Rae Woods (00:15):
From Advisory Board, we are bringing you a Radio Advisory, your weekly download on how to untangle healthcare's most pressing challenges. My name is Rachel Woods. You can call me Rae.

(00:27):
Two years ago almost to the day, we released our first episode on the topic of GLP-1s. At the time, we wanted to look past the celebrity-driven headlines and try to understand what real questions health leaders needed answered.

(00:42):
Flash forward to today, I think it's fair to say these drugs have completely changed the game. We've seen new definitions for what classifies clinical obesity, finally validating pushback on BMI as a measurement tool. We've talked about the reality of weight bias, we've reimagined what comprehensive obesity care looks like, and we understand the strain that high-cost drugs like GLP-1s put on employers and health plans, but those headlines haven't died down. GLP-1s are still a topic of basically every conversation I have with health leaders, and even in my own circle of friends and family members. And that's why in today's episode, I want to nail down exactly what the biggest trends in obesity care are in 2025.

(01:30):
To do that, I'm joined by two Advisory Board experts who spent the last few months researching the obesity care landscape. I've got Gabby Marmolejos and Madeline Vogel. Gabby, Madeline, welcome to Radio Advisory.

Madeline Vogel (01:43):
Hi, happy to be here.

Gaby Marmolejos (01:46):
Hello. Thanks for having us.

Rae Woods (01:48):
Madeline, this is your first time on the podcast. Gabby, you are a veteran at this point. In fact, I'm not sure if you remember this, Gabby, but you were on our very first episode about GLP-1s, and this was back in April of 2023, almost exactly two years ago. In the last two years, the buzz about these medications has not gone anywhere, but I want to focus less on what people are saying about these drugs and actually focus on their real world impact. So my very first question is what is different about the state of obesity today versus when we had this conversation two years ago?

Gaby Marmolejos (02:26):
Today about 6% of U.S. adults are using GLP-1s. And so to put that number in some context, prior to 2019, less than 1% of adults were taking medications to treat obesity and related comorbidities. So this means that six times more people are taking GLP-1s today than about five years ago.

Rae Woods (02:45):
That leads me to ask, if so many more people are taking GLP-1s, has it had an impact on obesity prevalence in the United States?

Gaby Marmolejos (02:55):
Well, that's a question that I've been pondering, and I think there's a lot of headlines honestly talking about it, but in my opinion, it's a little too early to see the impact of the increased use of these medications on obesity prevalence just because of the timeframe for how these surveys are conducted.

(03:10):
So I think the most recent survey timeframe is like 2021 to 2023, and I think they really started picking up in popularity at the end of 2022 and in 2023. So it's a little hard to see how that is going to be incorporated in national surveys. According to the most recent survey, national obesity prevalence seems to have plateaued since the pandemic, but severe obesity that is a body mass index of 40 or more has actually slightly increased since the pandemic. So those mixed results make me think that we may need to get another survey year to see the full impact of GLP-1s.

Rae Woods (03:48):
And how has that impact translated to obesity care volumes?

Gaby Marmolejos (03:53):
Well, probably the most consequential impact we've seen in the obesity landscape since our last conversation is that we're seeing huge demand for GLP-1s. Comprehensive weight management programs across the country have really long wait lists, often three months to six month wait lists. And a good portion of these patients are coming in seeking out GLP-1s as part of their treatment plan. And so this preference for GLP-1s has likely driven some national declines in bariatric surgery volumes. And so this is a real issue for these programs that often, as part of the treatment pathway, offered bariatric surgery. And they're seeing a lot of patients who honestly are eligible for bariatric surgery prefer GLP-1s.

Rae Woods (04:38):
We're talking about GLP-1s in the context of weight-loss as opposed to in the context of cardiovascular disease management or diabetes management, which makes me want to come to the coverage decision, at least for just a moment. What's the posture of the Trump administration is taking towards GLP-1s in the context of weight-loss?

Gaby Marmolejos (04:56):
Recently, I think there was an announcement that Medicare is not going to cover GLP-1s for weight-loss. That was a proposal under the Biden administration to cover them. But honestly, there is a federal law that prohibits Medicare from covering GLP-1s for weight-loss specifically. So they would've been reinterpreting the law. So it seems as though the posture is that, but I will say the cabinet is slightly different in the sense of we've seen reports of Dr. Ross showing favor for GLP-1s, whereas RFK Jr. is opposed. So there is kind of mixed signals from his administration on their posture of GLP-1s.

