Podcast appearances and mentions of tom nash

Is it required belief that St. Joseph remained celibate his whole life? We explore Church teaching on this tradition and also dive into Mary's sorrowful apparitions, obedience to the pope, and infant baptism debates with Protestants. Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: Click Here Questions Covered: 12:03 – Why does Mary sometimes appear sad, like at appearance la Salette and in the seven sorrows of Mary? 19:20 – Is it necessary for Catholics to believe that St. Joseph was a perpetual virgin? 34:36 – My OBGYN is recommending that I do not have any more pregnancies after having an ectopic pregnancy. What should I do? 38:35 – When scripture speaks of Jesus having Brothers and Sisters, are those cousins? 43:14 – How do I respond to Protestants that say infant baptism is not correct because scripture says “repent and be baptized” but infants cannot repent? Is it sinful to have incorrect understanding of Catholic doctrines and teachings. 46:01 – How far does obedience to the pope go? What are the parameters in which we can disagree with the Pope?

Steve Ray joins to discuss the Feast of the Annunciation. Tim Moriarty of Castletown Media talks with Teresa about the new Carlo Acutis Film. Plus, "T's Two Sense" covers why we do what we do during mass...and a visit with Tom Nash on the topic: How to go confession?

Steve Ray joins to discuss the Feast of the Annunciation. Tim Moriarty of Castletown Media talks with Teresa about the new Carlo Acutis Film. Plus, T's Two Sense covers why we do what we do during mass...and a visit with Tom Nash on the topic: How to go confession?

Sunday 23 March 2025 - Morning MeetingGenesis Series - 3 - Genesis 40-41Tom NashYou can also watch online at: https://youtube.com/live/bL6JuLX_-fA?feature=share

Sunday 16 March 2025 - Morning MeetingGenesis Series - 2 | Genesis 39 | Tom NashYou can also view online at: https://youtube.com/live/pZrpt0VzhmI

