Thomas Gill: The Secrets to an Active Old Age

Harlan Krumholz: Welcome to Health & Veritas. I’m Harlan Krumholz.‌

Howard Forman: I’m Howie Forman. We’re physicians and professors at Yale University. We’re trying to get closer to the truth about health and healthcare. Our guest today is Dr. Thomas Gill. But first, we always check in on whatever the hot topics are of the day. Harlan, what do you have for us today?‌

Harlan Krumholz: This is my “learn from Howie” day. Let me tee up a couple of things, and then I want to see what you got to think—‌

Howard Forman: Sure.‌

Harlan Krumholz: ... about them. Because there’s a lot going on in the world, Howie. Let’s start with a firebrand at the FDA. Vinay Prasad takes the helm. Vinay Prasad, an epidemiologist, oncologist, hematologist, currently at UCSF, is going to be in charge of CBER. That means he’s going to be in charge of vaccines and the blood supply and a whole bunch of other things in biologics, gene therapies. Let me put this bluntly. This is like making your fiercest restaurant critic the new head chef. By the way, someone who’s never been in the kitchen. Look, Prasad is a sharp, outspoken academic. I think he’s known now less for his science than he is for his Substack and YouTube rants... hasn’t, as far as I know, had any experience in public service.‌

He’s been one of the FDA’s most vocal critics. He’s accused the agency of being in bed with industry. He’s blasted it for approving drugs with flimsy evidence. He once said the FDA should either “remove itself from the picture or demand randomized trials measuring appropriate endpoints.” He started off life criticizing a lot of the medical industrial complex in oncology, in cancer research, and in cancer care. But quickly tacked over into great alignment with a lot of the people who are criticizing the government over the course of COVID. He said at one point in a podcast just last year that Americans might be better off with no FDA than the one we have now.‌

Howard Forman: Yes. That’s the quote.‌

Harlan Krumholz: He replaces Peter Marks. Listeners may have heard about this.‌

Howard Forman: We talked about him.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Peter Marks wasn’t someone who was in the public eye, except during most of the vaccines, I think he was a widely respected, is a widely respected scientist. He clashed with RFK Jr., saying he couldn’t work under someone who “wanted subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.” Peter Marks is a very soft-spoken person and a person with a Yale connection. I think he’s a Yale grad.‌

Howard Forman: He was also our faculty member.‌

Harlan Krumholz: And faculty member here.‌

Howard Forman: Yeah.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Not a person to hyperbole. ‌

Howard Forman: No. No.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Coming out with that, I think was a bit of a surprise.‌

Howard Forman: Yes.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Let me give you a sampling of Prasad’s views. He called annual COVID boosters “a public health disaster,” “a failure of FDA drug regulation.” He called COVID vaccines for children “corrupt.” He said that we need a whole “new Phase IV detection system.” By the way, I happen to agree with that. He’s pushed for randomized country-level trials of childhood vaccines to study policy differences. While he doesn’t align fully with RFK Jr., he praised him for holding corporations to account and slammed previous FDA commissioners as “corporate sellouts.”‌

I think the thing for me is, he’s tough on social media and really often is, I would say, rude, disparaging of individuals. He contributes to this incivility of the public discourse. But to say there are many people cheering the long-overdue disruption, feel that it was necessary to bring in somebody like that. Other people are bemoaning it as someone, like many of the others, who’ve been appointed within this administration, people who were wailing at the moon, calling out people right and left, but had never had any major responsibility.‌

So it’s not a tweak at the margins, it’s a philosophical flip from traditional risk mitigation to scientific insurgent who thinks the system is rotten and needs a complete overhaul. Howie Forman, what do you make of putting a crusading iconoclast in charge of safeguarding the public’s trust in vaccines and gene therapies and the blood supply? What do you think about it?‌

Howard Forman: Let me just say to start off with, I think that it’s disappointing to see somebody who has so little experience either running an organization or even managing clinical trials themselves or having any experience in this, just putting them in the position. But let’s put that aside for a minute. I had a reply on LinkedIn yesterday that crystallized this for me perfectly, because I keep calling him a “skeptic,” and that is a positive word, and I’m probably wrong to be using it that way.‌

