La Rochelle – December 2022: Market Statistics - Parkyn Doyon La Rochelle - December 2022 - PWL Capital  -Podcast #45: Bond Investing A New Landscape: Episode 45: Bond Investing A New Landscape — Capital Topics  -Podcast #44: Central Banks and Recessions: Episode 44: Central Banks and Recessions — Capital Topics  -Podcast #43: Retirement Income Planning: Should Your Portfolio Withdrawals Vary with the Market?: Episode 43: Retirement Income Planning: Should Your Portfolio Withdrawals Vary with the Market? — Capital Topics  -Dimensional's Article: Market Review 2022: After a Down Year, Looking to the Past as a Guide | Dimensional  -Jason Zweig's Article: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who Knew That Stocks Would Fall? - WSJ  -Larry Swedroe's Article: Fourth Quarter 2022 Economic Review and Outlook - Articles - Advisor Perspectives  “The Psychology of Money” by Morgan Housel: The Psychology of Money: Timeless lessons on wealth, greed, and happiness: Housel, Morgan: 9780857197689: Books - Amazon.ca 

(11/16/22) What does 2023 hold in store for investors? Everyone's bearish, no one is bullish, and it's a perfect time for contrarian investors. The adverse impact of California's stimmie checks on October Retail Sales report. Impact of on-line learning on students' test score (the tale of Tommy Roberts' testing side-gig); do Amazon's layoffs portend Recession? (No) The good news in Congressional gridlock; the psychology of investing. What Amazon's layoffs really mean; markets are like fish out of water (Garry Shandling reference). Yellowstone Season 5 premiers; Lance's wife is like 'that' character. The effect of Midterms on Taxes and why Congressional gridlock is good; estate taxes, capital gains taxes; charitable donations. The historic irony of Artemis-I. SEG-1: A Perfect Time for Contrarians SEG-2: Online Learning & Student Scores; Economic Review review SEG-3: What Company Layoffs Really Mean (It's not as bad as it seems) SEG-4: Yellowstone Premier, Scary Wives, & Midterm Effects on Taxes Hosted by RIA Advisors Chief Investment Strategist Lance Roberts, CIO w Senior Advisor, Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer -------- Watch today's show on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYB38yoUrtQ&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=2826s -------- Our Latest "Three Minutes on Markets & Money: "Retail Sales & False Confidence" is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChJSu_oNPTw&list=PLVT8LcWPeAujOhIFDH3jRhuLDpscQaq16&index=1 -------- Our previous show is here: "The FTX Fiasco & Bankruptcy - A Sign of the Times" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu0wDff5Iyw&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=2669s -------- Articles mentioned in this podcast: "The Big Short Squeeze Is Coming" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/the-big-short-squeeze-is-coming/ -------- Get more info & commentary: https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to RIA Pro: https://riapro.net/home -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #InvestingAdvice #RetailSales #Inflation #ContrarianInvestor #CaliforniaStimulus #YellowstoneSeason5 #AmazonLayoffs #MidtermElecton #CongressionalGridlock #Markets #Money #Investing

Korea24 – 2022.08.22. (Monday) News Briefing: The Korean won continued to fall against the US dollar, closing at 1,339.80. It also surpassed the 1,340 mark during the day’s session for the first time in 13 years. (Tom McCarthy) In-Depth News Analysis: US President Joe Biden signed into law the 740 billion-dollar Inflation Reduction Act last week, which seeks to tamp down on inflation and tackle climate change. Included in the plan are tax credits for electric vehicles(EV), but only for those assembled in North America, dealing a blow to South Korean carmakers which manufacture all of their EVs at home. To learn more about the situation, Cho Jae-hwan, a car journalist for Economic Review, joins us on the line. Korea Trending with Walter Lee: 1. The police have confirmed that the woman believed to be the mother of two children whose bodies were found in a suitcase in New Zealand earlier this month is currently residing in South Korea. (뉴질랜드 가방 속 아동 시신···“어머니 추정 여성 한국에”) 2. Police are investigating the head of an entertainment agency after he allegedly forced trainees to send photos of themselves in underwear every week. (연습생에게 속옷사진 요구한 기획사 대표 경찰 수사 착수) 3. The annual “Space-out” Competition in Seoul, where participants are judged on how well they sit and do nothing, will be held for the first time in three years. ('한강 멍때리기 대회' 내달 4일 잠수교서 3년 만에 개최) Monday Sports Round-up: Three games into the new Premier League season, last season’s Golden Boot winner, Son Heung-min of Tottenham Hotspur, has yet to score. Sports reporter Yoo Jee-ho from the Yonhap News Agency joins us on the line to brief us on Son’s goalless start to the season, as well as the latest from the K League, the KBO and the PGA Tour. Morning Edition Preview with Richard Larkin: - In tomorrow’s Korea Herald, Park Jun-hee reports on how K-pop idols are finding more opportunities in musical theater in recent years. - Tomorrow’s Korea Times features a report by Kwak Yeon-soo on Brad Pitt’s fourth visit to Korea to promote his upcoming film “Bullet Train” with co-star Aaron Taylor-Johnson.

Pink Sheet reporter reviews recent stories on US FDA concerns about the EU data protection regulation, the US enacting the Medicare price negotiation law, warning letters sent to Emergent BioSolutions and ImprimisRx, and Amylyx's ALS drug going in front of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Happy New Year from the SALT Shaker Podcast! In the first episode of 2022 SALT Shaker Podcast focused on policy issues, host and Eversheds Sutherland Partner Nikki Dobay welcomes Lucy Dadayan, senior research associate with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, where she is leading the State Tax and Economic Review project. Lucy is an expert on state government revenues. And, during their discussion, they discuss where state tax revenues were before the pandemic, what happened during the pandemic, and where the states are coming into 2022.  Then, they wrap up with Nikki's surprise non-tax question – what's your New Year's Eve ritual? The Eversheds Sutherland State and Local Tax team has been engaged in state tax policy work for years, tracking tax legislation, helping clients gauge the impact of various proposals, drafting talking points and rewriting legislation. Partner Nikki Dobay, who has an extensive background in tax policy, hosts this series, which is focused on state and local tax policy issues. Questions or comments? Email SALTonline@eversheds-sutherland.com.

RFD Radio's Jim Taylor visits with Brad Zwilling of Illinois FBFM. His latest piece in FarmDoc Daily is titled "Economic Review of Milk Costs in 2020 and Projections for the Rest of 2021 and 2022".