Here's my new idea for an episode. Welcome to it. I want to talk about a major theme running through the last few episodes of Relentless Health Value. And this theme is, heads up, going to continue through a few upcoming shows as well. For a full transcript of this episode, click here. If you enjoy this podcast, be sure to subscribe to the free weekly newsletter to be a member of the Relentless Tribe. We have Matt McQuide coming up, talking about patient engagement, and Christine Hale, MD, MBA, talking about high-cost claimants. And we also have an encore coming up with Kenny Cole, MD, talking about a lot of things; but patient trust is one of them. But before I get to the main theme to ponder here, let me talk about what gets selected to talk about on Relentless Health Value. I will freely admit, how topics for shows get picked, it's not exactly a linear sort of affair. And furthermore, even if it were, I can't always get the stars to align to get a specific cluster of guests to all come on like one after the other. So, for sure, it might be less than obvious at times where my head is at—and sometimes, admittedly, I don't even know. This may sound incredibly scattershot (and it probably is), but in my defense, this whole healthcare thing, in case you didn't know, it's really complicated. Every time I get a chance to chat with an expert, I learn something new. I feel like it's almost impossible to sit in a vacuum and mastermind some kind of grand insight. Very, very fortunately, I don't need to sit in a cave and do all this heavy thinking all by myself. We got ourselves a tribe here of like-minded, really smart folks between the guests and you lot, all of you in the tribe of listeners who are here every week. Yeah, you rock! And I can always count on you to start teasing out the themes and the through lines and the really key actionable points. You email me. You write great posts and comments on LinkedIn and elsewhere. Even if I am a little bit behind the eight ball translating my instinct into an actual trend line, it doesn't slow this bus down. It's you who keeps it moving, which is why I can confidently say it's you all who are to blame for this new idea I came up with the other day after the podcast with Al Lewis (EP464) triggered so much amazing and really deep insight and dot connecting back and forth that hooked together the past six, I'm gonna say, or so shows. Let's just start at the beginning. Let's start with the topics that have been discussed in the past several episodes of the pod. Here I go. Emergency room visits are now costing about 6% of total plan sponsor spend on average. That was the holy crap moment from the episode with Al Lewis (EP464). Emergency room volume is up, and also prices are up. In that show with Al Lewis, I did quote John Lee, MD, who is an emergency room doctor, by the way. I quoted him because he told a story about a patient who came into the ER, winds up getting a big workup in his ER. Dr. Lee says he sees this situation a lot where the patient comes in, they've had something going on for a while, they've tried to make an appointment with their PCP or even urgent care, they could not get in. It's also really hard to coordinate and get all the blood work or the scans and have that all looked at that's needed for the workup to even happen. I've spoken with multiple ER doctors at this point, and they all say pretty much the same thing. They see the same scenario happen often enough, maybe even multiple times a day. Patient comes in with something that may or may not be emergent, and they are now in the ER because they've been worried about it for weeks or months. And the ER is like the only place where they can get to the bottom of what is going on with their body. And then the patient, you know, they spend the whole day in the ER getting what amounts to weeks' worth of outpatient workup accomplished and scans and imaging and labs. And there's no prior authing anything down. It's also incredibly expensive. Moving on from the Al Lewis show, earlier than that I had had on Rushika Fernandopulle, MD (EP460) and then also Scott Conard, MD (EP462). Both are PCPs, both talking about primary care and what makes good primary care and what makes bad primary care and how our current “healthcare marketplace,” as Dr. Conard puts it, incentivizes either no primary care and/or primary care where volume driven throughput is the name of the game—you know, like seeing 25 patients a day. These visits or episodes of care are often pretty transactional. If relationships are formed, it's because the doctor and/or the patient are rising above the system, not the other way around. And none of that is good for primary care doctors, nurses, or other clinicians. It's also not good for patients, and it's not good for plan sponsors or any of the ultimate purchasers here (taxpayers, patients themselves) because while all of this is going on, those patients getting no or not good primary care are somebody's next high-cost claimant. Okay, so those were the shows with Rushika Fernandopulle and Scott Conard. Then this past week was the show with Vivian Ho, PhD (EP466), who discusses the incentives that hospital leadership often has. And these incentives may actually sound great on paper, but IRL, they wind up actually jacking up prices and set up some weird incentives to increase the number of beds and the heads in them. There was also two shows, one of them with Betsy Seals (EP463) and then another one with Wendell Potter (EP384), about Medicare Advantage and what payers are up to. Alright, so let's dig in. What's the big theme? What's the big through line here? Let's take it from the top. Theme 1 is largely this (and Scott Conard actually said this flat out in his show): Primary care—good primary care, I mean—is an investment. Everything else is a cost. And those skyrocketing ER costs are pure evidence of this. Again, listen to that show with Al Lewis earlier (EP464) for a lot of details about this. But total plan costs … 6% are ER visits. Tim Denman from Premise Health wrote, “That is an insane number! Anything over 2% warrants concern.” But yeah, these days we have, on average across the country, 200 plan members out of 1000 every single year dipping into their local ER. That number, by the way, will rise and fall depending on the access and availability of primary care and/or good urgent cares. Here's from a Web site entitled ER Visit Statistics, Facts & Trends: “In the United States, emergency room visits often highlight gaps in healthcare accessibility. Many individuals turn to ERs for conditions that could have been managed through preventative or primary care. … This indicates that inadequate access to healthcare often leads to increased reliance on emergency departments. … “ED visits can entail significant costs, particularly when a considerable portion of these visits is classified as non-urgent. … [Non-urgent] visits—not requiring immediate medical intervention—often lead to unnecessary expenditures that could be better allocated in primary care settings.” And by the way, if you look at the total cost across the country of ER visits, it's billions and billions and billions of dollars. In 2017, ED visits (I don't have a stat right in front of me), but in 2017, ED visits were $76.3 billion in the United States. Alright, so, the Al Lewis show comes out, I see that, and then, like a bolt of lightning, François de Brantes, MBA, enters the chat. François de Brantes was on Relentless Health Value several years ago (EP220). I should have him come back on. But François de Brantes cemented with mortar the connectivity between runaway ER costs and the lack of primary care. He started out talking actually about a new study from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Only like 5% of our spend going to primary care is way lower than any other developed country in the world—all of whom, of course, have far higher life expectancies than us. So, yeah … they might be onto something. François de Brantes wrote (with some light editing), “Setting aside the impotence of policies, the real question we should ask ourselves is whether we're looking at the right numbers. The short answer is no, with all due respect to the researchers that crunched the numbers. That's probably because the lens they're using is incredibly narrow and misses everything else.” And he's talking now about, is that 5% primary care number actually accurate? François de Brantes continues, “Consider, for example, that in commercially insured plans, the total spend on … EDs is 6% or more.” And then he says, “Check out Stacey Richter's podcast on the subject, but 6% is essentially what researchers say is spent on, you know, ‘primary care.' Except … they don't count those costs, the ER costs. They don't count many other costs that are for primary care, meaning for the treatment of routine preventative and sick care, all the things that family practices used to manage but don't anymore. They don't count them because those services are rendered by clinicians other than those in primary care practice.” François concludes (and he wrote a great article) that if you add up all the dollars that are spent on things that amount to primary care but just didn't happen in a primary care office, it's conservatively around 