Rae Woods (05:36):
But perhaps that's why it's important to focus on the here and now. And what I'm hearing you say is that right now GLP-1 volumes are up, and they're up quite a bit.

Gaby Marmolejos (05:46):
Yes.

Rae Woods (05:46):
Bariatric surgery volumes, perhaps they haven't plummeted, but they've certainly gone down. And I want to be really careful here about correlation, which is not causation, but I want to be real. Is it fair to say that the reason that bariatric surgery volumes have gone down in the last few years is because of the popularity of GLP-1s?

Gaby Marmolejos (06:08):
Given every bariatric program I've talked to has attributed volume declines to GLP-1 use, and many national studies have replicated the same findings, I think that assumption is pretty universally accepted at this point.

(06:22):
The real question is whether this will continue. There are fairly high rates of people discontinuing GLP-1s at this point. A lot of studies suggest that half of people using them discontinue within a year. So this leads some open questions about the future impact of GLP-1s on bariatric surgery volumes. Will eligible people opt for bariatric surgery if they discontinue GLP-1s, will we continue to see these high discontinuation rates? There's a lot of open questions there.

Rae Woods (06:50):
And I want to be clear, if I think back to our conversation from two years ago, this is something that we said could happen. We said that when GLP-1s hit the market, when they increase in popularity, we could see a decrease in bariatric volumes, and we could even see some hospitals shutting down their bariatric surgery centers, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is something that we've seen just in the last few years.

(07:11):
I still want to believe that the increased attention on obesity care more broadly is ultimately a good thing for bariatric providers. Is there any good news for bariatric surgery providers, especially since you've been out there actually having dozens of conversations with obesity service line leaders?

Madeline Vogel (07:28):
So in many of the conversations that we've had, bariatric leaders are remaining very optimistic. Many believe, as you said, that increased focus on obesity care in terms of GLP-1s will increase focus overall and on programs including bariatric surgery. Many believe that patient preferences as we've seen them change over time, they might shift away from GLP-1s and back to bariatric surgery.

(07:57):
So as an example, in 2011, 35% of bariatric procedures were lap-bands, but today they represent less than 1% for a variety of reasons like complications or advancements in other procedure types. So going back to GLP-1s, discontinuation rates for these medications, like Gabby said, are still pretty high. So bariatric leaders might see patients who are unable to continue these medications turn towards other options in weight management services.

Gaby Marmolejos (08:30):
Yeah. And also we're seeing organizations experiment with combination therapies. So that would be using bariatric surgery alongside GLP-1s, and specifically we're seeing a lot of folks experiment with GLP-1s for weight maintenance. So after bariatric surgery, they would be used to help keep the weight off from the bariatric surgery. So we're seeing folks experiment with using both therapies, not necessarily having them mutually exclusively offered to patients.

Rae Woods (08:58):
So it sounds like you're saying the bariatric providers remain optimistic because first of all, they have seen consumer preferences for weight-loss treatments change already. That's the example with the lap-bands, and they may continue to change in the future. And it also sounds like they want to harness the attention on obesity care, period, even if at this moment there's perhaps the most attention on the medications themselves.

Gaby Marmolejos (09:25):
Definitely.

Rae Woods (09:27):
We just talked about the fact that consumer preferences for obesity care have changed and will continue to change. I want to talk about something that's changed quite a bit, that's perked my interest, and that's just that there are so many more options for people to seek care when it comes to obesity, and we're seeing a huge rise in telehealth-based obesity care services. How are the virtual first providers changing the game for obesity care?

Madeline Vogel (09:54):
Yeah. So virtual first providers are really leaning into their ability to offer patients convenient care and offer that care very quickly compared to what traditional providers have historically been able to offer.

Rae Woods (10:06):
And often providing that care outside of a traditional health system.

Madeline Vogel (10:11):
Yes, definitely. And with these virtual first providers, there are a few different categories, and they differ on what they're able to provide for patients. So general telemedicine services, these are consumer-directed telehealth solutions that offer prescriptions, and those are the Hims & Hers, Ros of the world. So they're offering solutions for weight management, but this isn't their primary focus.

(10:42):
And then there are those that are weight-loss focus platforms. These are the companies that were founded on weight management as their primary business model, but have more recently added GLP-1 management to their offerings. So thinking Weight Watchers as an example.