This episode of The Economic Review discusses where the burden of corporate taxes actually falls. ·        A brief history of corporate tax in America ·        The burden of corporate tax on workers and consumers ·        How the burden is divided amongst consumers, workers and shareholders ·        Why Congress is pushing for an increase the corporate tax rate

Sneha graduated from Indiana University in May 2020 where she majored in chronic illness advocacy as well as journalism. She created the Health Advocacy Summit (HAS) and its program the Crohn's and Colitis Young Adults Network (CCYAN) with support from foundations such as the Helmsley Charitable Trust to create support systems for adolescents and young adults with chronic medical disabilities across the U.S. and internationally. She is proud to work with a team composed entirely of young adults with chronic medical disabilities and also to keep the HAS and CCYAN and independent from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Sneha has completed an undergraduate research fellowship in health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. She has also interned at numerous places such as Pfizer Global Headquarters in health economics and outcomes research for Inflammation and Immunology. Sneha has spoken on Capitol Hill, featured nationally on C-SPAN, and is a past contributor for U.S. News and World Report. She has served on the Democratic National Committee Disability Policy Subcommittee and recently joined the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council, an independent appraisal committee of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Sneha was awarded two academic fellowships with the Association of Health Care Journalists. She was previously a national policy fellow at RespectAbility and now serves as the youngest director on the board for the national nonprofit. Sneha has spoken at the Democratic National Convention, Stanford Medicine X, the National Academies of Medicine, and other major avenues. For her work, Sneha was selected as one of the most influential teenagers in 2018 by the We Are Family Foundation and was recognized as an American Association of People with Disabilities Emerging Leader in 2020.

In this episode of The Economic Review, I examined the possibility of HSA-expansion in healthcare reform. Highlights include: -A look at how HSAs are beneficial to HDHP policy holders -The current beliefs and attitudes of U.S. adults toward HSAs -How HSAs could provide a bipartisan path to healthcare reform -The effect expanding HSAs would have on the healthcare system, including decreased costs

By Dan Solin | President at Solin Strategic LLC | Author | Evidence Based Advisor Marketing BIO: Dan Solin is the New York Times bestselling author of the Smartest series of investing books and The Smartest Sales Book You'll Ever Read. Dan's books have been widely praised by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Library Journal, Vanguard co-founder John Bogle and many financial columnists, authors and others. He has appeared on The Early Show, The O'Reilly Factor, MSNBC's Week-end Economic Review, Fox Business and CNN's Money, and has been interviewed on many radio programs, including USA, CBS, ABC and on a number of regional NPR stations. He has shared the research in Ask with thousands of people in North America, Europe and Australia. Highlights: Learn the science behind "how to relate with anyone"Dan's shares his popular Solin ProcessWhy curiosity is critical for us to learn, grow and evolveHow oxytocin and dopamine flood our bodies when we talk and what's the impact?Dan speaks to the determent of "competitive listening' How, for many of us, were aren't engaging on a deep/meaningful levelHow to ask the 'right' questions that show genuine interest Links: Dan's website: CLICK HEREDan's Books: CLICK HERECameron Passmore's podcast mentioned: CLICK HERE

The first new treatment for Alzheimer's, aducanumab, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on June 7, 2021. This approval did not come without controversy. Learn what the available data show for efficacy and safety and whether or not the current list price of $56,000 per year meets cost-effectiveness thresholds.Redeem your CPE or CME credit here!We want your feedback! Share your feedback and experience with GameChangers! https://www.jotform.com/build/90155144694964References and resources: Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease: Effectiveness and Value. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. June 30, 2021. https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ICER_ALZ_Revised_Evidence_Report_06302021.pdfContinuing Education Information:Learning Objectives:1. Discuss the outcomes for phase III trials of aducanumab2. Define the cost-effectiveness of aducanumab0.05 CEU | 0.5 HrsACPE UAN: 0107-0000-21-265-H01-PInitial release date: 7/27/21Expiration date: 7/27/22Complete CPE & CME details can be found here.

In this minisode, Mindy, Ryan, and Jen discuss a few recent newsworthy items including: the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (00:35), the announcement of additional mandatory payment models from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) (04:20), America's Health Insurance Plans rebranding as “AHIP” (08:13), the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) decision to investigate the impact of health plan policies on prescription drug costs (11:18), and finally, the FDA approval of Biogen's Alzheimer's therapy (15:15). Podcast Tags: ACA, CMMI, value based care, AHIP, health insurance, ICER, drug prices, Alzheimer's, healthcare, healthcare news Source Links: · https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-aca-in-7-2-decision-leaving-intact-landmark-us-healt/599060/ · https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cmmis-fowler-more-mandatory-payment-models-likely/601258/ · https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/ahip-launching-first-rebranding-effort-nearly-2-decades · https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/icer-insurers-scrutiny-drug-plan-design/600767/ · https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fdas-decision-approve-new-treatment-alzheimers-disease For additional discussion, please contact us at TrendingHealth.com or share a voicemail at 1-888-VYNAMIC.   Mindy McGrath, Healthcare Industry Learning Lead mindy.mcgrath@vynamic.com Ryan Hummel, Executive and Head of Provider Sector ryan.hummel@vynamic.com Jen Burke, Healthcare Industry Strategist jen.burke@vynamic.com

Dr. Jason Crowell speaks with Dr. Steve Pearson, President of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, about the clinical and economic impact of aducanumab, a drug recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of Alzheimer disease.

