Podcast

Matt Stoll (00:01.29)
Welcome back to On Background. This is episode five. Today we are speaking with Tony LoSasso. He’s a professor of economics at DePaul University and a Dry House fellow at the School of Business. Tony, thanks for joining us today.

Steve (00:07.21)
Thank

Tony LoSasso (00:16.928)
It’s great to be here. Thank you for the invitation.

Matt Stoll (00:19.56)
Excellent. And today with us we’ve got Steve Parente, myself and Brianna Mayer asking the hard questions. Steve, why don’t you kick us off today? Or the easy questions.

Steve (00:28.842)
Or maybe the easy question. So Tony, thanks for joining us. We really appreciate it. As you know, one of our signature things with Fun Background is a media term for folks that are talking from prior government roles is what we try to do. And so you had a really unique role way back in the day with the Center for Program Integrity at CMS slash Medicare when it first started out.

Can you just give a little backstory, a little more story about how did you even get in there? What excited you about it? Why do you still love public policy so much? See, it’s an easy question, Tony. It’s an easy question.

Tony LoSasso (01:07.662)
Yes, I appreciate that Steve. So that gig was back shortly after the Affordable Care Act was passed. A little known provision of the ACA was to create the fraud prevention system using what at the time was considered modern predictive analytics.

Bryana Mayer (01:13.462)
you

Steve (01:26.41)
if he was.

Tony LoSasso (01:37.55)
to proactively identify fraudsters in primarily the Medicare program, though Medicaid was in the mix, and basically avoid the, historically, the pay and chase model, which is to just write checks and then maybe notice that, huh, you know, this doesn’t look…

good, we shouldn’t have sent millions of dollars for, let’s say, timed services that add up to 300 hours in a 24 hour period, for example. And so then you build a case and then you go and chase down the bad guys. So that’s very inefficient, very costly. And so the idea of fraud prevention system was to create predictive models that would proactively screen the claims prior.

to the pay part. And I was excited about it at the time because the, well, first of all, the director of Center for Program Integrity was a very dear friend of mine. still a friend, Peter Badelli. I worked with him for a number of years back at Northwestern. A very good man, honorable man. And I thought, well,

Steve (02:42.513)
I was excited.

Tony LoSasso (03:04.385)
You know who? Yes, it’s the Affordable Care Act. Yes, it’s the Obama administration. But who could be who could be opposed to how could fraud be? Who’s in favor of fraud? So it really seemed like a nonpartisan issue. And I learned a lot about government. I learned how hard it is to get things done in government. I learned terrifying three letter acronyms like well.

OMB, what’s another one? PRA, Paperwork Reduction Act. You cannot believe the paperwork that is involved with PRA review. It’s a nightmare. And you can’t make this stuff up. I’m not making this stuff up. This is true. So, you know, it was very hard to do anything. And so I left after a year as a technical advisor. And

Steve (03:45.405)
you enjoyed my video. It was a nice day.

Tony LoSasso (04:04.395)
hung around a little bit afterwards as a contractor, but it left me a little bit jaded about public service, and which I’m sure is something you can perhaps appreciate.

Steve (04:23.049)
I do recall Tony that you did mention it toward the end, like you kept on going into the convenience stores getting Colt 45s, you know, and just like trying to make it end, you know, but…

Matt Stoll (04:32.809)
What was that bad, huh? Yeah, wow.

Tony LoSasso (04:35.789)
Well, let’s just say that another thing I learned is that there’s a level of reimbursement that’s below the economy rate, and it’s called government rate. And so as a halftime CMS employee, I stayed in.

a lot of those kinds of motels where the door opens directly to the outside and it looked generally like someone’s last known whereabouts. so I learned a lot. I did say that, right? So I learned a lot. I gained a real great appreciation, I think, for the fact that there are some really dedicated, hardworking people in government, truly.

Steve (05:25.193)
these people in government. But I am truly, truly amazed.

Tony LoSasso (05:28.639)
truly amazing people, but that the system is so big it literally cannot get out of its own way. So I really cheered the whole DOGE experiment that we witnessed in the early part of this year. I don’t know what the lasting legacy of that will be, but…

Steve (05:37.641)
you

Steve (05:48.873)
I just hope you have fun.

Tony LoSasso (05:52.908)
Yeah, so it was a fun time in other ways. And of course, we got to interact too, because you at that time had a company. I think it was TerraMedica maybe, something like that. Yeah.