17% of total dollars. So, yeah … it's not like anyone is saving money by not making sure that every plan member or patient across the country has a relationship with an actual primary care team—you know, a doctor or a nurse who they can get on the phone with who knows them. Listen to the show coming up with Matt McQuide. This theme will continue. But any plan not making sure that primary care happens in primary care offices is shelling out for the most expensive primary care money can buy, you know, because it's gonna happen either in the ER or elsewhere. Jeff Charles Goldsmith, PhD, put this really well. He wrote, “As others have said, [this surge in ER dollars is a] direct consequence of [a] worsening primary care shortage.” Then Dr. John Lee turned up. He, I had quoted on the Al Lewis show, but he wrote a great post on LinkedIn; and part of it was this: “Toward a systemic solution, [we gotta do some unsqueezing of the balloon]. Stacey and Al likened our system to a squeezed balloon, with pressure forcing patients into the [emergency room]. The true solution is to ‘unsqueeze' the system by improving access to care outside the [emergency room]. Addressing these upstream issues could prevent patients from ending up in the [emergency room]. … While the necessary changes are staring us in the face, unsqueezing the balloon is far more challenging than it sounds.” And speaking of ER docs weighing in, then we had Mick Connors, MD, who left a banger of a comment with a bunch of suggestions to untangle some of these challenges that are more challenging than they may sound at first glance that Dr. Lee mentions. And as I said, he's a 30-year pediatric emergency physician, so I'm inclined to take his suggestions seriously. You can find them on LinkedIn. But yeah, I can see why some communities are paying 40 bucks a month or something for patients without access to primary care to get it just like they pay fire departments or police departments. Here's a link to Primary Care for All Americans, who are trying to help local communities get their citizens primary care. And Dr. Conard talked about this a little bit in that episode (EP462). I can also see why plan sponsors have every incentive to change the incentives such that primary care teams can be all in on doing what they do. Dr. Fernandopulle (EP460) hits on this. This is truly vital, making sure that the incentives are right, because we can't forget, as Rob Andrews has said repeatedly, organizations do what you pay them to do. And unless a plan sponsor gets into the mix, it is super rare to encounter anybody paying anybody for amazing primary care in an actual primary care setting. At that point, Alex Sommers, MD, ABEM, DipABLM, arrived on the scene; and he wrote (again with light editing—sorry, I can't read), “This one is in my wheelhouse. There is a ton that could be done here. There just has to be strategy in any given market. It's a function of access, resources, and like-minded employers willing to invest in a direct relationship with providers. But not just any providers. Providers who are willing to solve a big X in this case. You certainly don't need a trauma team on standby to remove a splinter or take off a wart. A great advanced primary care relationship is one way, but another thing is just access to care off-hours with the resources to make a difference in a cost-plus model. You can't help everybody at once. But you can help a lot of people if there is a collaborative opportunity.” And then Dr. Alex Sommers continues. He says, “We already have EKG, most procedures and supplies, X-ray, ultrasounds, and MRI in our clinics. All that's missing is a CT scanner. It just takes a feasible critical mass to invest in a given geography for that type of alternative care model to alter the course here. Six percent of plan spend going to the ER. My goodness.” So, then we have Ann Lewandowski, who just gets to the heart of the matter and the rate critical for primary care to become the investment that it could be: trust. Ann Lewandowski says, “I 100% agree with all of this, basically. I think strong primary care that promotes trust before things get so bad people think they need to go to the emergency room is the way to go.” This whole human concept of trust is a gigantic requirement for clinical and probably financial success. We need primary care to be an investment, but for it to be an investment, there's got to be relationships and there has to be trust between patients and their care teams. Now, neither relationships nor trust are super measurable constructs, so it's really easy for some finance pro to do things in the name of efficiency or optimization that undermine the entire spirit of the endeavor without even realizing it. Then we have a lot of primary care that doesn't happen in primary care offices. It happens in care settings like the ER. So, let's tug this theme along to the shows that concern carriers, meaning the shows with Wendell Potter (EP384) on how shareholders influence carrier behavior and with Betsy Seals (EP463) on Medicare Advantage plans and what they're up to. Here's where the primary care/ER through line starts to connect to carriers. Here's a LinkedIn post by the indomitable Steve Schutzer, MD. Dr. Schutzer wrote about the Betsy Seals conversation, and he said, “Stacey, you made a comment during this fabulous episode with Betsy that I really believe should be amplified from North to South, coast to coast—something that unfortunately is not top of mind for many in this industry. And that was ‘focus on the value that accrues to the patient'—period, end of story. That is the north star of the [value-based care] movement, lest we forget. Financial outcome measures are important in the value equation, but the numerator must be about the patient. As always, grateful for your insights and ongoing leadership.” Oh, thank you so much. And same to you. Grateful for yours. Betsy Seals in that podcast, though, she reminded carrier listeners about this “think about the value accruing to the patient” in that episode. And in the Wendell Potter encore that came out right before the show with Betsy, yeah, what Wendell said kind of made me realize why Betsy felt it important to remind carriers to think about the value accruing to patients. Wall Street rewards profit maximization in the short term. It does not reward value accruing to the patient. However—and here's me agreeing with Dr. Steve Schutzer, because I think this is what underlies his comment—if what we're doing gets so far removed from what is of value to the patient, then yeah, we're getting so removed from the human beings we're allegedly serving, that smart people can make smart decisions in theoretical model world. But what's being done lacks a fundamental grounding in actual reality. And that's dangerous for plan members, but it's also pretty treacherous from a business and legal perspective, as I think we're seeing here. Okay, so back to our theme of broken primary care and accelerating ER costs. Are carriers getting in there and putting a stop to it? I mean, as aforementioned about 8 to 10 times, if you have a broken primary care system, you're gonna pay for primary care, alright. It's just gonna be in really expensive care settings. You gotta figure carriers are wise to this and they're the ones that are supposed to be keeping healthcare costs under control for all America. Well, relative to keeping ER costs under control, here's a link to a study Vivian Ho, PhD, sent from Health Affairs showing how much ER prices have gone up. ER prices are way higher than they used to be. So, you'd think that carriers would have a huge incentive to get members primary care and do lots and lots of things to ensure that not only would members have access to primary care, but it'd be amazing primary care with doctors and nurses that were trusted and relationships that would be built. It'd be salad days for value. Except … they're not doing a whole lot at any scale that I could find. We have Iora and ChenMed and a few others aside. These are advanced primary care groups that are deployed by carriers, and these organizations can do great things. But I also think they serve—and this came up in the Dr. Fernandopulle show (EP460)—they serve like 1% of overall patient populations. Dr. Fernandopulle talked about this in the context of why these advanced primary care disruptors may have great impact on individual patients but they have very little overall impact at a national scale. They're just not scaled, and they're not nationwide. But why not? I mean, why aren't carriers all over this stuff? Well, first of all—and again, kind of like back to the Wendell show (EP384) now—if we're thinking short term, as a carrier, like Wall Street encourages, you know, quarter by quarter, and if only the outlier, mission-driven folks (the knights) in any given carrier organization are checking what's going on actually with plans, members, and patients like Betsy advised, keep in mind it's a whole lot cheaper and it's easier to just deny care. And you can do that at scale if you get yourself an AI engine and press Go. Or you can come up with, I don't know, exciting new ways to maximize your risk adjustment and upcoding. There's an article that was written by Sergei Polevikov, ABD, MBA, MS, MA