A leading Alzheimer's charity in New Zealand says they are "cautiously optimistic" about the US Food and Drug Administration's approval of the new dementia drug Aducanumab, despite uncertainty around the drug's efficacy.In a statement, Alzheimers NZ chief executive Catherine Hall said that any research or development in the area is welcome, but she wants to see greater clarity around the drug's effects."There seems to be a great deal of debate in the medical community about this drug's efficacy," Hall said."And while I hope that the debate – and further studies - will ultimately conclude that Aducanumab is effective, I think we need to reserve full judgement until then."US government health officials on Monday (US time) approved the first new drug for Alzheimer's disease in nearly 20 years, disregarding warnings from independent advisers that the much-debated treatment hasn't been shown to help slow the brain-destroying disease.The Food and Drug Administration said it approved the drug from Biogen based on results that seemed "reasonably likely" to benefit Alzheimer's patients.It's the only therapy that US regulators have said can likely treat the underlying disease, rather than manage symptoms like anxiety and insomnia.The decision, which could impact millions of Americans and their families, is certain to spark disagreements among physicians, medical researchers and patient groups. It also has far-reaching implications for the standards used to evaluate experimental therapies, including those that show only incremental benefits.The new drug, which Biogen developed with Japan's Eisai Co., did not reverse mental decline, only slowing it in one study. The medication will be marketed as Aduhelm and is to be given as an infusion every four weeks.Dr Caleb Alexander, an FDA adviser who recommended against the drug's approval, said he was "surprised and disappointed" by the decision."The FDA gets the respect that it does because it has regulatory standards that are based on firm evidence. In this case, I think they gave the product a pass," said Alexander, a medical researcher at Johns Hopkins University.The FDA's top drug regulator acknowledged that "residual uncertainties" surround the drug, but said Aduhelm's ability to reduce harmful clumps of plaque in the brain is expected to help slow dementia."The data supports patients and caregivers having the choice to use this drug," Dr Patrizia Cavazzoni told reporters. She said FDA carefully weighed the needs of people living with the "devastating, debilitating and deadly disease".Under terms of the so-called accelerated approval, the FDA is requiring the drugmaker to conduct a follow-up study to confirm benefits for patients. If the study fails to show effectiveness, the FDA could pull the drug from the market, though the agency rarely does so.Biogen said the drug would cost approximately $56,000 for a typical year's worth of treatment, and said the price would not be raised for four years. Most patients won't pay anywhere near that amount thanks to insurance coverage and other discounts. The company said it aims to complete its follow-up trial of the drug by 2030.The non-profit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said that "any price is too high" if the drug's benefit isn't confirmed in follow-up studies.Some 6 million people in the US and many more worldwide have Alzheimer's, which gradually attacks areas of the brain needed for memory, reasoning, communication and basic daily tasks. In the final stages of the disease, those afflicted lose the ability to swallow. The global burden of the disease, the most common cause of dementia, is only expected to grow as millions more baby boomers progress further into their 60s and 70s.Aducanumab helps clear a protein called beta-amyloid from the brain. Other experimental drugs have done that before but they made no difference in patients' ability to think, care for themselves or live independently.The pharmaceu...

This week, Host, Dean DeVore welcomes Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America’s CEO and president, Kenneth Mendez to discuss springtime allergies. Does wearing a mask lessen the blow of springtime allergy symptoms? Is climate change now causing a longer US allergy season? Get all the answers this week on 'Everything Under the Sun'! Learn more and get direct resources by going to - https://community.aafa.org/join Have an idea for a future show email us: Accuweather.Podcast@accuweather.com About Kenneth Mendez; President & CEO, Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America Kenneth Mendez became CEO and President of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) in early 2018. He came to AAFA from AdvaMed, the world’s largest medical technology association, where he served as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Revenue Officer for 12 years. Since joining AAFA, he has led the organization in establishing a new multi-year strategic plan that emphasizes dramatically reducing the impact of asthma and allergies on the underserved. Mendez has quickly become a thought leader in the asthma and allergy community. He served as an External Reviewer for the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) asthma assessment. In that role, he informed ICER on how to better represent the patient voice. In 2019, Mendez served as a patient advocacy expert for ICER’s review on emerging peanut allergy therapies. Under Mendez’ guidance, several patient advocacy organizations have joined together to advocate on issues important to people with food allergies – including sesame allergy. He also leads communications with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on ongoing access barriers to epinephrine auto-injectors. He is quoted in outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post and NBC Nightly News, among others. Mendez has an MBA in marketing from Columbia Business School and a B.A. in American History and American Art from Harvard College. Mendez also has a personal stake in AAFA’s mission as he and two of his children manage asthma and allergies.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Age or possible disability does not impact the value of a human life. Unfortunately, the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review, or ICER, produces recommendations on how much new drugs should cost based on these same considerations—age or possible disability. It is time for patients to say enough is enough. Here at the Alliance, we believe in the power of patient advocacy, and we are proud to stand against this discrimination in healthcare. Thankfully, we are not alone in our fight against discrimination and our desire to help patients get the best care possible. Organizations like Patients Rising are doing incredible work to empower patients and to fight against discriminatory healthcare rationing. Terry Wilcox, the Executive Director of Patients Rising, talks with Alliance for Aging Research President and CEO Sue Peschin about quality-adjusted life years and why they are bad for patients and older adults in particular. Learn more about Patients Rising at https://www.patientsrising.org/.

Mike reviews the most recent Economic Review and Outlook from Ronald Blue Trust. He discusses various market bubbles throughout history and whether or not the market is currently in a bubble environment. He also shares some thoughts on the life and schemes of Bernie Madoff who passed away earlier this week.

We conclude our series on lupus with a trip to the doctor’s office, where rheumatologist Dr. Mark Box delves into the clinical side of the disease. He explores dealing with insurance companies and preserving the doctor-patient relationship. Our field correspondent, Kate Pecora speaks with Cheryl Etheredge, founder of Smiles Behind Lupus, on her lupus journey and how she gives back to others through the Lupus Smile Box program.And in the aftermath of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) assessment of lupus nephritis treatments, Terry and Dr. Bob examine how the potential results could impact the community. Plus, is ICER creeping into state legislatures?  Guest:Mark Box, M.D. Rheumatologist, Carondelet Rheumatology Dr. Box is board-certified in rheumatology and a certified densitometrist who also conducts research that informs future treatments for his patients. He is active in the healthcare industry, advocating for medical legislation, and supporting clinical research.His areas of interest include Internal Medicine, Densitometry, Autoimmune Disorders, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, Bursitis, Sjogren's Syndrome, Raynaud's Disease, Still's Disease, Lupus, Fibromyalgia, Ankylosing Spondylitis, and Gout.Dr. Box earned his medical degree from the University of Missouri School of Medicine.  Links:Dr. Mark BoxSmiles Behind LupusCheryl EtheredgeNew Health Legislation Includes Insulin CapRobert Popovian: We Need Greater Transparency to Improve the U.S. Healthcare SystemPatients Rising Concierge  Need help?The successful patient is one who can get what they need when they need it. We all know insurance slows us down, so why not take matters into your own hands. Our Navigator is an online tool that allows you to search a massive network of health-related resources using your zip code so you get local results. Get proactive and become a more successful patient right now at PatientsRisingConcierge.orgHave a question or comment about the show, want to suggest a show topic or share your story as a patient correspondent?Drop us a line: podcast@patientsrising.org The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the guest(s)/ author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of Patients Rising. 

Madeleine (Maca) and Tanya are close friends who play for the Australian beach handball team. They both juggle full time jobs: Maca is a lawyer and Tanya a teacher. Tanya also has ulcerative colitis. In this episode, Maca and Tanya discuss the pressures of managing professional careers and health on top of being elite athletes. Experts interviewed include Debbie Beths (Tanya's mother), Dr. Steven D. Pearson (President, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review), Dr. Leonora Risse (Applied Economist, RMIT University), Ebiye Jeremy Udo-Udoma (USA Men's Beach Handball Team), and Janet McAffe (Madeleine's mother). Audio clips from YouTube's Beach Handball - China vs Australia, ANOC World Beach Games Qatar 2019, Anne-Marie Slaughter: Can we all "have it all"?, and Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead.