Steve (05:53.833)
you

Steve (06:03.657)
and Terametica, then Fortel. Yeah, we played a role to get the legislation there to get the funding in play. But I’m going to pivot and bring this back to Matt and Brian. So since then, I mean, you’ve done amazing stuff as an economist. You’ve been executive director at the American Society of Health Economics. But most recently, you’ve written some really incredible things in the Wall Street Journal about GOP1 drugs in particular. The way it struck, like the most recent one really is

really fascinating to me and I think some of the folks would really be intrigued. I the question I’ll ask it and I’m going to throw it over to Matt and then Brianna. like, what inspired you to get into looking in that space? I it’s not fraud analytics. You’ve done a ton of stuff on ACA. I mean, my memory is that some stuff on drugs, but typically not like, you know, calling out like, hey America, way to go to get yourself out of essentially a fat problem by drugs.

Tony LoSasso (07:00.397)
Well, thank you for the kind words. I will say over the last year, year and a half, I guess you could say I’ve sort of found my voice and I’ve wanted to, you know, you work in academia for a long time as you have as well, Steve, and you,

And a lot of times people will say, well, you have to do more translational work. You’ve got to explain your work to the public. And I always just shrugged. I’m like, they could pick up an academic journal if they want and read about what it is. That was sort of, I always viewed that as the endpoint of, guess, of my personal production process. But.

But I do feel like after all these years in this business that I wanted to, I just suddenly, think, I don’t know if it was some sort of post pandemic thing, but I wanted to actually get into more of this role as kind of explaining health economics oriented concepts to more of a…

I guess more of a lay audience or at least a policy informed, but not necessarily professional economist audience. And so I have had some good fortune this year with a few pieces accepted in the Wall Street Journal. I will say to anybody who’s listening and wondering about that, that was after probably about 12 rejections in a row.

I finally snuck one in and then a couple more came after that. And so, you know, I view them as just kind of general pieces. They’re not always connected to specific research that I’m doing, but I think of them as highlighting important concepts in the healthcare space where, I guess, healthcare and markets and market processes overlap, intersect and

Steve (08:45.649)
of your friends.

Steve (09:08.159)
Interesting.

Tony LoSasso (09:11.065)
And and I what I try to do is I try to point out situations where Where the market? Well, first of all does exist in health care for health care services and health broadly speaking and and can Quite often, you know make things better if given a chance at least that’s my contention so I’m having to talk about this most recent piece in particular. I did have a lot of

Steve (09:17.449)
Thank

Tony LoSasso (09:40.781)
It was a fun piece to write. I had some interesting engagement with readers afterwards, which I’m happy to chat about as well, but.

Matt Stoll (09:51.71)
Well, if I could, so playing a bit of devil’s advocate, it is an interesting approach to the problem of obesity to throw pharmaceuticals at it when you might be able to do a lot of work on cleaning up the food supply and making

making certain foods more available to the public and working on nutrition and activity levels in general. There’s some foundational work that could improve the overall health of the population beyond taking a pill that might be favorable to throwing GLP-1s at it. Why the pharmaceutical approach versus a more foundational approach to food?

Tony LoSasso (10:38.253)
Well, yeah, it’s a great question and I appreciate that. And I think what I really try to establish in the piece is that this incredible abundance that we have, like where, and I am not the first person to make this point, but literally for maybe less than a dollar a day, you could buy a box of pasta.

Steve (10:54.825)
you

Steve (11:01.065)
me.

Tony LoSasso (11:08.171)
And that would give you sufficient calories. Is it the optimal nutrition? No. But you could live on that.

Matt Stoll (11:16.415)
Well, you’d probably get some nutritional deficiencies pretty quick, but yeah.

Tony LoSasso (11:21.613)
Perhaps, but you know, so when you think about it from this historical kind of perspective, and I do mean, you know, a longer history than, yeah, human, and you don’t have to go back too far, really, to identify a time when the greatest scourge that we faced as human beings was, of course, the omnipresent risk of starvation. And so it is,

Matt Stoll (11:31.081)
Yeah, human history, yeah.

Steve (11:33.587)
Maybe I think I got something to help.

Matt Stoll (11:37.097)
No.