Sunday 9th March - Morning Meeting. Genesis 37-38 | Tom Nash. You can also watch at https://youtube.com/live/1vWDNBIPXEU

Sunday 2nd March 2025Marriage RefresherEphesians 5:18-33Tom Nash

Sunday 2 March 2025 - Morning MeetingMark Series - 6Mark 8:34-38Tom Nash

Sky-high mortgage rates, low inventory, and bidding wars are making it nearly impossible for first-time buyers to get in the game. Is there any hope? Let's break down what's REALLY happening in the housing market!

Links & Resources Follow us on social media for updates: ⁠Instagram⁠ | ⁠YouTube⁠ Check out our recommended tool: ⁠Prop Stream⁠Thank you for tuning in! If you enjoyed this episode, please rate, follow, and review our podcast. Don't forget to share it with friends who might find it valuable. Stay connected for more insights in our next episode!

Christine Flynn shares her journey to the Catholic Church in her new book, “Not Just Spiritual.” Tom Nash talks about the DOJ dropping charges against ex-Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. Gail Buckley-Barringer has our Bible verse of the week.

Links & Resources Follow us on social media for updates: ⁠Instagram⁠ | ⁠YouTube⁠ Check out our recommended tool: ⁠Prop Stream⁠ Thank you for tuning in! If you enjoyed this episode, please rate, follow, and review our podcast. Don't forget to share it with friends who might find it valuable. Stay connected for more insights in our next episode!

Christine Flynn shares her journey to the Catholic Church in her new book, “Not Just Spiritual.” Tom Nash talks about the DOJ dropping charges against ex-Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. Gail Buckley-Barringer has our Bible verse of the week.

Questions Covered:  03:09 – How do you compare Ephesians 2:8-9 to James 2:17?  06:43 – What is the church's social teaching on immigration and treatment of immigrants?  17:00 – Why do we presume a valid Baptism for Protestants coming into the Catholic church?  21:37 – What is Opus Dei?  29:20 – It seems Mary's condition of the Immaculate Conception helped her be sinless. Does this mean that children conceived sinfully are more prone to sin?   33:02 – What is the difference between presence and substance?   42:58 – How should we discern God's wants you to use words, action, or prayer? 47: 52 – Where did the practice of folding hands or interlocking fingers come from? 51:30 – Why at Mass do we say “until you come again” right after the consecration?   …

Sunday 26 January 2025 - Morning Meeting Mark Series - 1 Mark 6:31-44 Tom Nash

Sunday 19 January 2025 - Morning Meeting 1 Peter Series - 3 1 Peter 2:9-10 Tom Nash

Sunday 12 January 2025 - Morning Meeting 1 Peter Series - 2 1 Peter 2:4-8 Tom Nash