Some of the new initiatives highlighted in the Economic Review under the NORKA includes scholarship programme for higher eduction of NRI children and an employment scheme for returning emigrants.

You know back in the olden days when a foot of measurement was actually the measure of your own foot? So, I might measure something and it’s, like, 19 feet. And then you measure the same exact thing and it’s 38 feet because you have tiny feet. This is the analogy that kept running through my mind as I was talking with Anna Kaltenboeck in this health care podcast about QALYs to measure the value of drugs. In this metaphor, QALYs are the ruler so that 1 foot of drug value is the same for everybody and all drugs. It’s very civilized as a concept if you think about it. QALY stands for quality-adjusted life year. The goal of a QALY is to figure out how much any given drug is worth to a society so that we, as a society, have a benchmark to evaluate the price of pharmaceutical products. QALYs are an apples to apples or a foot to foot way to compare the value of drugs for we the people. I mean, is this drug amazing and we should all pay a lot for it? Or is the drug more expensive than the current standard of treatment and it doesn’t confer any added benefit to patients? It’d be good to know that as a patient and as a payer and, frankly, as a pharma company. QALYs offer a framework for levelheaded discussions. It’s complicated. I’m gonna take the risk of oversimplifying, but here’s how I’d explain the three parts in a QALY measurement, which combines measure pharmaceutical value. The first part is, if relevant, how much additional survival can be expected with this drug? So, if it’s an oncology drug, for example, how much longer will the patient live? The second part of a QALY is, how does the drug make the patient feel? So, in an ideal world, survival is long and the patient feels super great. So, some economists and scientists get together and they do some math and they come up with the sum of these first two factors. Then the third part of a QALY calculation is the cold hard cash. How much is society willing to pay for this improvement in survival, in quality of life? This last part will depend based on the society (ie, the country) and also the condition. We’re willing to pay a lot for a drug that helps blind people see. We might be not so willing to pay a whole lot for a drug that lowers blood pressure marginally, for example. My guest in this health care podcast is Anna Kaltenboeck. She is a health economist and program director for the Drug Pricing Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering. She knows a lot about QALYs. One last thing: ICER is the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. It is an independent and nonprofit organization who creates a lot of these QALY assessments. Whether they succeed or not is something that is sometimes questioned, but the team over at ICER prides themselves in not working for Pharma and not working for payers in an effort to be as impartial as possible.   You can learn more at drugpricinglab.org.   Anna Kaltenboeck is the senior health economist and program director for the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes and the Drug Pricing Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). She focuses on the development and application of reimbursement methods for prescription drugs that reduce distortionary incentives in the supply chain and encourage pricing of treatments based on their value. Her work centers on developing an unbiased evidence base that characterizes the effect of federal policies on coverage and reimbursement decisions for branded specialty drugs and cell and gene therapies and identifying opportunities for policy changes that encourage affordability and access while maintaining incentives for innovation. Her current research interests include global comparisons of reimbursement policy and supply chain regulation, game theory in innovation decisions, and the effect of market concentration on pricing decisions. Ms. Kaltenboeck’s research and policy work is informed by her experience as a consultant for pharmaceutical clients. Prior to joining MSKCC, Ms. Kaltenboeck spent 10 years working for Analysis Group and IMS Consulting Group, where she conducted health economics and outcomes research and developed pricing and market access strategies for pharmaceutical and diagnostic products. She has published numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals and other press, including JAMA and Morning Consult, and speaks frequently on the topics of value-based pricing, economics of the supply chain, and reimbursement models. Ms. Kaltenboeck holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in economics from Tufts University. 3:56 What is a QALY? 05:28 “You don’t get marks; it’s the treatment that gets the marks.” 09:13 What is willingness to pay? 10:52 “What we pay for drugs should be reflected in societal preference.” 12:29 Does Pharma fear the QALY? 15:38 “At the end of the day, the ideal here is simply to be able to quantify ‘This is what we’re going to pay for this additional benefit that we’re going to provide for patients.’” 17:09 “When you meet that price, patients should be getting access to that product.” 19:27 What are the significant advances being seen with QALYs and drug development? 21:23 “The challenge is when the price is so much higher than those benchmarks.” 22:27 How do we use the QALY as a tool? 25:56 Where does value-based pricing fall in the world of QALYs? You can learn more at drugpricinglab.org.   @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue What is a #QALY? @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue “You don’t get marks; it’s the treatment that gets the marks.” @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue What is willingness to pay? @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue “What we pay for drugs should be reflected in societal preference.” @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue Does Pharma fear the QALY? @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue “At the end of the day, the ideal here is simply to be able to quantify ‘This is what we’re going to pay for this additional benefit that we’re going to provide for patients.’” @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue “When you meet that price, patients should be getting access to that product.” @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue How do we use the QALY as a tool? @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue Where does value-based pricing fall in the world of QALYs? @a_kaltenboeck discusses #drugpricing and #patientadvocacy in this week’s #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthtech #healthvalue #drugvalue

PRECISIONheor Vice President Jason Shafrin pops in to talk about the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review and the broader question of where the group's influence is centered and the elements of ICER reports that stakeholders are paying attention to.  For more from Jason, check of his work at Healthcare-Economist.com.

Australia is having a big debate about state border restrictions which have been implemented to stop the spread of coronavirus. A conversation with Joe Branigan of Tulipwood Economics on the economic and public policy issues involved. Joe Branigan of Tulipwood Economics. Joe is the co-author with Dr Henry Ergas of the Menzies Research Centre paper COVID19: Getting Australia Safely Back to Work.Items mentioned in our conversation include:The Triumvirate’s Stratagem cannot stand – guest post by Joe BraniganNick Behrens’s briefing on the state of Queensland's COVID-19 Fiscal and Economic Review 