Steve (11:38.761)
Thank

Tony LoSasso (11:50.958)
So I guess I wanted to take a moment, or I wanted the readers to take a moment perhaps to just marvel at the fact that we live in a time of incredible plenty and bounty of just, you know, I mean, it’s a pejorative term now to say like calorie-dense food, but like that’s amazing. That is a revel, that is, that that’s, it is, I think it’s a borders on a literal miracle.

Matt Stoll (12:12.521)
That’s it.

That’s an absolute miracle, yeah.

Tony LoSasso (12:20.727)
that we live in that in such a time of plenty where for so little we can get so much so much food in fact that we have the problem of there’s too much of it and it’s too delicious and we’re eating too much of it and therefore we’re having these metabolic metabolic health problems and so so i mean so again like sweep of history this is extraordinary you could show the hockey stick that you know you could do whatever you like whatever you want but but but it is truly

Matt Stoll (12:20.884)
Yeah.

Steve (12:31.753)
Thank

Tony LoSasso (12:50.325)
incredible and historically extraordinary and an incredible achievement for humanity. But it comes with some costs. then similarly, know, so that’s the calories inside. I point out the calories out that are… Look, we’re actually sitting around here actually working now. This counts as work. We’re pretty comfortable. We’re not like breaking our backs.

in a field or chasing a gazelle so we could maybe catch it and have dinner. so work is pretty chill, as young people say, I think. And so we’re not expending much energy to earn the money.

Steve (13:22.569)
Thank

Matt Stoll (13:23.646)
Right.

Tony LoSasso (13:46.638)
With which we can buy all these delicious foods that are out there So so that means we have to shift, know If we want to burn more calories because we don’t do it when we’re working. I mean, I mean, I’m gesticulating here, but our audience can’t see that but that’s not burning too many calories that’s only because I’m Italian also, but so so so it’s it that too is an extraordinary thing like a just

incredible thing that we don’t have to burn all those calories running around risking life and limb to actually do the work necessary in order to feed ourselves. Again, great, great thing, but there’s some side effects. So now, you know, if we do want to burn some calories and get fit, well, that has to be shifted into our leisure time. And there are so many other things to do that

Matt Stoll (14:31.657)
Yep.

Tony LoSasso (14:44.587)
the wonderful abundance and bounty that we have, have provided us other ways of enjoying our leisure time. So against that sort of titanic shifts, which is again, relatively recent, our biology cannot keep up with these changes. So what then, what is this a scalable solution to

the side effects of this incredible abundance that we enjoy. My argument is, again, I don’t think it’s particularly novel. It just says like to scale a solution, it has to be one that doesn’t impoverish us, because that would do it. That would fix our obesity if we made food very, very costly.

that would also cast our lots back to maybe the 1400s when food was very costly and hard to get. So, know, trade-offs, right? Well, I don’t like the sound of that one. I wanna have all the wonderful, you know, cheap, abundant food available. I just want a mechanism to keep me from eating all of it. And so…

Matt Stoll (16:08.991)
Fair enough. Yeah.

Bryana Mayer (16:09.973)
So maybe, because yes, go ahead. I don’t mean to cut you off.

Tony LoSasso (16:10.189)
And so, so yeah.

Steve (16:13.193)
Yes.

Tony LoSasso (16:14.793)
No, hence, I think again, the only, in my view, scalable solution that doesn’t involve imposing high taxes on ourselves in one way or another, which are just not, if they’re self-imposed, well, you have to be, you either have to be, you have to exert an incredible amount of effort to keep that up. And people, and who wants, who wants?

Who wants to exert a lot of effort? Nobody. So, not nobody, hence we have to rely, I think, on technology to solve this problem.

Matt Stoll (16:58.055)
So real quick, Brian, I didn’t mean to cut you off, but GLP-1s are, what, $1,000 a month out of pocket right now? That’s a substantial tax.

Steve (17:00.125)
Thank

Bryana Mayer (17:00.341)
It’s okay.

Tony LoSasso (17:08.119)
They’re, I’ll say a couple things. First of all, they’re much cheaper than that now, and they’re getting cheaper, and they’re only the first generation. And so, I do think that their availability, prices, mean, just the fact that we have this technology in the first place is another one of these sort of amazing things that we should marvel at. Sure, it’s gonna be costly, everything, know, when,

Cars, the automobile was a great invention that allowed us to transit more quickly than we could on a horse or walking for sure. But it was also very costly to start. new technology always has that characteristic when it’s introduced that the people who can afford it can get the newest and latest and greatest first and then it disseminates over time.