The person corrected me and said, “He’s not a skeptic, he’s a contrarian ideologue.” Anytime there is a majority opinion, anytime that the majority has taken a particular opinion, he will intentionally take the other side of it and stick to it without necessarily specific evidence. One of his other crazy quotes that he had out there is, “Everybody seems so critical of raw milk right now. I’ll drink raw milk right now.” It’s almost like his brand is to thumb his nose at science. That’s not good. It’s great to be skeptical. It’s great to always be skeptical. You are skeptical. I’m skeptical of a lot, but this is not about skepticism. This is about being a contrarian because it gets a lot of attention. I really hope he rethinks that in this role.‌

Harlan Krumholz: I think give him responsibility. He’ll be put in this different role. It’ll be interesting to watch. He, by the way, makes some very good points. I mean, it’s like the whole administration. There are some points that simply feel like they go too far. But there are other points where they have a point. There was a point to say that NIH needed to be reformed. There was a point to say that the way that we’re funding science needs to be rethought. There’s a point there—‌

Howard Forman: That’s skepticism. I mean, healthy skepticism is great.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Well, look, if you want to grow hundreds of thousands of people on your Substack, you don’t get that by having—‌

Howard Forman: By being healthy.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Yeah. Well, okay. But I’m just saying that’s a role. That’s a role. By the way, he grew his following quite large. He’s in a different role now. We’ll have to see how this occurs. It’s much like putting the number two person at the FBI to be the person who was on the podcast railing against the FBI saying, “We shouldn’t have an FBI.” We’ve seen this before. We’re going to have to see how all of this unfolds. Let me ask you about a couple of other quick things here that caught my eye.‌

Medicare Advantage kickback allegations. There’s this bombshell DOJ lawsuit filed against Aetna, Elevance, and Humana, claims these insurers funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks to brokers, eHealth, GoHealth... From 2016 to 2021, the idea? Pay the brokers extra to push seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans even when they knew the plans weren’t the best option for that individual. So a lot of people who are eligible for these plans go to a broker who can, they think, look out for their interests. It turns out that the insurers were in bed with them, it seems, according to this complaint, alleged by this complaint.‌

Howard Forman: I think the bigger issue is they were trying to push away the high-cost people. I mean, I think that there were some situations where they were trying to get people and some situations where they’re trying to get rid of individuals. I think it was just actively steering patients, not in their interest but in financial interest.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Well, they said GoHealth, it’s alleged in the filing that GoHealth’s agent commission went from $20 to $30 per Humana sale, just a $10 bump. But still, in aggregate, it could be quite a lot overall. But it was enough to get that honest broker to be incentivized to push people in particular ways that weren’t necessarily in their interest.‌

Howard Forman: Look, we can spend every episode talking about how capitalism fails in healthcare. This is one more example where companies are doing what they think is in their financial interest. It is not in the public’s interest, and it may in fact be illegal.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Let me jump to another one. CVS quarter one and their ACA exit. CVS beat expectations in quarter one 2025 with earnings of $2.25 a share, well above the $1.64 forecast. But the real headline here is pulling out of the Affordable Care Act exchanges in 2026, it says it’s losing money, projecting a $350 to $400 million in losses next year alone. This is, I think, an interesting move and it reflects some dynamics. CVS has relatively small ACA footprint, so they think it makes them vulnerable to adverse selection.‌

Howard Forman: That adverse selection would get worse if the previous ACA supplemental dollars that had been coming from the last five years go away. They think that as people retrench from the market, the sickest people will stay in the market, and that would actually make them lose even more money.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Their MLR, which is the medical loss ratio, was reported to be around 96% in 2024, meaning that for this part, for every dollar they took in, they paid it almost all out medical costs. That means that there’s very little room for profit margin.‌

Howard Forman: They’ve lost money, they were losing money on the population. For our listeners, MLR ratios tend to be 80% to 85% is the sweet spot for insurance companies for them to make a profit, 85% to 90%, they’re in that break even, making a small profit. Anything above 90%, they’re probably losing money.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Essentially, all the premiums are going to paying for care. That puts them in a tough position. Here’s a final thing for me that on their earnings call, not a single analyst asks a question about this exit. I think it suggested that the market wasn’t surprised. The market wasn’t surprised. Just to say the CVS thing. By the way, also new historic agreement with Nova Nordisk to expand Wegovy access. Wegovy is the Ozempic, the semaglutide that people are on. People thought Lilly stock actually I think went down a little bit on this because CVS moving more towards them, they must have cut a good pricing deal. So anyway—‌