ICER’s pricing models assess the value of a drug and whether your life is worth paying for it. Health economist Dr. Paul Langley explains how ICER’s recommendations devalue patient lives and create barriers to accessible treatments. Dr. Bob and Terry examine the high profits recently reported by health insurance companies, while Kate speaks with Jen Hepworth on accessing cystic fibrosis treatments for her daughter.  And we hear from Erica Dean, a mom with a daughter living with cystic fibrosis, who ICER canceled from speaking at their event next week. We allow her to share her story with us! Paul C. Langley, Ph.D. Health economist and adjunct professor in the College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota Dr. Paul C. Langley is a health economist with an extensive background in drug evaluation for pharmacy and therapeutics companies. In the early 1990s, Dr. Langley evaluated the economics for the introduction of new pharmaceutical products. In Australia, he worked to analyze cost-effectiveness cases brought forward by pharmaceutical companies introducing new products until 1994. After moving to America, Dr. Langley produced numerous research projects regarding evaluation techniques for the introduction of new pharmaceutical and therapeutic products to the United States. In 1997, he also established the Center for Pharmaceutical Economics at the University of Colorado. From 1999 to 2005, Dr. Langley used his global experience and perspective in his role as International Manager of Health Economics at 3M Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Langley’s research focuses on issues of population health. His recent publications have analyzed how ICER’s cost-effectiveness claims in the U.S. do not meet scientific standards. Currently, Dr. Langley is the director of Maimon Research LLC, an Arizona-based health economics consulting and research company. He also works as an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota’s College of Pharmacy. Dr. Langley is currently an Advisory Board Member and Research Director for the Institute of Patient Access. Dr. Langley earned his bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Hull in the U.K., his master’s degree from Carleton University, and his doctorate degree from Queen’s University in Canada. Hosts:Terry Wilcox, Executive Director, Patients RisingDr. Robert Goldberg, “Dr. Bob”, Co-Founder and Vice President of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.Kate Pecora, Field Correspondent Links:Maimon Research LLCLangley PC. More Unnecessary Imaginary Worlds – Part 3: Cystic Fibrosis and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s Draft Evidence Report. Inov Pharm. 2020;11(1): No. 15Langley P. Value Assessment in Cystic Fibrosis: ICER’s Rejection of the Axioms of Fundamental Measurement. Inov Pharm. 2020;11(2):No. 8Patients Rising Concierge Need help?The successful patient is one who can get what they need when they need it. We all know insurance slows us down, so why not take matters into your own hands. Our Navigator is an online tool that allows you to search a massive network of health-related resources using your zip code so you get local results. Get proactive and become a more successful patient right now at PatientsRisingConcierge.orgHave a question or comment about the show, want to suggest a show topic or share your story as a patient correspondent?Drop us a line: podcast@patientsrising.orgThe views and opinions expressed herein are those of the guest(s)/ author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of Patients Rising.

In this episode we are joined by Anna Connolly, management consultant and Chair of the Psychological Society of Ireland's Division of Work & Organisation Psychology and ask: what really is the big deal with "evidence-based management"? Anna Connolly is a Chartered Work and Organisational Psychologist and founder of Work Frontiers, a Business Psychology consultancy. Work Frontiers applies the science of human behaviour to help people thrive in the workplace. Anna uses coaching, learning solutions, and organisational design to improve team performance, develop leaders and facilitate change. Anna has 13 years management experience in the ICT industry with Ericsson and is the current Chair of the Division of Work and Organisational Psychology in Ireland. Anna can be contacted at: anna@workfrontiers.ie https://www.linkedin.com/in/connollyanna/ www.workfrontiers.ie Anna recommends the following sources on evidence-based management: www.cebma.org – Centre for Evidence Based Management Silver, N. (2012). The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail—but some don't. London: Penguin. pp. 286, 690. Bauer, A., Eisenbeis, R. A., Waggoner, D. F., & Zha, T. (2003). "Forecast evaluation with cross-sectional data: The blue chip surveys." Economic Review. Volume 88. Number 2. 17-32 Pages. Servan-Schreiber, E., Wolfers, J., Pennock, D. M., & Galebach, B. (2004). "Prediction markets: Does money matter?." Electronic Markets. Volume 14. Number 3. pp. 243-251 Armstrong, J. S. (2001). Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Chapter Combining Forecasts. New York: Kluwer Academic. Yaniv, I., & Choshen-Hillel, S. (2011). "Exploiting the wisdom of others to make better decisions: Suspending judgment reduces egocentrism and increases accuracy." Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Volume 25. Number 5. pp.427-434. Lewis, M. (2003). Moneyball: The art of winning an unfair game. New York: W. W. Norton. Grove, W. M. (2005). "Clinical versus statistical prediction." Journal of Clinical Psychology. Volume 61. Number 10. pp.1233-1243. Ayres, I. (2007). Super crunchers. New York: Bantam Books. Antman, E. M., J Lau, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F., & Chalmers, T. C. (1992). "A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts." JAMA. Volume 268. Number 2. pp. 240-248. McNees, S. K. (1990). "The role of judgment in macroeconomic forecasting accuracy." International Journal of Forecasting. Volume 6. Number 3. pp.287-299.

Gunnar Esiason, a cystic fibrosis advocate, explains why the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's model for determining drugs' value doesn't sit well with patients.

When scientists are able to develop a new treatment for a rare disease that severely impacts the lives of very young children, it’s generally considered good news.And in the case of the newest announcement from Novartis, it is. But it’s not that simple.The drugmaker, who is parent to the company AveXis, recently revealed a new treatment for a debilitating genetic disease called spinal muscular atrophy. The condition affects up to 25,000 people and is currently the top genetic cause of death for infants, and a new gene therapy has recently gained FDA approval to treat it. But it seems there’s a catch: the one-time treatment, called Zolgensma, comes with the largest price tag for any drug treatment in the world: $2.1 million.So, even in a country known for its skyrocketing prescription costs, is this defensible? Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan believes the price tag is fair when you consider the tradeoff, stating "Zolgensma could create a lifetime of possibilities for the children and families impacted by this devastating condition.”Initially, the company publicly discussed pricing possibilities that could reach up to $5 million, which is why Dr. Steve Pearson, the president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, is declaring this actual price “a positive outcome.” But while many experts acknowledge that treatment for this condition is already quite expensive, neither of these defenses have been enough to insulate the drug maker – and industry at large – from backlash.David Mitchell, founder of the advocacy group Patients For Affordable Drugs, released a statement Friday calling the situation “emblematic of our broken system.” And while Novartis suggests that an initial balloon payment for “a lifetime of benefits” is an improvement on the pay-as-you-go model for chronic illnesses, Mitchell is critical, saying: "We didn't pay for the polio vaccine based on the future cost savings for kids who didn't need to live in iron lungs."