(10:58):
And then finally, there's the virtual first providers that are offering multi-condition management, and these are the companies that are focused on the interconnectedness of cardiometabolic health and offer solutions, including GLP-1s. And Calibrate and Vida are examples of this sort of company.

Rae Woods (11:17):
None of those examples you gave are traditional healthcare providers. Should I be worried about that?

Madeline Vogel (11:24):
I don't think so. I think that virtual first providers and these disruptors offer different things compared to traditional providers. These disruptors are able to provide very convenient care that's accessible to patients, but traditional providers are able to offer something that virtual first providers can't, and that's bariatric surgery and more wraparound cardiometabolic care that speaks to the needs of different comorbidities and other conditions that these patients may be experiencing.

Rae Woods (11:53):
I can't talk about these virtual first providers without talking about the role of compounding GLP-1s. And forgive me, this might lead us down a little bit of a rabbit hole, but I think it's an important one, and I think it's one that I think it's a question that all of our listeners have at this moment. I know that there have been a few changes, some announcements, some injunctions in the compounding space. Can you quickly catch us up on what's been happening here?

Madeline Vogel (12:20):
Yes. So I want to start out with an overview of what compounding really is. So compounding is when a licensed pharmacist, physician, or people under the supervision of a licensed pharmacist combine, mix, alter ingredients of a drug to create a medication tailored to a patient's needs. The FDA allows compounders to make close approximations of branded drugs, so thinking Wegovy and Zepbound, when that reference drug is in shortage.

Rae Woods (12:51):
And wait a minute, I thought one of the things that changed recently is that GLP-1s are no longer in shortage.

Madeline Vogel (12:58):
And you're right. Yeah. Over the past few months, the FDA has announced that these shortages for tirzepatide, which was in late-2024, and semaglutide, which was earlier this year, is over. And because of that, the compounding future is a little bit unclear.

Gaby Marmolejos (13:15):
And I want to emphasize because at this point we talk about the active ingredient, and I don't know how many of the listeners will know what translates to what, but tirzepatide is Zepbound and Mounjaro are the brand names, and semaglutide is Ozempic and Wegovy brand names.

Rae Woods (13:32):
I'm thinking about the many, many pharmacies and the many, many telehealth companies, frankly, every single one, Madeline, that you just referenced that have been using these products, that frankly have been advertising these compounded products, even launching Super Bowl ads, spending a ton of money saying that they're offering the compounded version of these brand name drugs. What does the end of the shortage actually mean for them? Do they have options?

Gaby Marmolejos (14:00):
Well, it's interesting because... So compounding is already supposed to have ended for tirzepatide. Compounding was supposed to end March 19th, 2025. And then compounding of semaglutide is supposed to end in May 22nd. And so there are a few different options they can take. The first one is the more obvious one of they stop compounding in accordance with FDA regulations. And so we're seeing some organizations do this. Some are partnering with the drug manufacturers to offer the branding versions. Ro previously offered compounded tirzepatide, but in December, they struck up a deal with Eli Lilly to integrate into LillyDirect, which is their direct-to-consumer platform. Some organizations are offering alternative medications.

Rae Woods (14:44):
Wait, hold on, hold on. Why is moving from the compounded product to the branded product tricky from the business perspective?

Gaby Marmolejos (14:51):
It is definitely more expensive to offer the brand versions. Part of the reason they went to these virtual first providers was because it's less expensive to get the compounded versions, but there is still one medication that can still be compounded called Saxenda, which is another one of Novo Nordisk weight-loss drugs that remains in shortage. It has less average weight-loss than Wegovy does, but some organizations are now just offering patients that instead.

Rae Woods (15:16):
And that was the original weight-loss drug before GLP-1s really, really took off in popularity and became the topic of Oscar's monologues and so on and so forth.

Gaby Marmolejos (15:26):
Yeah. And there's also oral medications. They're switching patients over to the drugs that have already been on the market for many years. So Qsymia and Contrave, those are both oral medications that were on the market for a decade and are pretty cheap. And so some organizations are switching patients over to those.

Rae Woods (15:41):
So the two options I'm hearing on the table are moving to the branded product, which is more expensive and might result in raising prices for consumers, or they can offer different products, some of the original weight-loss drugs that are less effective but are on the market, they're oral instead of injectables. What other options are on the table?