Howard Forman: The insurance companies have to figure this out because this isn’t going away. They’re going to have to figure it out. It may be only a few years of higher costs, but they have to figure out how do they provide employers Medicare Advantage plans lowest possible price that they can get and so they can negotiate hard.‌

Harlan Krumholz: All right. Well, thanks, Howie, as always your comments are insightful, help me understand the context of all this. Let’s get onto Tom Gill.‌

Howard Forman: Dr. Thomas Gill is the Humana Foundation professor of geriatric medicine and a professor of epidemiology, chronic diseases, and investigative medicine at Yale. He holds several leadership positions at Yale, including the director of the Yale Program on Aging, director of the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, and the director of the Center on Disability and Disabling Disorders, where he oversees longitudinal studies and clinical trials aimed at understanding mechanisms and preventive strategies behind the development of functional decline and disability among community-living older persons.‌

Dr. Gill received his medical degree from Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago in 1987 and completed his residency in internal medicine at the University of Washington and then came to Yale for the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, which he completed in 1993, following that with a geriatrics fellowship in 1994. First of all, beyond that, beyond what we just had in the bio, you are one of the most multiply honored people in your field. You are a true scholar and a gentleman, and your work in geriatrics has been really impactful over those decades.‌

At the same time, though, we have an aging population that really does suffer from so many morbidities and complications of aging over time. Before we started today, I was asking you, what are the best interventions to help people forestall disability in aging? I wonder if we could pick up with that. What are those interventions that work best, or at least people feel work best?‌

Thomas Gill: Probably the single most evidence-based intervention involves physical activity. Physical activity is beneficial across the age range, but it’s been shown in multiple high-quality studies to be beneficial for an array of outcomes among older persons, particularly those that are relevant for maintaining independence.‌

Howard Forman: When you say “physical activity,” I think about, my father always says that one of the best pieces of advice I ever gave him was to start going to the gym when he was 65, and he’s now thankfully 92 and very healthy. What does it mean for advising an elderly person? Some people are almost couch-bound to begin with, not really doing much. How do you build up to that?‌

Thomas Gill: Well, the single most effective mode of physical activity is walking. If someone is truly sedentary, they’ll have to start slow. How they proceed is going to depend on their balance. Some older persons will already be using a mobility aid, which doesn’t preclude walking, interventions, particularly a cane, a straight cane. They can get recommendations depending on if they’re on the more physically frail end of the spectrum of being evaluated by a physical therapist. Maybe the way to get going, if someone is ambulatory and can leave their home and if their neighborhood is safe, walking in the neighborhood is often quite effective. They need not go to a gym, although if they have access to a gym, that’s quite effective.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Tom, it’s great to have you on, and I wanted to share with our listeners some of what I think are, at least, for me, highlights of what you’ve been able to accomplish. First, I’d like to focus on this area that I just thought was extraordinary, continues to be and is still underutilized, which is this idea of prehab, being the notion that people who are about to undergo major surgery, for example, can put themselves in a stronger position by going through a period of training for that event. You’ve done elegant studies about it. I wonder if you could just share with the group a little bit about your thoughts. Where did that idea come from, and how strong is the evidence that doing that makes a difference?‌

Thomas Gill: This is work that we did many years ago, and my interests were related to how to promote functional independence, particularly, among older persons who were physically frail or vulnerable. The trial that we did call “prehab” was among community-living older persons that were physically frail on the basis of two physical maneuvers. One is that they had slow gait speed or they had difficulty getting out of a chair. The intervention was primarily a physical therapy–based intervention. It was set in a home, and it was shown to be effective over the course of a year. The intervention was six months, and it slowed the rate of functional decline in disability.‌

Harlan Krumholz: I guess I must have always extended that. You were trying to prevent decline. But I think I extended that notion as I’ve talked about it to other people. I know that you did this a while ago, but I just thought it was a brilliant idea. I’ve said that for people taking the same thing, people who are almost... in a position where it’s inevitable that they’re going to experience a decline, that can you make that intervention or I’ve always wanted to do that study where if I took what you did before they underwent bypass surgery, before they underwent any major elective surgery, could we put them in a position where they would be better prepared for it? Some people have done variations on this, but I still think it’s not quite out there exactly how to optimize that, where it’s almost like the intervention, the elective surgery, is an athletic event, and how do you train for it?‌