This week, we are looking at The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review or ICER’s white paper on alternative options for the US rebate system, and the establishment of a national agency to evaluate drug effectiveness and negotiate prices in Canada. Presenter: Max Rex Contributor and Producer: Aparna Krishnan

Every week, The American Journal of Managed Care® (AJMC®) recaps the top managed care news of the week, and you can now listen to it on our podcast, Managed Care Cast. ​​​​​​​This week, the top managed care news included the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review investigating rising drug prices; CMS expanding value-based insurance design; and researchers using a blood test to detect preclinical Alzheimer disease. Read more about the stories in this podcast: What's Driving US Healthcare Costs? Stakeholders Weigh In: https://www.ajmc.com/focus-of-the-week/whats-driving-us-healthcare-costs-stakeholders-weigh-in ICER Will Review If Drug Price Hikes Are Supported by New Evidence: https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/icer-will-review-if-drug-price-hikes-are-supported-by-new-evidence Report: Increasing Drug Prices, Shortages Causing Hospitals to Cut Staff, Putting Patient Safety at Risk: https://www.ajmc.com/focus-of-the-week/report-increasing-drug-prices-shortages-causing-hospitals-to-cut-staff-putting-patient-safety-at-risk What We're Reading: Insulin Costs Double; PhRMA's Record Spending; Causes of Liver Transplants: https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/what-were-reading-insulin-costs-double-phrmas-record-spending-causes-of-liver-transplants CMS Expands VBID in Medicare Advantage, Increases Risk Sharing in Part D: https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/cms-expands-vbid-in-medicare-advantage-increases-risk-sharing-in-part-d Researchers Use Blood Test to Detect Preclinical Alzheimer Disease Signs: https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/researchers-use-blood-test-to-detect-preclinical-alzheimer-disease-signs Improving Care for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: https://www.ajmc.com/peer-exchange/advances-metastatic-breast-cancer/improving-care-for-patients-with-metastatic-breast-cancer

1. A score that predicts one year functional status in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis patients. 2. [What's Trending]: Part 2: Drug pricing and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review framework. In the first segment, Dr. David Lapides talks with Dr. Ramani Balu about his paper on a score that predicts one year functional status in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis patients. In the second part of the podcast, you'll hear the the second part of Dr. Gordon Smith's interview with Dr. Steve Pearson on the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and drug pricing. DISCLOSURES: Dr. David Lapides has served as a consultant for Board Vitals; and has received foundation/society research support from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Fellowship. Dr. Ramani Balu has received governmental research support from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. Dr. A. Gordon Smith has served on the scientific advisory board of the Regenesis Data Monitoring Committee; has served on the editorial boards for Continuum and Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology; has served as a consultant for Regenesis; has served on the speakers' bureau for Alexion; has received commercial research support from Impeto Medical SAS; and has received governmental research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Steve Pearson's Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has received membership dues from Aetna, Alnylam, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Anthem, AstraZeneca, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Solution, CVS, Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC), HealthPartners, Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC), Novartis, Premera Blue Cross, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, and United Healthcare; and has received foundation/society research support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the California Health Care Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, Kaiser, East Bay Community Foundation, and the Commonwealth Fund.

1. Development and validation of a score to detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation after stroke. 2. [What's Trending]: Drug pricing and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review framework. In the first segment, Dr. Andy Southerland talks with Dr. Timo Uphaus about his paper on the development and validation of a score to detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation after stroke. In the second part of the podcast, Dr. Gordon Smith focuses his interview with Dr. Steve Pearson on the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and drug pricing. DISCLOSURES: Dr. Southerland has severed on editorial boards for the Journal Neurology and is Section Editor for the Neurology Podcast. Dr. Timo Uphaus reports no disclosures. Dr. A. Gordon Smith has served on the scientific advisory board of the Regenesis Data Monitoring Committee; has served on the editorial boards for Continuum and Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology; has served as a consultant for Regenesis; has served on the speakers' bureau for Alexion; has received commercial research support from Impeto Medical SAS; and has received governmental research support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Steve Pearson's Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has received membership dues from Aetna, Alnylam, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Anthem, AstraZeneca, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Solution, CVS, Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC), HealthPartners, Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC), Novartis, Premera Blue Cross, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, and United Healthcare; and has received foundation/society research support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the California Health Care Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, Kaiser, East Bay Community Foundation, and the Commonwealth Fund.

As NIESR published its November 2018 Economic Review- an issue devoted to the Institute's 80th birthday - Paola Buonadonna talks to NIESR Research Director Peter Dolton about the changing trends in labour economics. Peter's article on the same theme is outside the paywall and available for all to read here: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/002795011824600112 Peter's blog explaining the main ten trends of the last few years is here: https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/ten-important-facts-about-uk-labour-market-today

Challenges for cystic fibrosis patients don't stop with managing their disease. Cystic Fibrosis Research Incorporated's executive director Siri Vaeth describes providing input to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review about the value of new cystic fibrosis treatments.

ICER - the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review - was established as an independent organization to examine the value of pharmaceuticals across disease categories. "But value is in the eye of the beholder," says Leslie Isenegger, principal strategist for Syneos Health Communications Reputation and Risk Management Practice, and ICER's analysis is only one piece of a very complicated puzzle. How should it fit within the broader conversation? To try and answer this question, Isenegger provides a primer of sorts on ICER, exploring how the organization works to determine cost effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of therapies, the nature of its relationships with payers and pharma companies, the unique challenge of assessing value of orphan drugs, the growing role of the patient in value discussions and more. Would you like to add to the discussion?  Write to us at podcast@syneoshealth.com. See our full list of podcast episodes here. The information, data, and other content contained in this podcast and any associated articles, sponsorships, advertisements, announcements or other communications are provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice of any kind, on any subject matter. The content of the podcast contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Moreover, the content is not guaranteed to be complete, correct, timely, current or otherwise up-to-date. Syneos Health reserves the right to make alterations or deletions to the content at any time without notice to you. Syneos Health and its subsidiaries expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the podcast content. The information, data and other content contained in this podcast is not a reflection of, endorsed by or otherwise affiliated with, nor should it be attributed to, any Syneos Health clients, customers or other contacts.

The pricing of drugs is characterized by a tension between providing incentives to drug companies to invest in the development of innovative therapies and ensuring affordability so patients have access to needed medicines. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent non-profit research institute that analyzes the evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services, recently issued final modifications to its framework for assessing the value of treatments for serious, ultra-rare diseases. The framework applies to therapies that are eligible to treat no more than 10,000 U.S. patients including certain treatments for inherited eye disease, hemophilia A, and cystic fibrosis. We spoke to Steven Pearson, president of ICER, about the framework, why modifications were needed for drugs to treat ultra-rare diseases, and what the implications are for a pipeline or therapies with the potential not just to treat, but to cure progressive and deadly rare diseases.