Bryana Mayer (18:07.199)
So you mentioned improvements in manufacturing and technology have led to society’s prosperity. And we also know that improvements in pharmaceutical drugs have led to increases in GDP. In fact, the HEAL Network published a paper on that topic. In what additional ways do you think we can use science to make gains in prosperity while also improving health outcomes?

Tony LoSasso (18:34.037)
Well, I I think, I mean, I think it really the sky’s the limit, you know, quite, quite literally on that front. mean, you know, if we’re just in the, in the pharmaceutical space, you know, just what we’re talking about here, that the next generation, I mean, this generation,

Steve (18:35.549)
Thank

Steve (18:40.285)
Okay.

Tony LoSasso (18:54.919)
is pretty amazing. Who wouldn’t want to if you’re overweight or obese take a pill and lose on average 20 % of your body weight. That’s extraordinary and there will be more and better later. I mean if we go broadly, your question maybe was targeted more broadly,

Steve (19:00.105)
Thank you for all.

and lose, I don’t 20 % but…

Steve (19:19.869)
president this time.

Tony LoSasso (19:23.157)
developments in AI, of course, I think will just speed the pathway to some of these new innovations, both pharmacologically speaking, and probably in ways that we can’t even predict right now. So I’m ultimately very optimistic. I guess I’m obviously kind of a techno

Steve (19:37.169)
Okay.

Tony LoSasso (19:51.453)
optimist on this front.

Steve (19:53.226)
So I’ve got a question back on, I mean, you and I deal in a world in policy where, you know, that we put out op-eds, but we also worry about our academic articles are used by policymakers to justify different aspects of where things are. Do you, it’s interesting that when we talk about doing a cost-effectiveness analysis on GLP-1s, there’s some stuff out there, Collies done stuff at Cornell and others have been getting in there.

But at the same time, it’s like the market, because there’s so much of it that’s off label use, it’s really hard to really do the proper analysis that everybody wants to see that’s like, man, this is gonna make all the difference in the world. And it’s probably the case that by the time that gets there, we’re gonna be in pill form in version 2.0. guess the question for you that this is sort of rattles in my mind, is there gonna be a point with a drug like this where it’s gonna be like Claritin?

Like it’s not gonna need a prescription. You can buy it over the counter or like Prilosec has become too because like I remember when I worked for an insurance companies, you know, even when I after when I consulted to lift them after I went to academia, Clariden was prescription. It was like the number one drug in the nineties that actually like blew up part of the PBM market. And then eventually they’re like, nah, let’s buy the CVS. Where do you think this might, do you think this will come there too?

Tony LoSasso (21:19.105)
Yeah.

Tony LoSasso (21:23.469)
It could very well. I’m not sure exactly how that determination is made to flip something from prescription only to over-the-counter. I do remember Claridin being a prescription drug and then it flipping but I don’t know what you know I’m sure the FDA has extensive regulations on that and

And it’ll depend on side effects and all that. But it could very well. mean, there is a side effect profile. I don’t want to minimize the fact that there can be some GI distress and some other. But by and large, at least from what I read, they seem relatively minor. And again, I want to leave open the possibility for follow on.

innovation and next generation and again pill form being a key thing and you know there are multiple I think I think I think I saw that I think the Economist magazine said something like there’s at least a hundred drugs in development right now in terms of next gen in this space so you know over the next

three to five years, it’s probably going to look very different.

Matt Stoll (22:53.184)
And if I remember correctly, when Clareton went OTC, the over-the-counter price was actually higher than the reimbursed, than the consumer price through insurance, which caused a bit of a ruckus when that initially happened. Maybe I’m remembering that wrong, I’m not sure. So what should policymakers, so,

Steve (23:13.181)
Yeah.

Matt Stoll (23:20.06)
Steve mentioned that you’re careful about policymakers getting a hold of your op-eds and using them to make decisions. If you had a chance to refine that message, what would you give them?

Steve (23:24.297)
brand new.

Steve (23:29.937)
Sorry.

Tony LoSasso (23:34.222)
Well, primarily, I would say that our pharmaceutical sector is really creating transformative, curative, life improving, at times curative therapies, that’s another realm that’s closely related to this. But life,

Steve (23:55.177)
Thank you.