Thomas Gill: No, you’re correct. That elective surgery has been one of the most common areas in which prehab has been implemented and tested, and there’s I think generally been shown to be some benefit in different types of elective surgery. It’s not work that we’ve done ourselves the most... I think one area that’s been a major focus has been orthopedic elective surgeries, hip replacement, knee replacement. There’s some inherent challenges there because those folks often can’t effectively implement the types of physical activities and exercise as prescribed by a physical therapist because of their joint disease.‌

Harlan Krumholz: But I think what was cool was, and I just think of you as a pioneer in this space, that this training, the strength training that you can do, but the way I take it is like it’s never too late. You can actually begin the strength training, you can put yourself in a position where you can be more highly functional. All these things give you a reserve that you can draw on. If you do encounter something which causes a decline, you’re starting at a higher level. The people who really get in trouble are the people who haven’t been doing this. Then they’re really so close to the margin that if something pushes them over, they have a hard time climbing back up to that functional independence. I mean, help me with this, but isn’t this the concept?‌

Thomas Gill: Harlan, are you sure you’re not a geriatrician?‌

Harlan Krumholz: I always love geriatrics, and I thought we should all be spreading the ethos of geriatrics throughout all of medicine.‌

Thomas Gill: But that’s the model that we follow. Then you can consider it like a gas tank that if you’re running on fumes, you’re going to be highly vulnerable. You’re in the setting of some acute event, including major surgery, whether it’s elective or non-elective, the outcomes may be quite poor. You want to fuel or fill up the tank so you have some gas that you can draw upon when that time comes.‌

Harlan Krumholz: There’s another area that I really thought you were, I mean, there are many areas, but let me pick out another one that where you were really pioneering, which was in this idea that the best way to understand the experience of people is through repetitive measurement over time. So you launched what I thought was really a landmark study that took a group of older people. Of course, people had been doing longitudinal studies in the past, but it was really the intensity of understanding their function and being able to look at trajectories of individuals over time and really begin to analyze the data in ways to say that there are people who are able to resist the average effect of aging to diminish function, for example, and others who were succumbing to the ravages of age, I’ll put it like that. Also being able to capture when there were large-scale events that occurred and what happened at those points that were really discontinuities in your journey.‌

Your journey was going along fine, but then all of a sudden, the journey changed, and understanding that. I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about that study and what you thought were some of the central insights. Because the reason I say it was so pioneering was we’re now in an era where people have wearables, there’s a lot more monitoring, the capability of being able to track activity and so forth is so much greater. But you were really doing this prior to, you started this before people were really able to have those tools. Yet I really think it set the foundation for a lot of studies that are being done subsequently.‌

Thomas Gill: You’re just talking about the study, our longitudinal student study, the Precipitating Events Project, or the PEP study, which started in the late 1990s. It was designed to better understand the processes by which older persons lose their independence. As a clinician, a lot of the work in epidemiology been done by non-clinicians, but based on my own training and experiences, I thought, “Well, older persons become disabled usually when they get sick. You know, something bad happens to them.” Most other studies had just been focusing on risk factors, what puts them at risk, not necessarily what precipitates the loss of function. In order to do that, we decided that we really needed to evaluate them quite intensively with these monthly interviews. We’ve been interviewing this cohort of 754 persons monthly to the present day, and they were all 70 and older back in 1998. There’s only four survivors, and we’re still—‌

Harlan Krumholz: Come on, really? You’re going to stretch us all the way out—‌

Thomas Gill: We’re following them all to the end. No one’s going to replicate this study, I feel confident. Then we’ve linked these data to centers of Medicare, Medicaid services. So we know about all their utilization, we’ve reviewed their medical records, and we’ve published close to 150 papers, many of which focus on the specific types of events that will precipitate disability. Then also look at the flip side, meaning what’s the likelihood of recovering after a disabling event? The common wisdom at the time that we launched the study that was only about a third of older persons who become disabled will recover independent function. Because we were interviewing these persons so frequently, we had much higher rates of recovery, and most recovery occurred within three to six months. Now most other surveys prior to our study were annual surveys. So what happens is someone becomes disabled, they may recover, but then they may become newly disabled, and then they might die. That would be lost by the traditional annual surveys.‌

Howard Forman: In the final minutes, I just want to ask you, you grew up in Chicago, I believe, and you went to college in and around Chicago. You majored in computer science, and how unusual was it at that time for someone in computer science to be applying to medical school?‌