If you have zero clue what co-pay maximizers and/or co-pay accumulators are and the financial incentives involved for PBMs (pharmacy benefit managers) and plan sponsors here, after you're done listening to this episode, go back and listen to the show with Joey Dizenhouse (EP423). Also, the episode called “Game Theory Gone Wild” with Dea Belazi, PharmD, MPH (EP293). Both these shows could fill in some blanks. For a full transcript of this episode, click here. If you enjoy this podcast, be sure to subscribe to the free weekly newsletter to be a member of the Relentless Tribe. Here's the micro mini of the co-pay maximizer/accumulator deal. These are vehicles that are designed by vendors who are also sometimes called maximizers or sometimes they're also PBMs. But these programs are designed to get as much money out of Pharma as possible in the form of co-pay support. So, here's how the maximizers are supposed to maximize plan sponsors getting pharma money. Say, for some drug, the pharma company has, I don't know, $12,000 max in co-pay support available to patients in total per year. Pharma does always cap the dollars that are available for patients. So, in this hypothetical, $12k a year is available. What a forthright or well-run maximizer will do is figure out, you know, if there's $12k max available, then they'll set a co-pay—so there's variable co-pays for patients—so they'll set a patient co-pay of, like, $1000 a month, which adds up to $12k over 12 months of the year. Get it? Every single month, the patient has a $0 co-pay, but the plan maximizes the dollars that the plan gets. Or, you know, maybe they'll charge $1,025 a month so the patient has some small “skin in the game,” and the plan sponsor just banked $12k. Sounds great, right? Well, sure, when it works as promised … and we'll get to this in a moment. Accumulators, on the other hand, have no such “Hey, let's make sure the patient actually gets their meds” guardrails. They hear that the Pharma is offering $12k, and the accumulator vendor and their plan sponsor clients also are like, “Cool, let's get that money as fast as possible.” So, they make the co-pay for that drug, I don't know, like hypothetically $3000. Great, now the patient runs out of that co-pay money in May. And don't forget and/or let me inform you, for both maximizers and accumulators, dollars paid by the Pharma generally don't count to the plan deductible for the patient. So now, the patient walks into the pharmacy, if in an accumulator or in a poorly run maximizer program, they walk into the pharmacy in May and are told that if they want their drug, they're gonna need to pay the $3000 co-pay that was set out of pocket every month until they reach their deductible. With some of these co-pay maximizer/accumulator plans, the plan sponsor may be a little bit out of the loop relative to what is actually going on here. The plan sponsor may think that members are doing fine—you know, they're getting their drug every month—so they may be surprised to learn about this running out of money in May issue. And what is true more often than it's not true, this $3000 or whatever—hundreds or thousands of dollars—payment due co-pay, the patient learns about it at the pharmacy counter or while trying to get chemo. It comes as a complete surprise, the fact that they owe three grand or whatever. What patient just shrugs and pays up in that moment because they happen to have their entire deductible or thousands of dollars lying around and at the ready? What a shock to find this out at the pharmacy counter or at the infusion clinic. Some of these maximizer programs are also starting to veer back into accumulator zones, like they're doing things such as saying that the member must pay their out-of-pocket max or their deductible or 30% of the cost of the drug, right, like some number before the plan will allow the patient to use the co-pay reimbursement program to begin with. So, there's other things that are emerging right now, which, again, cause the patient to have a very, very large out of pocket in order for them to get a drug which they have been prescribed and—ostensibly, at least—need. Allegedly, and sometimes for sure, dollars raked in from Pharma make it across the PBM/maximizer, vendor, middleman trench all the way over to the plan sponsor. For sure, especially for the administrative only maximizer vendors … yeah, you're gonna have the dollars actually making it to the plan sponsor. But sometimes the vendor running these programs is paid spread, right? So, the more expensive the drug and the richer the co-pay card program, the more the vendor will make because they take a percentage of savings. So, the more expensive, the more savings, therefore, the more the vendor is gonna make. In these cases where the vendor is paid a spread, can I take Perverse Incentives for $600, Alex? Right? But in sum, again, there's a lot to this conversation with Bill Sarraille, so please do listen to the whole thing. Bill offers five main pieces of advice, so I'm just gonna cover them right here up front—spoiler alert, I guess, but just to keep them all in one place. 1. Look into what is going on with a maximizer and/or accumulator program. First of all, is the plan sponsor paying spread? And also, how are these programs being marketed to members and how aggressively? Because there are a lot of plan sponsors having way more negative impact than they suspect they are. So, that's point of advice #1: Really look into actually what is happening on the grounds with some of these programs. 2. Eliminate surprise. Any plan sponsor listening, and Brian Reid also says this very crisply in an episode a month or so ago (EP456). If a plan sponsor wants to do stuff like this—like force a patient to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars out of pocket—if at any point during the year they are gonna wind up with thousands of dollars in co-pay or coinsurance to get their Crohn's disease med or cancer med or whatever, be really up front about this at least. It's really important if we really want to make sure that patients are taking maintenance meds and getting the medications that they're prepared for the reality that, at a certain point during the year, they are going to have a really big bill. 3. There is legal risk here. So also, Bill's advice is check into whether accumulators and/or maximizers are unlawful under the ACA (Affordable Care Act) and/or by deceptive practices rules when maximizers or accumulators are teed up as a benefit. And it, again (reference point of advice #2), it's not explained that dollars they get from Pharma will be taken by the plan and not applied to the patient deductible. I was just reading about the crazy aggressive marketing tactics that some of these vendors are using to get members to sign up and … yeah, definitely look into deceptive practice rules. 4. If it's utilization management that we're trying to achieve here, then your utilization manager should be utilization managing. These maximizers are not meant to impact utilization management. Patients really cannot differentiate, as per study after study, it's very difficult for patients to differentiate high-value from low-value care or meds. So, pretty much the impact of having a patient with thousands or hundreds of dollars of out-of-pocket spend to get a med isn't going to be to ensure that the right people are taking the right med. Point is, use the right tool for the right job. So, if we're trying to keep patients away from low-value meds, the tool for that is utilization management. Also be aware, if the PBM says it cannot do utilization management or you'll lose your rebates and/or is pushing into a maximizer accumulator program to do this instead, that's kind of a clue that they cannot do it because they are taking money from Pharma to not have any restrictions on a drug. Read the article in the New York Times (you're welcome) about how PBMs took secret payments for the free flow of opioids, and Chris Crawford also talks about this sort of same-ish thing in an upcoming show relative to GLP-1s. But if you're trying to do utilization management, then do utilization management. 5. Use our understanding of this whole goings-on as a rationale or a way to tamp down perverse incentives. We want to wind up with patients getting charged a percentage of net prices, not a percentage of some wildly inflated list price with this whole accumulator maximizer contributing to, you know, just more wildly inflated list prices so the co-pay programs can be bigger and someone can make even more money off of the percentage of savings. And plan sponsors addicted to rebates now have another bucket of cash. Like, this is just another example of how perverse incentives pervade the system. And we should certainly be aware of that. Bill Sarraille was a healthcare attorney for many years. He retired from his law firm on the first of last year, and now he's doing the things he wanted to do before but couldn't because his billable rate was too high. Bill is teaching at the University of Maryland Law School and doing some regulatory consulting, etc. He's working with a variety of patient groups. Also mentioned in this episode are University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; Joey Dizenhouse; Dea Belazi, PharmD, MPH; Brian Reid; Chris Crawford; Marilyn Bartlett; Scott Haas; Paul Holmes; and Tom Nash. You can learn more at University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and by following Bill on LinkedIn. You can also sign up for his Substack.   Bill Sarraille is a professor of practice at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, a regulatory consultant, and a retired senior member of the Healthcare Practice group at Sidley Austin LLP. Bill is a nationally recognized expert in healthcare, life sciences, drugs, medical devices, and patient access to treatments. He is widely known for his expertise in a broad array of healthcare matters, including rare disease treatment access barriers, pharmaceutical pricing, Anti-Kickback Law compliance, the 340B program, and managed care and PBM issues. During his years practicing law, Bill was recognized repeatedly by The Best Lawyers in America in both healthcare law and administrative law. He was also consistently listed as a leader in the field of healthcare law in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business. Bill also serves as the general counsel of the charity the Pharmaceutical Coalition for Patient Access, as an advisor to multiple patient advocacy groups on patient access issues, a compliance advisor to a coinsurance patient assistance foundation, and as the director of a rare disease society and Kalderos, Inc., a health IT firm with a focus on effectuating pharmaceutical discounts and rebates.   09:31 What should plan sponsors be aware of right now? 14:01 What is the justification for maximizers, and why is this at odds with the purpose of insurance? 18:05 Where does the issue of “fairness” land within cost containment? 20:00 Brian Reid's LinkedIn post on insurance company access challenges. 21:30 What are the real legal issues presented by some of these co-pay maximizers and co-pay accumulator programs? 27:06 How are these programs creating perverse incentives? 29:28 EP450 with Marilyn Bartlett, CPA, CGMA, CMA, CFM. 32:16 “If you're covered by the ACA, I think this is unlawful.” 32:57 What advice does Bill have in regard to these programs? 33:49 What potential litigations does Bill see coming in the near future in regard to these co-pay maximizers and co-pay accumulator programs? 38:38 EP365 with Scott Haas. 38:45 EP397 with Paul Holmes.   You can learn more at University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and by following Bill on LinkedIn. You can also sign up for his Substack.   @HCLAWComment discusses #costcontainment on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #pharma #healthcareleadership #healthcaretransformation #healthcareinnovation   Recent past interviews: Click a guest's name for their latest RHV episode! Stacey Richter (INBW41), Andreas Mang (Encore! EP419), Dr Komal Bajaj, Cynthia Fisher, Stacey Richter (INBW40), Mark Cuban and Ferrin Williams (Encore! EP418), Rob Andrews (Encore! EP415), Brian Reid, Dr Beau Raymond, Brendan Keeler  