Date: May 17, 2012 Featuring: Daniel B. Wolfson, Executive Vice President and COO, ABIM Foundation Steven Pearson, MD, MSc, FRCP, President, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review – Institute for Technology Assessment Amanda Kost, MD, Acting Assistant Professor, University of Washington Department of Family Medicine Donald Goldmann, MD, Senior Vice President, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Karen Boudreau, MD, FAAFP, Chief Medical Officer, Boston Medical Center, HealthNet Plan; Former Senior Vice President, Institute for Healthcare Improvement and Medical Director for IHI Continuum Portfolio Of all the sources of excessive health care spending, none may be higher on the list than the habit of ordering lots of expensive tests and procedures. This appetite for the best of what high-tech medicine can offer – whether warranted or not – is a big factor behind estimates that up to a third of health care spending in the US is wasteful and unnecessary. But everyone also has a story of someone, maybe themselves, helped by a diagnostic procedure. There’s no question that one person’s unnecessary test is another person’s lifesaver. So, how do we get closer to more appropriate use? And is there a more active role that physicians can play?The ABIM Foundation is betting there is a way to bring the ordering of tests and procedures into better balance AND that doctors are key to making this happen. This is the premise behind the ABIM Foundation’s new campaign, Choosing Wisely. Nine medical societies are on board (with eight more joining in the fall), and they’ve each identified five procedures that tend to be overused and that should trigger discussions to ensure that they’re really needed and of value. The American Academy of Family Physicians, for example, has a list that begins with thinking twice before immediately ordering imaging for low back pain.WIHI host Madge Kaplan has assembled a great group of experts: The ABIM Foundation’s Daniel Wolfson will explain the campaign. Karen Boudreau will help us think through the role of family practitioners, while Steven Pearson will contribute some of the latest and sharpest thinking about evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness. Amanda Kost got to put on her “choosing wisely” shoes a bit ahead of the game by being part of the National Physician Alliance’s Promoting Good Stewardship in Medicine project. She’ll provide some key frontline learning on best practices that can help wean doctors and patients alike from reaching for the most expensive solution, first. Finally, IHI’s Don Goldmann, will discuss how Choosing Wisely aligns with other national initiatives and why it’s crucial that the medical profession take a leading role with health care reform.Whether or not you’re directly in the role of ordering tests or procedures, we invite you to consider that we all have a part in making health care more effective and affordable – in other words, of true value to patients.

The Mayor has announced that he will be running for reelection. What will his reelection campaign look like? What does he feel he has left to do? New projects/ objectives in his platform?Mayor Fred Eisenberger. The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce is hosting a four part seminar series about “business preparedness” and how to survive the four-year construction of the LRT. This will look at strategies businesses can employ to reduce the negative effects of ongoing construction, a major sticking point of opponents to the project.Keanin Loomis, Hamilton Chamber of Commerce President Mayor's Townhall with Burlington Mayor Rick Goldring. (Topics: the new Director of Burlington Transit and new Fire Chief, Burlington's draft official plan, Economic Review pointing to a surge in job growth.)

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Midwest Comparative Effective Public Advisory Council (CEPAC) will hold is inaugural meeting on May 26, 2016 in St. Louis “to discuss the comparative clinical effectiveness and value of therapies of multiple myeloma.”  The goal is to create recommendations that health insurers (or payers) will use to determine reimbursement levels for drugs used in myeloma treatment.  Since the public announcement of ICER’s plan in February 2016, the draft reports have been strongly criticized by myeloma specialists, pharmaceutical companies, and more recently, patient advocates.  Steven Pearson will discuss ICER’s perspective, addressing critics of ICER’s methodology, process, definitions of value, and, as of now, the lack of inclusion of patient views.

Join Dr. Carlos as he chats about how the stock market works with Dr. DeGennaro.Ramon P. DeGennaro is the Haslam College of Business Professor in Banking and Finance at the University of Tennessee. He previously served as a Visiting Scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, as the Tennessee Bankers Association Scholar, and as a William B. Stokely Scholar at Tennessee. Before joining the university, he was a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, and he also served as the Reading Specialist at Mayfield High School in Mayfield, Ohio. His current research involves financial markets, entrepreneurship, investments, and prediction markets. Professor DeGennaro has published more than 45 refereed articles on financial market volatility, small firm finance, the term structure of interest rates, financial institutions, prediction markets, and investments. His articles have appeared or are forthcoming in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Journal of Empirical Finance, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Journal of Banking and Finance, Journal of Financial Research, Journal of Financial Services Research, Financial Management, The Financial Review, Managerial and Decision Economics, The Economic Review, European Financial Management, The Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Journal of Economics and Finance, Applied Economics Letters, The International Journal of Finance, The Review of Black Political Economy, The Journal of Sports Economics, The International Journal of Business, Pensions, Journal of Wealth Management, The Journal of Financial Transformation, Journal of Structured Finance, Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, The Journal of Private Enterprise and The Journal of Portfolio Management. His other publications include research reports, book chapters, book reviews and several Federal Reserve publications. He is an Associate Editor or member of the Editorial Boards of the Journal of Financial Research, Financial Review, the International Journal of Business and the Journal of Private Enterprise. He is also a member of the Academic Board of Directors of the Midwest Finance Association. His paper with Thomas P. Boehm was honored as the Best Empirical Paper at the 2007 meetings of the Southern Finance Association. His research was featured in the cover story of the Fall 2009 issue of Quest, the University of Tennessee's Research publication, and in the Wall Street Journal. He spoke at the prestigious Chautauqua Institution during the summers of 2011 and 2012, as an invited lecturer.

The controversy over the high price of new drugs and the question of the value they provide will come under increased scrutiny thanks to a grant to a Boston-based nonprofit that works to get at these questions. The Laura and John Arnold Foundation this week announced it is providing $5.2 million to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review aimed at transforming the way new drugs are evaluated and priced. We spoke to Sarah Emond, COO of the institute, about the work it does, what this new grant will do to expand that work, and how to get a the question of the value of new drugs.