Gaby Marmolejos (16:00):
They can file a lawsuit against the FDA, not necessarily what I'm recommending for the record, but the Outsourcing Facilities Association, which is a trade group representing compounders, they filed a lawsuit against FDA in October of last year after the FDA formally ended the tirzepatide shortage. They can take their chances that FDA's resources are stretched too thin after layoffs and just continue compounding, and just hope that FDA doesn't enforce any kind of action against them or any lawsuits from the drug manufacturers.

(16:33):
And then the option that we're seeing that some organizations pursue is to continue compounding for a subset of patients. And so the rules on compounding are honestly very confusing. So I'm just going to sum it up nicely with FDA allows compounding pharmacies to make customized therapies for individual patients whose medical needs cannot be met by FDA-approved medications. This could be like elderly patients that required liquid dosing or patients that may be are allergic to an inactive ingredient and need a different formulation, but the product has to be significantly different for an individual patient. So that means it can't be essentially a copy of the FDA-approved medication, and certain pharmacies can't compound very, very large amounts like we've seen recently.

(17:18):
And so we're seeing some organizations try to continue compounding under these parameters. So on an earnings call in February, the Hims & Hers CEO said that they're planning to sell personalized doses of semaglutide following those restrictions.

Rae Woods (17:33):
Okay. I know I said that this was a rabbit hole, but I actually think there are a couple big things that we need to pay attention to here. First is that patient costs might actually be changing as a result of the change in the rules around compounding. But the other thing that might be changing is just the level of competition. So again, Madeline referenced all of those direct-to-consumer telehealth companies that were non-traditional players in healthcare.

(18:00):
If the rules around compounding are changing and their willingness to kind of go up against the FDA or create more targeted specialized solutions for their patient populations might look different, that tells me the competitive landscape is changing as well. It feels like we're at a fork in the road moment. Patients who were getting the compounded drug are now going to have to decide if they can afford the FDA-approved versions of the drug. There's also the competition landscape, which brings me to my next question; what does the drug pipeline look like moving forward? Is there a cheaper option that patients should perhaps wait for?

Gaby Marmolejos (18:41):
I don't know about a cheaper option that would be launched in the coming years, but I would say that there are a lot of medications in the pipeline that could potentially drive down the price of existing medications. So as of December of last year, there were 157 anti-obesity medications in clinical trial testing.

Rae Woods (19:01):
157?

Gaby Marmolejos (19:03):
Yeah, 157. And not all of them are honestly that late into clinical trial testing. But it is interesting to see a lot of organizations are trying to get in on this market because of the popularity of these medications, and so... But seven of them are in phase three clinical trials with launch dates expected next year or in 2027. And so these include medications from other manufacturers other than Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. So Boehringer Ingelheim and Amgen each have their own medications that are supposed to launch.

(19:35):
And so with these new competitors entering the market, that enables payers to potentially have leverage to negotiate lower prices. And it might also meet these manufacturers compete in the direct-to-consumer space since Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk both have direct-to-consumer pharmacies. So they might end up competing against each other just for consumers who are willing to pay out of pocket.

Rae Woods (21:54):
We started this conversation talking about obesity care more broadly, but of course, we got down into the specifics of focusing on weight-loss medications. I'm curious for your take here, because there are so many different medications and clinical testing, there are seven new products in phase three clinical trials, do you think patients are going to wait and ultimately flock towards these new drugs when they become available, or is there something else we need to be paying attention to in the obesity care space?

Madeline Vogel (22:26):
I think that depends. I think that there are other things that we need to focus on, like you said. We've seen before that consumers prioritize safety and costs over whatever percentage weight-loss is promised by treatment. If the only thing people cared about was weight-loss, more people would be getting bariatric surgery. Bariatric surgery offers a greater percentage weight-loss than any of the other approaches available today, but only about 1% of the eligible population pursues bariatric surgery.

Rae Woods (22:57):
And that's because it's a surgery, right? There are bigger risks, it's a bigger deal than taking even an injection once a week.

Madeline Vogel (23:03):
Exactly. Patients care about those risks, they care about potential side effects, they care about how expensive a treatment is, how convenient it could be. And so big patient uptake of new drugs coming to market is largely going to depend on what these new drugs have to offer.