Wednesday 25 December 2024 - Christmas Day Celbration Why did Jesus come? - 6 1 Timothy 1:15 Tom Nash

Are you on the board of directors of a company? Or are you a shareholder of a publicly traded company? Or are you a CEO or a CFO or in-house counsel who reports to a board of directors or these shareholders? Well, this show is for you. And it's about how the healthcare industry has become financialized at the same time that providing health benefits has become the second-biggest line item after payroll for most companies. We talked about that in a recent encore with Mark Cuban (EP418) also, as well as the show with Cora Opsahl (EP452) and Claire Brockbank (EP453) from 32BJ. For a full transcript of this episode, click here. If you enjoy this podcast, be sure to subscribe to the free weekly newsletter to be a member of the Relentless Tribe. So, this encore with Andreas Mang is really timely. And even if you've listened to the show when it originally aired a year ago, you may want to take another listen, because in the context of these recent shows, this one really slots right in there. And also, by the way, the one with Julie Selesnick (EP428) from last year talking about the legal jeopardy currently in play. So, this show isn't really about health benefits; it's about the business that these health benefits have become and how, if the CEO or CFO of an employer is not intimately involved in the financial layer wrapping around health benefits, then the company is getting really taken advantage of by those entities who are intimately familiar with the financial layer surrounding those healthcare benefits. And the employees of that company also are getting equally taken advantage of. This is not a case where paying more or less results in better or worse employee health or healthcare. It is a case where not minding the shop in the C-suite means that financial actors just take more of the pie and nobody wins but them. Employer loses; employee loses. Andreas Mang, my guest today, kicks off this interview talking about the conversation that will go down between himself and any CEO whose company gets bought by Blackstone. So, if you're a CEO and you're aspiring for this to happen, yeah … heads up. But he says it's kind of an unnatural act to dig into anything that smells like health benefits or health insurance. Some may not even realize that this whole financial layer has developed that sits above the healthcare benefits themselves. And they also may not think that there's anything that's possible that can be done. As far as both of these points are concerned, Andreas Mang gives a list of, as he calls them, easy things a C-suite can do to save 10% while improving employee satisfaction and health. Saving 10% or more, this can be a really big number. A lot of this is just enforcing purchasing discipline that is being used elsewhere. Here's Andreas's list recapped: 1. Have CFO engagement throughout the year. (We talked about that with Mark Cuban also.) 2. Be self-insured once you have reached a certain size. (Andreas gets into this in more detail during the show itself.) 3. Be very, very careful who you hire as your broker or benefits consultant. There are five things that need to be true: ·      They have the experience to do the job. ·      Flat-fee model compensation ·      No product pushing ·      Fees at risk (30% or more) ·      Simple termination provisions 4. Do carrier/ASO/TPA RFPs once every three years or thereabouts. 5. Do dependent eligibility audits. (Cora Opsahl talked a lot about this also in an earlier episode [EP372].) 6. Leverage pharmacy coalitions and stop-loss collectives. (In the show itself, Andreas offers some warnings because some of these coalitions and collectives are great and some are not.) But bottom line, just keep in mind, as Mark Cuban said (EP418), those that are taking your money, your company's money, are advantaged when you are confused. Where there's mystery, there's margin. If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em and all that. This is a business strategy. Healthcare should not be this complicated. But yet, it has become so; and anyone who doesn't realize that is letting themselves and their employees really get taken advantage of. Unknown unknowns are not benign. As I have said several times already, Andreas Mang is my guest today. He is a partner at Blackstone, the private equity and alternative asset manager. His job is helping portfolio companies manage their U.S. healthcare benefits for their employees. Also mentioned in this episode are Blackstone, Mark Cuban, Cora Opsahl, Claire Brockbank, Julie Selesnick, Lauren Vela, and Tom Nash.   You can learn more at Blackstone and by connecting with Andreas on LinkedIn.   Andreas Mang is senior managing director, portfolio operations, and chief executive officer of Equity Healthcare, where he is involved in managing medical benefits spend across the Blackstone portfolio. Andreas brings 20 years of healthcare experience to Equity Healthcare, having held various roles in healthcare finance, operations, and strategy. Prior to joining Blackstone, Andreas was the vice president responsible for national provider network operations at CareCentrix, a PE-backed, leading home health benefit-management company. At Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, he held a variety of roles, including a leadership role identifying and implementing administrative cost savings opportunities throughout the organization and ultimately designing a new corporate business model. In addition, he held roles as the manager of strategic financial planning at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and was a senior consultant with Deloitte Consulting's Strategy and Operations group in Boston. Andreas has a bachelor's degree in healthcare management and policy from the University of New Hampshire and an MBA from the University of Rochester's Simon School of Business Administration. He currently serves on the board of DECA Dental.   04:55 Why Andreas starts every conversation with the question, “How's your healthcare company?” 07:38 Why is it important, as a self-insured employer, to treat your business as a small healthcare company? 09:16 Why is it unnatural for companies to be providing health insurance? 10:47 What can be achieved when there is alignment between employers and insurers? 12:41 What things can a company do to reduce spend by 10%? 14:14 Why is it better to have CFO engagement in the benefits plan throughout the year? 16:25 Why does self-insurance save 5% to 9% for companies automatically? 18:14 “The funding isn't a healthcare thing; it's a CFO thing.” 18:27 Why is it vital to have a reliable, trustworthy broker? 25:12 When is the last time your company has RFP'd their health plan? 27:39 Why does changing a health plan feel scary but is necessary? 28:31 What is a dependent eligibility audit? 31:20 Why are employers better together? 34:34 How do employers truly get a flat-fee model with brokers?   You can learn more at Blackstone and by connecting with Andreas on LinkedIn.   Andreas Mang of @blackstone discusses the financialization of #healthcarebenefits in our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #digitalhealth #healthcareleadership #healthcaretransformation #healthcareinnovation   Recent past interviews: Click a guest's name for their latest RHV episode! Dr Komal Bajaj, Cynthia Fisher, Stacey Richter (INBW40), Mark Cuban and Ferrin Williams (Encore! EP418), Rob Andrews (Encore! EP415), Brian Reid, Dr Beau Raymond, Brendan Keeler, Claire Brockbank, Cora Opsahl