Steve (24:03.367)
Thank

Tony LoSasso (24:03.603)
improving, genuinely life-improving therapies and treatments and that doesn’t happen by accident and the extent to which we either demonize the pharmaceutical sector or in a more subtle way put restrictions on them.

And it’s always a tightrope that you have to walk here because yes, you Matt already brought up the issue of affordability. These are very tricky issues to navigate because you want to be cognizant of the fact that you want the drugs to be accessible and they have to be on some level affordable for the individual.

And more importantly, maybe for society generally, how do we balance that? And so I don’t have those answers, I just want to say that I’m careful to say that we don’t want to kill this golden goose. And it’s just getting started. Again, I’m hopeful that, and I believe that AI will just amp up.

the discovery process. I’m not a real scientist, I don’t, that’s all I’ll say on that. But I believe that to be the case. So we may get into a world where there are many more life of these life improving therapies along numerous dimensions. And we don’t want to destroy the incentives to create these novel therapies. so,

Steve (25:34.153)
you

Tony LoSasso (25:57.784)
So that’s the societal tightrope that we walk and we’ll continue to walk that. But I like to be mindful of the costs always of intervention. So when we talk about things like cutting drug prices, we want to be careful about what the knock-on effects are to investment in this sector.

Because there are many things, there are many amazing things to invest in. If you’ve got piles of money sitting around, which people do have, and they’re looking for the greatest return on their investment, and if they see a sector become fraught with government intervention, price controls in the worst case kind of situation, well, those investment dollars will go elsewhere and we will have less

Steve (26:41.981)
Thank you.

Bryana Mayer (26:45.621)
in the work.

Tony LoSasso (26:57.121)
discovery and innovation. So.

Bryana Mayer (27:01.237)
Yeah, we definitely don’t want to decrease or sorry, increase barriers to innovation to your point. And your article in Wall Street Journal did a good job of noting what the benefits of GLP-1 drugs are. So, you know, significant double digit percentage weight loss, major benefits and improvements in diabetes, other metabolic health conditions, fewer cardiovascular events, and even improvements in sleep apnea.

Steve (27:20.297)
you

Bryana Mayer (27:27.251)
You also know we can’t ignore the behavioral health side and impersonal accountability that’s involved in improving health outcomes, although that is very challenging. Is there a path forward in which industry or policy could build on the efficacy of these GLP-1 drugs by perhaps incorporating or incentivizing behavioral health metrics such as diet and exercise to further improve health outcomes?

Steve (27:32.073)
personal.

Steve (27:41.865)
or policy could build on it, the efficacy of these GLP-1 drugs.

Tony LoSasso (27:57.192)
I think for sure. mean, I think the best, again, this is not medical advice that should go without saying when you’re talking to an economist and he or she is offering medical advice. my understanding is that the best way for these drugs to be consumed is in conjunction with a diet.

modifications, not just eating less food but changing the mix, changing the macros, getting your protein and also physical activity along with that. It’d be great, yes, mix in strength work because when you lose weight from not eating, you lose fat, yes, but you also lose muscle and that muscle is also very cardio protective in itself and just protective in many other ways.

Steve (28:49.769)
So.

Tony LoSasso (28:53.057)
falls and other things like that. So again, not medical advice, that’s my understanding of this. I think when well done, the drug should certainly be paired with multiple other types of interventions, nutritional diet exercise as well.

Steve (29:16.92)
Well, thing I hope we do get a chance to talk to you, Tony, and other on-background podcasts is the whole notion. You hinted at it, the cures market, because that’s a real challenge, because some of the ones that are one and done or three and done sort of cures.

that could be multi-million dollar precision medicine. That’s a nut that we haven’t really cracked yet in terms of affordability. At least in the GOP1 space, there is an economic model that seems to work and an inadvertent one through the off-label market with compounding that’s been going on in a major, major way, kind of unexpectedly at the same time. For Claritin, no one was doing home injections.

But yet, I don’t know how many people are probably doing it themselves outside of getting it from Ozempic, but I’d be shocked if it’s not at least a million or two, three million people doing that.

Tony LoSasso (30:18.231)
Yeah, I agree. I agree. I think it’s become very widely available through compounders and telehealth providers. I don’t know about the evidence here, but we have just seen in the most recent reporting period that the rate of obesity actually ticked down, I think in the most recent year for which data are available.

Matt Stoll (30:46.552)
did it?