Kirsty Styles chats to James Meadway, Senior Economist at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), about the Institute for Fiscal Studies' report on living standards. — Jargon of the week: Debt and deficit Listener question of the week: Robin Hood tax — Links and reading list: Cribb, J., Hood, A., Joyce, J. (March 2015), “Living Standards and Future Challenges”, London: Institute for Fiscal Studies: www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7615 ONS (March 2015), “Economic Review”, London: Office for National Statistics: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_397535.pdf Kirsty Styles on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kirstystyles1 James Meadway on Twitter: www.twitter.com/meadwaj Like this week's music? Find us on Spotify: sptfy.com/4rg Soundcloud image by Jason Mrachina, used under Creative Commons licence www.flickr.com/photos/w4nd3rl0st/5454805481 — Produced by James Shield & Huw Jordan

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 172. This is the first of six lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (Tuesdays, Mar. 22–April 26, 2011), which was a reprise of a similar Mises Academy course in October 2010. The slides and video for this lecture, as well as the “suggested readings” for all six lectures of the course are provided below. The other five lectures follow in subsequent podcast episodes KOL173–177. (Discussed in Rethinking IP; and on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online and in Rethinking Intellectual Property: Kinsella's Mises Academy Online Course. See also “Rethinking IP,” Mises Daily (Feb. 10, 2011).) See my article "Rethinking IP," Mises Daily (Feb. 10, 2011).) Transcript below. Related Material Youtube playlist for all 6 lectures This course was discussed in “Rethinking IP,” Mises Daily (Feb. 10, 2011), and on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online and in Rethinking Intellectual Property: Kinsella's Mises Academy Online Course. The course and other matters are discussed in further detail here. This course followed an earlier presentation in 2010; see "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics," Mises Daily (Oct. 22, 2010; archived comments), and "Understanding IP: An Interview with Stephan Kinsella," Mises Daily (Oct. 21, 2010, with Jeffrey A. Tucker) (Transcript of Understanding IP: An Interview with Stephan Kinsella (2010)). Lecture 1 from the 2010 course is here. Introductory video from the Mises Blog post Kinsella Can Be Your Professor: Lecture 1: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN HISTORY  SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL The "suggested readings" for each lecture are appended below. The links were internal Mises Academy links so would not work here, so until I find time to code in the links, most of these materials can be found on stephankinsella.com/publications, c4sif.org/resources, mises.org, hanshoppe.com/publications, or on Wikipedia or by google search. (If there is a particular link you cannot find online, email me or add to the comments, and I'll try to find it and update the post with that link.) Main Texts Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property (AIP) Boldrin & Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (AIM) LECTURE 1: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN HISTORY SUGGESTED READINGS Legal Background: AIP, pp. 9-14 Optional Copyright Basics (US Copyright Office) URL Copyright overview (LII/Cornell) URL Patent law overview (LII/Cornell) URL Patent introductory information (Ladas & Parry) URL US Patent law information (USPTO) URL History: AIM, ch. 2, pp. 33-35 ("World Before Copyright" section); ch. 3, pp. 48-51 ("World Without Patent" section). AIP, pp. 9-14 Statute of Anne (Wikipedia) URL Stationers' Company (Wikipedia) URL History of patent law (Wikipedia) URL Letters Patent (Wikipedia) URL Statute of Monopolies 1624 (Wikipedia) URL Optional Krummenacker, Are "Intellectual Property Rights" Justified? (Historical Origins section) Palmer, Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach (pp. 264-71) A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States (Ladas & Parry) LECTURE 2: OVERVIEW OF JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IP; PROPERTY, SCARCITY, AND IDEAS SUGGESTED READINGS Law Defamation (Wikipedia)--beginning to Section 5 only Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy History Machlup, "An Economic Review of the Patent System" [pp. 2-5] Optional Machlup & Penrose, “The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century,” [pp. 2-6, et pass.] Frumkin,

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 172. This is the first of 6 lectures of my 2011 Mises Academy course "Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics" (Tuesdays, Mar. 22-April 26, 2011; discussed on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online and in Rethinking Intellectual Property: Kinsella’s Mises Academy Online Course). I’ll release the remaining lectures here in the podcast feed in upcoming days. The slides for the first lecture of this course are provided below, as are the “suggested readings” for the course. The course and other matters are discussed in further detail here. I also include in this first of the 6 podcasts for this series an introductory video for the course followed by the audio and slides for all 6 lectures. The "suggested readings" for each lecture are appended to the end of this post. I'll include individual audio and slides for the following podcasts in this series. Introductory video from the Mises Blog post Kinsella Can Be Your Professor: Lecture 1: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN HISTORY Lecture 2: OVERVIEW OF JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IP; PROPERTY, SCARCITY, AND IDEAS Lecture 3: EXAMINING THE UTILITARIAN CASE FOR IP Lecture 4: IP STATUTES AND TREATIES; OVERVIEW OF JUSTIFICTIONS FOR IP; PROPERTY, SCARCITY AND IDEAS; RIGHTS-BASED ARGUMENTS FOR IP: CREATION AS A SOURCE OF RIGHTS Lecture 5: PROPERTY, SCARCITY, AND IDEAS; EXAMINING RIGHTS-BASED ARGUMENTS FOR IP Lecture 6: THE FUTURE; INTEGRATING IP THEORY WITH AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS AND LIBERTARIAN THEORY; PROPOSED REFORMS; IMAGINING A POST-IP WORLD; THE FUTURE OF OPEN VS. CLOSED   SUGGESTED READING MATERIAL The "suggested readings" for each lecture are appended below. The links were internal Mises Academy links so would not work here, and I had no time to add individual links for all of them, but until I find time to code in the links, most of these materials can be found on stephankinsella.com/publications, c4sif.org/resources, mises.org, hanshoppe.com/publications, or on Wikipedia or by google search. (If there is a particular link you cannot find online, email me or add to the comments, and I'll try to find it and update the post with that link.) Main Texts Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property (AIP) Boldrin & Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (AIM) LECTURE 1: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN HISTORY SUGGESTED READINGS Legal Background: AIP, pp. 9-14 Optional Copyright Basics (US Copyright Office) URL Copyright overview (LII/Cornell) URL Patent law overview (LII/Cornell) URL Patent introductory information (Ladas & Parry) URL US Patent law information (USPTO) URL History: AIM, ch. 2, pp. 33-35 ("World Before Copyright" section); ch. 3, pp. 48-51 ("World Without Patent" section). AIP, pp. 9-14 Statute of Anne (Wikipedia) URL Stationers' Company (Wikipedia) URL History of patent law (Wikipedia) URL Letters Patent (Wikipedia) URL Statute of Monopolies 1624 (Wikipedia) URL Optional Krummenacker, Are "Intellectual Property Rights" Justified? (Historical Origins section) Palmer, Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach (pp. 264-71) A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States (Ladas & Parry) LECTURE 2: OVERVIEW OF JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IP; PROPERTY, SCARCITY, AND IDEAS SUGGESTED READINGS Law Defamation (Wikipedia)--beginning to Section 5 only Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy History Machlup, "An Economic Review of the Patent System" [pp. 2-5] Optional Machlup & Penrose, “The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century,” [pp. 2-6, et pass.] Frumkin,