Sunday 15 December 2024 - Morning Meeting Why did Jesus come? - 3 Hebrews 2:14-17 Tom Nash

Questions Covered:  09:17 – How did Protestant lose the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? 16:17 – What is the status of the devotion of Jesus King of all nations? 20:16 – How would you word the Divine Simplicity of God not having a body without it becoming a heretic? 29:38 – What proof do we have that the Catholic church was founded by Christ? 36:30 – Having a hard time understanding why Mary is immaculately conceived but no else? 46:17 – The Pope and Trump have differing views on building a wall, who am I supposed to believe? 50:11 – how did protestants go from the catholic belief that faith without works is dead to faith alone? 52:00 – in a protestant bible study who is going to argue with her about confession… why do we have to confess to a priest? …

Greetings, my spectral spectators!

Catholic apologist Tom Nash talks about St. Jerome and the importance of studying scripture. Jason Gale promotes “Martyrs of the Eucharist” by the late Rev. J. Francis Sofie, OP.

Catholic apologist Tom Nash talks about St. Jerome and the importance of studying scripture. Jason Gale promotes “Martyrs of the Eucharist” by the late Rev. J. Francis Sofie, OP.

You know why I'm interested in the Particle v Epic EHR (electronic health record) systems lawsuit? It's because … data. Say I'm thinking about this like, say, a plan sponsor and I want data so I can do better population health or do care navigation to help my members avoid downstream bad things or steer and tier to high-quality docs and point solutions and, and, and … For a full transcript of this episode, click here. If you enjoy this podcast, be sure to subscribe to the free weekly newsletter to be a member of the Relentless Tribe. To do anything that has anything to do with population health, I need data. And when I say data, we often think claims data as plan sponsors; and we think about getting it from carriers. But where does the claims data originate? Oh, right … the gleam in the eye of a lot of claims data is EHR data. Someone typed something into an EHR system that metamorphosized, ultimately, into a claim that wound up in a carrier's dataset. Plan sponsors want the claims part of the claims data, obviously, to see prices; but they also want those underlying data elements that indicate the health of their members. Said another way, they want the insights gleaned from some clinician somewhere who typed something into an EHR system that turned into codes that drove claims. So, yeah … Particle v Epic. Particle was getting EHR data and passing it on to other parties, and we get into the what's and the who's and the commentary. But bottom line, what I wanted to get into today is this: Will this lawsuit result in more access to data for downstream entities who need it, or less? What are the implications here of Epic shutting down access to its EHR data to Particle and Particle filing an antitrust lawsuit saying Epic did this because Epic wanted to use their monopoly power here to advantage their own payer platform business? Oh, the plot thickens. Payer platform business? For an EHR system. What is that exactly? More intrigue. What's going on there? Because, yeah, probably a lot of plan sponsors and patients are, I'm gonna say, unaware of this part of the equation as to what data the carriers seem to have and where are they getting it from and what things they may be doing with it that plan sponsors and/or members who are their customers may or may not be aware of. Knowledge is power here, especially in the fight over trying to get data out of carriers who won't hand it over when the carriers themselves are getting that data through interoperability networks that potentially plan sponsors also qualify for. Chucking that in there as a point to ponder. This whole “I'm intrigued” bit here, though, was not rhetorical. I really am/was intrigued—so intrigued, as a matter of fact, that I called Brendan Keeler to come on the pod and talk this out with me. Brendan, by the way, has written a very detailed account of the Epic/Particle dustup. There is a part one and a part two. Before we kick in here, though, I did just want to make at least one point on background. First, so many, many people want to get their mitts on EHR data for good reasons and maybe not-so-good reasons from the standpoint of the patients whose personal health information is being fought over here. The basic rule is that to get EHR data, you have to be involved in the treatment of the patient. So, this is the current governance as it stands. You have to be involved in the treatment of the patient if you want EHR data. So involved in the treatment, actually, that you have to have your own treatment data to share back. This is called reciprocity, right? Like, how can you say that you're treating a patient if then you don't have any data as to that treatment? On-site clinics, by the way, are providing treatment—just saying, in case anybody is thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now. Okay, back to the lawsuit. The real kicker of this whole Particle v Epic and Epic cutting off Particle thing, as far as I'm concerned, is over the secondary use of said treatment data once someone gets it (ie, someone gets EHR data transmitted to them because they are doing something or other to treat the patient, but now they have that data). And at that point, is it a free-for-all what they do with it? Can they, I don't know, sell it to anyone they want? Said another way, what if I realize I need EHR data for, I don't know, I'm a lawyer trying to do lawyer things or I'm public health entity or whatever. It doesn't matter. If I throw a medical professional in a room and cook up something this person is doing, that could be considered treatment if you squint at it. Tricky, right? Now I can get EHR data. So, yeah … there's that motto “If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin',” which Pryce Ancona said, ironically, on Health Tech Nerds the other day; and I cracked up. But it's so not funny. Because you have some people—maybe or maybe not—kind of violating, let's just say, the spirit of the endeavor. And then you have others who really, really need the data to do something really, really good who can't get it. Is this because of a monopoly entity doing monopoly antitrust stuff? We discuss, but massive spoiler alert, where this conversation is going is, okay, so does this lawsuit ultimately make it easier or harder to get data for righteous good reasons? And Brendan Keeler suggests this case, this lawsuit, actually could be a good thing because what it will do at a minimum is pave the path to get data and really delineate a good use case from some of this profit motivated back-and-forth where patient information is getting fought over and the patient has little to no control over what goes on and neither do plan sponsors. He uses the term increased data liquidity, which is a term I think I will heretofore adopt because it will make me sound smart. Data liquidity. Lastly, lastly, lastly here, just as context in case anyone indulges in further reading and winds up confused, there are so-called interoperability frameworks out there, such as Carequality or CommonWell or eHealth Exchange. These interoperability frameworks are also in this mix. We do not have all day, and thus we don't get into these in the conversation that follows. But just be aware, they're on and about the scene. For the full skinny on what interoperability frameworks are and do, listen to episode 376 with Lisa Bari, MBA, MPH. Brendan Keeler, my guest today, as a matter of fact, is on the steering committee of the Carequality interoperability framework. Brendan Keeler has had a long history in this whole exact space, so he was the perfect guest to dig in on this topic in a really well-balanced way, I'm gonna say. Brendan is currently the interoperability and data liquidity practice lead at HTD Health. Also mentioned in this episode are HTD Health; Pryce Ancona; Lisa Bari, MBA, MPH; Health Tech Nerds; and Tom Nash. You can learn more at HTD Health and by following Brendan on LinkedIn. You can also sign up for his Health API Guy newsletter on Substack.   Brendan Keeler is the Portland-based interoperability practice lead for HTD Health, a leading strategic consultancy and development agency. He provides subject matter expertise and executive partnership for all projects related to integration, interoperability, and connectivity, working with digital health, tech-enabled care, payers, providers, pharmaceutical clients, and more. He previously held product positions at Epic, Redox, Zus Health, and Flexpa. He also advises digital health start-ups and authors Health API Guy, providing analysis on industry trends in interoperability and health tech regulation. Reach out to contact him here or via social media.   07:21 Who can gain access to EHR data? 10:31 Are there limits to how EHR data can be used secondarily? 11:36 Can EHR data be shared secondarily? 15:47 Part one and part two of Brendan's comprehensive account of the Epic/Particle dustup. 15:57 What was the dispute that started Epic v Particle? 18:21 What are the two viewpoints in this dispute with Epic's actions? 26:16 What progress has been seen since this lawsuit began? 28:00 Who else will be impacted by the likely rule cementing from this lawsuit?   You can learn more at HTD Health and by following Brendan on LinkedIn. You can also sign up for his Health API Guy newsletter on Substack.   @healthapiguy discusses #plansponsor and #publichealth access to #healthdata on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #financialhealth #primarycare #patientoutcomes #healthcareinnovation   Recent past interviews: Click a guest's name for their latest RHV episode! Claire Brockbank, Cora Opsahl, Dan Nardi, Dr Spencer Dorn (EP451), Marilyn Bartlett, Dr Marty Makary, Shawn Gremminger (Part 2), Shawn Gremminger (Part 1), Elizabeth Mitchell (Summer Shorts 9), Dr Will Shrank (Encore! EP413), Dr Amy Scanlan (Encore! EP402)

Thomas J. Nash is a Contributing Apologist and Speaker for Catholic Answers and a Contributing Blogger for the National Catholic Register. He is the author of What Did Jesus Do?: The Biblical Roots of the Catholic Church, The Biblical Roots of the Mass, To Whom Shall We Go?: The Biblical Case for the Catholic Church (Emmaus Road, 2024), and the Catholic Answers booklet 20 Answers: The Rosary. He has served the Catholic Church professionally for more than 35 years, including as a Theology Advisor for the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN).

Tom Nash returns to talk over the scriptural basis of the Catholic Church, diving into some important issues in the Faith such as the Saints, Sacraments, the Mass and Penance.

Tom Nash joins to discuss the Catholic Church's basis of authority, the link between civil authority and divinely instituted Ecclesial authority, and how faith and works correlate.

Questions Covered: 03:30 – What would make someone a heretic? 06:56 – How can we defend the claim that we are not worshiping icons? 15:02 – Could you explain What is means not to judge intent and motivation? 20:09 – Is it a sin to have suicidal thoughts? 30:11 – Regarding the woman caught in sin, how would I anticipate a response from a protestant who argues faith alone? 36:05 – Luke 12:1-8 I don’t understand why they use the example of buying sparrows. What did they use sparrows for? 41:40 – What is the meaning of Acts 2:38 and how does it align with the Church's teaching on baptism? 45:49 – What’s the legitimacy for using intellectual arguments to come back to the faith? 50:44 – How can I better explain the need for confession before communion? Did Judas receive communion? …

Magic Mind unique code and link SHAUNA20 and https://www.magicmind.com/shauna DJ Hookie's links: https://bit.ly/m/tomnash Tom Nash mesmerises audiences around the world, either with his thought-provoking philosophies or hypnotic DJ sets. However, before his career had even begun, Tom, aged only 19, lost both his arms and legs was given the slimmest chance of survival. When the unthinkable becomes your reality, where do you turn? Tom not only went on to survive, but to thrive, taking on life with nothing more than a pair of prosthetic hooks and a dark sense of humour.