Tony LoSasso (30:48.077)
And so people, I don’t know that you can, I don’t know that it’s causal that the availability of GLP-1 caused it, but it certainly is correlated. And so if you’re moving the needle on that, I mean, we need more data to sort of follow that, but that’s big. I don’t know what size, I don’t know how many millions of people you have to have to be able to move the needle, but it has to be.

a good number of people if that is in fact what did move the needle. for sure, it’s amazing possibilities there. To your other point, Steve, about the broader therapeutic landscape of curative, the collective we might remember hepatitis C as a very

a very debilitating condition that when it’s in its worst form, the only cure is a liver transplant. And then, then Svaldi came along and now it almost seems kind of quaint because it was only $100,000 and you got a cure. You were cured of your hepatitis C and then I, you know,

I do like to point out that that’s a disease that skews very low income and so it was a true threat to a lot of state Medicaid budgets. But not long after that, there was competition, the drugs also went off patent and now it’s significantly cheaper. In the meantime, of course, we have other curative therapies.

that are, you know, make that hundred thousand dollars look like a child’s play, Luxterna for blindness, rare disease, you know, type therapies. And so, you know, I expect more of that ahead. And again, that goes back to the point I’m making about, how do you balance that? How do you balance the affordability question with the desire for these curative?

Tony LoSasso (33:14.529)
therapies and treatments.

Steve (33:16.873)
So one last comment and we’ll wrap it up. There’s, I don’t know, Brian, if you remember this, we, so the HEAL Network is sponsoring now the Caribbean Health Economics Symposium. Tony, you’ve been to a bunch of those, I know. And Brian, I remember there was the one after Hurricane Irma in St. Croix, and we had Carl Claxton, who’s like a famous health economist in the UK, character in his own right, as many of us know.

And we actually brought up the Hep C issue because that was when Hep C was exploding. A lot of the ACA insurers were talking about reinsurance only because of Hep C exploding. And Carl, who sits on NICE, the National Institutes of Clinical Excellence, said like, hey, it actually fit the NICE criteria for us to pay for it. Normally we think of the UK denying and rationing, but their thought was like the long-term cost benefit, I think he pegged it at like 18,000 pounds, so it was below the 30,000 pound limit.

was like it paid for itself and that’s even at the $100,000 price point just because of the downstream medical savings were so significant.

Tony LoSasso (34:19.743)
And you know, I also remember that in that same talk, Carl was sort of lamenting and commenting about the opioid crisis because it did not exist there because they, they, they, nobody got those drugs. They, they had to just take Tylenol or something or Advil. I don’t know what, but you know, so they, you know, on the one hand they dealt with their pain, but they didn’t have.

Steve (34:33.449)
That’s true.

Tony LoSasso (34:49.289)
again the horrendous the opioid situation so trade-offs again but I but yeah I do remember that that that session there with Carl

Bryana Mayer (35:05.577)
So maybe we can conclude with how you concluded your article, Tony, in which you say, excuse me, the path forward isn’t to retreat from abundance or scold our diets, but it’s really to invest in the science that keeps Americans their time and also improves their health.

Tony LoSasso (35:26.967)
I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Bryana Mayer (35:30.109)
Exactly.

Matt Stoll (35:30.368)
It’s like, well, that’s an incredible final word there. Let’s take it right out of the article.

Steve (35:36.003)
I messed up.

Tony LoSasso (35:39.565)
I guess I did say it. Yeah, no, I totally agree. it’s, we should give ourselves a collective societal pat on the back. And again, I’m speaking about Western countries and the US primarily here. Obviously there is poverty in the world.

Matt Stoll (35:42.431)
Wonderful.

Tony LoSasso (36:06.829)
far less than there used to be though in the not so distant past. And so the important thing there is really one about staying the course, trusting market forces, not abandoning these principles that got us this incredible, incredible abundance and prosperity that we all enjoy and indeed often I think take for granted.

Steve (36:35.689)
from the United States. That’s perfect final word. Thanks so much Tony for coming with us and joining us on background. Hopefully we’ll see you actually on the real boat on background in the future.

Tony LoSasso (36:36.279)
these days.

Matt Stoll (36:48.32)
Thanks, Tony.

Tony LoSasso (36:48.632)
would love that. Thank you all. Great to see you all.

Bryana Mayer (36:49.353)
Thanks, Johnny.

Good to see you.