Gaby Marmolejos (23:18):
Yeah. And also we were just talking about the cost. If bariatric surgery, for whatever reason, is covered by their health plan, it might be cheaper than getting these medications that aren't covered by their health plan.

Rae Woods (23:30):
This is exactly where I wanted to go next, Gabby, right? I feel like two years ago, the question was how the hell are payers actually going to cover these drugs? But I think the question now is are they even going to cover the drugs in the first place, right? I'm thinking about your comment about the Trump administration.

Gaby Marmolejos (23:50):
Yeah. I mean, it's pretty mixed in terms of coverage. I would say two years ago, we were seeing a lot of folks prescribe GLP-1s off-label under the diabetes indication. We've seen a lot of crackdowns on that. It's a lot harder to prescribe them off-label. It's much more common to cover GLP-1s for diabetes as opposed to weight-loss specifically. And so Medicare doesn't cover it for weight-loss, most Medicaid state agencies do not cover for weight-loss, and then there's a mixed bag among employers offering or covering GLP-1s for weight-loss specifically.

Rae Woods (24:28):
And we've talked about the fact that a lot of employers or various purchasers are adding additional layers onto their ability to cover. So they need to offer wraparound services, or perhaps they have a BMI limit that's higher than the FDA indication, for example.

(24:43):
Which actually brings me to focusing less on the individual consumer or patient and thinking about the provider here. You already mentioned that bariatric surgery volumes are down and payer coverage is completely variable, particularly in the employer space. That's got to be really, really hard for providers that are trying to set up, sustain, and ultimately grow obesity care services within bariatric surgery and also outside of it.

Gaby Marmolejos (25:13):
We've heard from a lot of different providers that there's a lot of inconsistent policies, and that increases administrative burden and waste. And so especially because each health plan often has their own distinct prior authorization or step therapy policy that is inconsistent across. And so a lot of providers and clinicians are spending time filling out prior authorization forms and calling pharmacies to try to figure out what is the policy, and has it changed, and have they dropped coverage, or have they instituted a new policy?

(25:43):
So it's causing a lot of confusion and administrative burden. And it also worsens revenue challenges in a way in the sense that a lot of organizations, their margin per case is higher for bariatric surgery compared to medical weight-loss support. And so there's an unequal balance in terms of the volumes they're seeing for medical weight-loss versus bariatric surgery, which is where they get most of their margins, and that's putting margin pressure on them.

Rae Woods (26:10):
What are providers doing here? I'm thinking that it cannot be comfortable to respond to payers' limitations in coverage, which we know are very variable in the GLP-1 space, and perhaps less variable, but there's still that variation in the bariatric space as well. What are providers doing here?

Madeline Vogel (26:29):
Prior auth is a huge hurdle for many medications, and GLP-1s obviously is not an outlier here. So providers are working to make sure that they can minimize administrative burden on their end, and in doing that, enable greater patient access to care.

(26:46):
So we've chatted with some providers who are restructuring administrative teams to manage prior authorization requirements. So dedicating staff to navigate obesity care prior auth really helps streamline the process, not only for providers that are offering this care, but also the patients who are receiving it.

(27:05):
Another approach we've seen is partnering with vendors. And with massive increase in demand for medical weight management, we've seen GLP-1 and obesity care specific prior auth companies and programs that help providers through this process and make it streamlined and easier for patients.

(27:24):
Overall, the biggest thing that providers are focusing on is building in adaptability and flexibility into their weight management programs to make sure that they are able to meet the needs of patients as they come through the door.

Rae Woods (27:37):
You just said two words that perked my ears. You said adaptability and flexibility is key, which actually brings me back to something you said earlier, which is the fact that consumers also adapt, they change their preferences when it comes to weight-loss. How are you seeing providers embrace that flexibility when building out a comprehensive obesity care program?

Gaby Marmolejos (28:00):
Yes. A lot of the folks we talked to are looking to cross-train staff. Traditionally, a lot of weight management programs had a separate medical weight-loss versus surgical weight-loss staff. And so they're looking to cross-train staff so that if there's shift demands to medical weight-loss, they're prepared, if demand shifts back to surgical weight-loss, they're also prepared to meet that demand as well.

(28:24):
This also goes beyond just the administrative staff. We're seeing some bariatric surgeons attain their obesity medicine board certification, so they can also treat both types of patients. We're also seeing folks try to increase capacity to deliver medical weight-loss support with group and virtual visits. Clearly, these virtual first providers show that a lot of folks are interested in virtual weight management options. And so we're seeing some organizations do so.