Questions Covered: 05:25 – How would you explain to a protestant that the reformation did more harm than good? 11:52 – How would I reply to a friend who says that a Catholic shouldn't judge a gay relationship? 18:45 – Can I receive communion more than once a day? 20:07 – Our priest seems to rush the Mass. Is it appropriate to approach him and ask him to slow down? 29:52 – Is it good to assume that the people being addressed in Romans 10 were already baptized with great faith? Thus, faith being what was needed for salvation for them? 34:52 – My friend favors the spiritual presence view of the eucharist? How do I explain to him that this view is insufficient? 40:58 – I'm thinking of leaving the Catholic church because they won’t give the precious blood? Why am I being denied a sacrament? 43:56 – I agree with the limiting of microplastics. We need to do what we can to save God’s planet? 49:05 – Are the different Churches in the new testaments akin to what today are modern dioceses? 51:49 – In light of 2 Cor 5:20, what is a good way to evangelize senior citizens whose memory isn’t good? …

Tom Nash lost his arms and legs to an illness at 19. He has also become a good mate of mine. Here, he talks about how political correctness and woke policing have actually make things significantly harder for disabled people.  Subscribe to his YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiquJMumEKysG4mNP0NwERg Follow his Instagram DJ Hookie here: https://www.instagram.com/djhookie And get The Psychology of Secrets here: https://amzn.to/4aqViT1 _____________ Visit ExpressVPN.com/HERETICS, and get three extra months for free! _____________ Listen to our extra content: http://andrewgold.locals.com  Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok  Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Questions Covered: 03:32 – I'm protestant looking into the Church. Does a protestant have to redo salvation? 13:22 – Some people use scripture to denigrate Jews. What does the Church say about this? 24:48 – Rev 19:16 says Jesus will return on a horse with a name inscribed on him. Does this mean that animals are in heaven and that tattoos are acceptable? 31:45 – What does the Church teach about illegitimate children? 34:38 – Does it make the pope a heretic for praising Martin Luther? 37:31 – Do we believe in the antichrist as a person? 41:43 – Why don’t you talk about the Palestinian people? 49:55 – I always thought that animals were in heaven. Can you clarify? …

Tom Nash is an author and Catholic apologist. Together, Angela and Tom will discuss his book, "To Whom Shall We Go? The Biblical Case for the Catholic Church. You can buy it here: https://stpaulcenter.com/to-whom-shal....Join my Telegram chat! https://t.me/+xnvwN3jQv4cyZmVhA super big thanks to my patrons on Patreon. You truly are the reason I can continue this podcast.To become a Patreon or give a one-time gift, visit https://www.integratedangela.com/Affiliate Links Sophia Institute:  https://sophiainstitute.com/ref/79/Sensus Fidelium Press: https://sensusfideliumpress.com/integ...TAN Books: https://tanbooks.com/?rfsn=7854296.49...Support Integrated AND get a discount when shop at these shops! Star of the Sea Gifts, Code: INTEGRATED10: https://www.etsy.com/shop/StaroftheSe...Our Lady's Closet, Code INTEGRATED10: Support the Show.

In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by veteran Catholic apologist Tom Nash to talk about the biblical basis for the Catholic Church. How can we use the Bible to explain the origins of the Catholic Church? We dig into apostolic succession, the centrality of the Mass, Jesus' desire for Christian unity in John 17 (and how to accomplish this), and some of the Church-dividing problems with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Plus much, much more. Tom is a veteran apologist with a lot to say and this episode is absolutely packed to the rafters. For more from Tom check out his book To Whom Shall We Go? from Emmaus Road Publishing and visit Catholic Answers to see his decades worth of content and contributions.For more, visit The Cordial Catholic. Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com. Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests! To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our YouTube channel.Please consider financially supporting this show! For more information visit the Patreon page.  All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me.If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page.Thank you to those already supporting the show!This show is brought to you in a special way by our Patron Co-Producers. Thanks to Eli and Tom, Kelvin and Susan, Stephen, Victor and Susanne, Phil, Noah, Nicole, Michelle, Jordan, Jon, James, Gina, and Eyram.Support the Show.Find and follow The Cordial Catholic on social media:Instagram: @cordialcatholicTwitter: @cordialcatholicYouTube: /thecordialcatholicFacebook: The Cordial CatholicTikTok: @cordialcatholic

Guest Host Pete Burak and Brendan Hodge look at the latest numbers about the loss of religion in our youth, and Tom Nash joins us to discuss the Biblical basis for the Church.

Questions Covered: 04:40 – Does infallibility entail denial of freedom of opinion? 18:35 – Since Jesus God, Did Mary worship Jesus as a baby? 21:55 – I'm Protestant. How does Mary be “our life, our sweetness and our hope” not conflict with Jesus being our only hope? 32:38 – I found a weird rosary that I think could potentially be a satanic rosary. What should I do when I encounter one? 44:30 – Does my mental disability affect my Sunday obligation? 51:16 – How do priests consecrate the bread n and wine into the body and blood of Christ? …

Tom Nash explores the controversy surrounding the term “accompaniment” and delves into its true meaning, emphasizing the importance of genuine love, humility, and support in helping others grow in their faith and address challenges. …

Questions Covered: 03:40 – Are martial arts a sin? 07:25 – When were the angels created? Also, what did the angels fight with in the battle of angels? 14:12 – What sources could be useful to prepare a discussion with a protestant? 16:22 – I'm trying to become Catholic but I'm having problems understanding why Mary is a perpetual virgin. Is there any scriptural evidence? 24:25 – I am a registered nurse and in the process of converting to Catholicism. As an RN, I practice in the correctional system and some of these inmates are dealing with gender dysphoria. I am required to administer medications to patients, including medications that support transitions. Am I doing wrong? What does the Church teach about this? 38:37 – What do you do if even if you know you've been forgiven through confession, you can't forgive yourself? 44:20 – Is there evidence that Satan really exists? Or is it just symbolism? …

Questions Covered: 05:23 – Does the Church having canonized saints diminish the value of non-canonized saints? 12:23 – Were the three wise men practicing astrology when they looked at a star to find Jesus? 19:45 – I know that the answer to the problem of suffering is that God allows suffering for a greater good. But where does that idea come from? The Bible? 30:42 – When Gabriel says “Hail” to Mary, is that a greeting or is it something more? 37:30 – My best friend's sister died recently, and my friend is wondering if she's in hell. I didn't know what to say to her. 46:18 – Do the cases of Pope Honorius and Pope Vigilius disprove papal infallibility? …