Thomas Gill: It was pretty uncommon, but that probably helped distinguish me as well. It also provided a source of side income. I worked within our computer center when I was an undergraduate. I had a job as medical school in epidemiology primarily doing programming. It was a good side gig.‌

Howard Forman: That’s awesome.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Tom, I want to end up here with your beloved mentor at Yale. There’s so many people who’ve benefited from your kind and generous approach. You also can be strict at times. You’ve got a little bit of Alvan in you sometimes where you have very high standards and really push people to achieve their potential. I just wonder, just for our listeners, many of them are students, do you have a... It’s a different era we’re entering to now, but do you have any general advice you give people when they think about careers in medicine, the research careers, you look back on what you’ve done? Any wisdom you want to share here with our listeners?‌

Thomas Gill: I think, identify the area in which you have passion for. I think that will get you motivated to pursue whether it’s your clinical work, and if you’re pursuing investigation or ideally the two are aligned. The work I do research-wise informs my clinical work, and my clinical work informs my research. When those are aligned and the synergies that they provide, I think allow you to be truly productive and potentially innovative and really be grounded in the clinical realities of the patients that you’re caring for.‌

Howard Forman: Well, we are grateful for you. I’ll also just say it’s nice to see another Yale lifer. I think Harlan and I both have come here and stayed here, and so have you. It’s a testament to the stickiness of Yale and how great it is and the collaborations among so many great people.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Those are always active decisions. Because someone like Tom has had many options—‌

Howard Forman: That’s for sure.‌

Harlan Krumholz: ... over the years to do other things. It’s great to see people.‌

Thomas Gill: But I did have an opportunity to integrate. I worked closely with Alvan and also with Ralph, Ralph Horwitz. Ralph trained under Alvan. But I think the two of them, hopefully, I struck some type of a balance between the two. Ralph was such a clear thinker, so was Alvan, and both incredible writers. That’s another advice for persons who are interested in pursuing a career in clinical investigation is the importance of writing. When I was in Seattle during my house staff training, I took a writing course because I could write pretty well in college, but you lose that during residency because you’re just writing clinical notes, and you’re not really true to writing. I took a creative writing course when I was in Seattle before I came to... just to reacquaint myself with writing. I knew that writing was going to be very important.‌

Harlan Krumholz: That’s terrific.‌

Howard Forman: Well, you are a great testament to the great mentorship of Alvan Feinstein and Ralph Horwitz and so many others. Thank you for everything that you do.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Thanks, Tom. It’s great having you on.‌

Thomas Gill: Thank you for having me. I really enjoy talking with you, and I enjoy your show. I commend you for developing—‌

Harlan Krumholz: It is all Howie.‌

Howard Forman: Not all Howie.‌

Harlan Krumholz: But you probably know that already.‌

Howard Forman: It’s a great partnership, so we appreciate it.‌

Thomas Gill: Okay.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Hey, that was a terrific episode. I’m always glad when we get people like Tom on, talk about his research, a lot of it pioneering.‌

Howard Forman: He’s brilliant.‌

Harlan Krumholz: But let’s get to one of my, I’ll say one of my... I don’t want to insult our guest by saying my favorite, one of my favorite parts of the show.‌

Howard Forman: You asked me to give you some good news this week, and so I’m not giving you good news, but maybe it’s not depressing news. It’s just something to think about. Back in early February, we first talked about the fact that Medicaid is in the crosshairs for Congress to save money. In fact, the budget agreement in Congress is now to cut, I think something like $880 billion from Medicaid over 10 years in order to pay for the renewal of the tax cuts and additional tax cuts, and so on.‌

Right now, the path to cutting Medicaid is being actively discussed by Congress. As we discussed back in February, there are many options available, including curtailing the ACA subsidies, as we talked about in the earlier segment, introducing work requirements at the federal level or complete restructuring of federal-state cost sharing for Medicaid. As background for our listeners, Medicaid is a state-run but federal- and state-financed program.‌

The federal government covers a big part of the cost. In rich states, it’s 50%, in poorer states, it can be over 70% of the cost of care for Medicaid patients and 90% for Medicaid expansion populations. It is one reason why every state provides Medicaid in one form or another because despite it being a voluntary program for the states, it’s generally much more affordable than the alternative.‌