(28:51):
We're also seeing organizations strengthen partnerships with primary care. And so I think we've talked about in the past how a lot of primary care physicians don't feel equipped to offer comprehensive obesity care. And so organizations like Michigan Medicine, they have a weight navigation program, which partners obesity patients and their primary care provider with a board-certified obesity specialist. And so in partnership with that specialist, they create a personalized treatment plan.

(29:21):
And so that's a great way to be able to kind of manage this huge demand for medical weight-loss. And it also serves as a referral pathway because it's actually increased referrals to their bariatric program, especially for patients where maybe the GLP-1s or medical weight-loss approaches weren't as effective.

(29:38):
And we'll be talking even more about different innovations. I know, Rae, you're going to be leading our GLP-1 innovation showcase where we're definitely going to see even more innovations that providers are using to embrace that flexibility.

Rae Woods (29:50):
I am. We are hosting that virtually on June 3rd where I'm really excited to learn from others and to have peers learn from each other in terms of what best-in-class obesity care actually looks like inside and outside of medication-based programs.

(30:09):
I'm reflecting on the fact that so much has changed from the moment where Gabby and I sat down and first had this conversation about GLP-1s two years ago. There are so many more people who are accessing and using GLP-1s, they're using different forms of GLP-1s, though the compounding rules are changing, they're accessing these drugs from different kinds of providers. Traditional health systems are having to change the way that they compete with the direct-to-consumer programs and more and more. And all of that has just happened in two years. So let's flash forward two years into the future. So it's April 2027, what are your predictions about the state of obesity and obesity care in the U.S.?

Gaby Marmolejos (30:52):
Well, I predict that new oral GLP-1s are going to take the market by storm. And by that I mean, I could see these versions of GLP-1s bringing in new users that were hesitant to try the injectable versions, especially those that are uncomfortable self-injecting or measuring doses with a syringe if they can afford the auto-injector pens. Many of these patients probably already take other daily oral medications like birth control. So adding that medication wouldn't be a huge burden. And not to mention, I've chatted with a number of clinicians in the past, especially cardiologists that feel a lot more comfortable prescribing oral medications instead of the injectables that might require more guidance.

Rae Woods (31:32):
If that's where the industry is going, how should our listeners prepare today for the future that's not so far from now?

Gaby Marmolejos (31:39):
Well, we mentioned flexibility is going to be important here, or a lot of organizations are comfortable prescribing the injectable versions and offering guidance that way. When the new oral medications come to market, it's going to be really important offering education, especially providing the differences in weight-loss. The oral versions of the medications will offer a little bit less weight-loss than the injectable versions, the oral versions are daily medications where the injectable versions are weekly. And so a lot of education is going to be needed to help patients figure out which option is right for them and for providers to be able to be up-to-date on the different therapies they can offer patients, and being able to help them weigh the pros and cons of each. And so the flexibility, having staff both skilled and able to discuss medical versus surgical treatment options is going to be really important.

Rae Woods (32:29):
Well, Gabby, Madeline, thanks for coming on Radio Advisory.

Madeline Vogel (32:33):
Thank you.

Gaby Marmolejos (32:34):
Thanks for having us.

Rae Woods (32:39):
In this conversation, we reflected on just how much has changed in the obesity care landscape in the last two years. And I want to be clear, things are going to continue to change, whether it's coverage decisions or consumer preferences or the competitive landscape. And that's exactly why we want you, our listeners, to be flexible.

(33:00):
We also want you to learn from us and to learn from each other. So I'm going to put two links in the show notes. One is to a webinar where you can get access to even more detail on the trends impacting the obesity care landscape. And the second is that innovation showcase that Gabby mentioned, where you can really learn from the best-in-class leaders who are changing the landscape of obesity care. And there's more in there, because remember, as always, we're here to help.

(34:10):
If you like Radio Advisory, please share it with your networks, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, and leave a rating and a review.

(34:17):
Radio Advisory is a production of Advisory Board. This episode was produced by me, Rae Woods, as well as Abby Burns, Chloe Bakst, and Atticus Raasch. The episode was edited by Katie Anderson, with technical support provided by Dan Tayag, Chris Phelps, and Joe Shrum. Additional support was provided by Leanne Elston and Erin Collins. We'll see you next week.