Over the last decades, every state except Alaska has learned how to game the system. What do they do? They tax the hospitals and other providers, the states do, they pay them more for services, thus allowing the hospitals to recoup the cost of the tax and then they pass on the bill to the federal government for the higher cost of these services and literally generate money out of thin air. They literally are able to use the system to generate extra income and cash from the federal government.‌

I’ve been teaching this for the last decade in my class, and I still find most people just disbelieving that something this grotesque goes on, but it does. Now a logical person would rightfully say, “This is not in the spirit of the federal government’s agreement to pay for a certain percent of costs.” And they’d be right. This is a game. But make no mistake, by now, this is a very large subsidy that has become baked into state funding. It is to the tune of probably $600 billion over the next 10 years. It’s not easy to unwind, removing this may be statutorily legal and even better policy, but it’s still a cut to the Medicaid program, and it will leave most states scrambling to fill this hole.‌

That will mean cuts to Medicaid services, Medicaid access, healthcare access, or populations. Aside from the harm to citizens and patients, it’s not even easy beyond that because despite GOP Congress having control, this affects some of the most red GOP states more than others. Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, Tennessee, South Carolina are affected very significantly if they were to curtail this. I would not bet any money that this will actually happen, but it is right now at the top of considered ideas to save money from Medicaid.‌

Harlan Krumholz: This is so interesting. You’ve got a workaround at the state level, which really circumvents the spirit of the law. I would think... it’s not illegal, but it certainly seems in a way unethical with it.‌

Howard Forman: Oh, yeah. I mean, it’s crazy. Every state that’s done it, they think that they’re inventing fire for the first time.‌

Harlan Krumholz: But like you said, it’s now baked in. The expectation is it’s what floats the programs in a lot of places because the federal government underfunds Medicaid, so they found another way to raise the revenue.‌

Howard Forman: That’s a good way to phrase it.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Just in the end here what do you... If you were in the government and said like, “Yeah, we really should get rid of this,” but say, would you get rid of it? You just raise Medicaid subsidies, which I know is not going to happen right now in Congress, but what would you recommend? What’s the answer?‌

Howard Forman: I mean, in a perfect world, the federal government would rethink how this is structured to at least curtail this from getting any worse. They would probably also rethink the formulas overall. But if you’re looking to save money, the key point that needs to be made is for those that have gone out reading articles that say, “Oh, my God, look at all this waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid.” It’s not waste, fraud, and abuse where the money is being wasted on anything. It’s basically a manipulation of the system in order to fund a grossly underfunded population for healthcare. So there’s no easy way to fix this.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Does the money that they make, that extra money, does it go back into Medicaid, or are they using it for other purposes?‌

Howard Forman: Money is fungible. If a state is able to get another $5 billion a year from Medicaid, that means—‌

Harlan Krumholz: They can use it however they want.‌

Howard Forman: Right. Because that means they might not have to cut education spending or raise taxes within the state.‌

Harlan Krumholz: This might not hurt Medicaid, though, because it may be that this money’s coming back into Medicaid.‌

Howard Forman: Well, no. If you were to take this money away, a state—just make up a state—might have a $5 billion shortfall now. What are they going to do to fill that shortfall? They’ve got to do something to the Medicaid population, but they’ll probably also do something for education or roads or libraries or something.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Yeah. Well, thanks for bringing that to us, Howie.‌

Howard Forman: Sure.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Maybe bring me something happier next time. You’ve been listening to Health & Veritas with Harlan Krumholz and Howie Forman.‌

Howard Forman: How did we do? To give us your feedback, to keep the conversation going, email us at health.veritas@yale.edu or follow us on any of social media. As I mentioned today, I read those comments on LinkedIn.‌

Harlan Krumholz: We want to hear your feedback. So send them in questions, your experience on topics. If you like the podcast, rate us, review us on your favorite podcast app. We always read your reviews, and it helps people find us.‌

Howard Forman: If you have questions about the MBA for Executives program at the Yale School of Management, reach out via email for more information or check out our website at som.yale.edu/emba.‌

Harlan Krumholz: Health & Veritas is produced with the Yale School of Management and the Yale School of Public Health. Thanks to our researchers, Tobias Liu and Gloria Beck, and we’re so happy to have those two spectacular students working with us this year—‌

Howard Forman: We are.‌

Harlan Krumholz: ... and to our remarkable producer, Miranda Shafer. Talk to you soon, Howie.‌

Howard Forman: Thanks very much, Harlan. Talk to you soon.‌