When it comes down to it, pharma commercialization is more of an art than a science.

While the focus of an executive is always on the science – namely advancing a drugmaker’s products through the pipeline, achieving critical regulatory approvals and getting these medications out to patients around the world – the job also requires a certain degree of tact.

Fostering productive, substantive relationships – both internally and externally – is at the heart of a drugmaker’s commercial success.

There is perhaps no therapeutic area where that is more important than oncology, which features cutting edge technology supporting clinical research aimed at helping patients faced with cancer diagnoses.

With that context, senior pharma editor Lecia Bushak is speaking with Justin Holko, SVP of the global oncology/hematology commercial business unit at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, about the top commercial and marketing trends in pharma.

An industry veteran who has spent the past six years at Regeneron after nearly 20 at Merck, Holko underscores that there’s no one-size-fits all approach when it comes to pharma commercialization.

He also explains why drugmakers must take each market’s unique dynamics and stakeholder needs into account as part of the process.

For the life sciences leaders in our audience, it’s an insightful conversation from a major drugmaker executive that you won’t want to miss.

And for our Trends segment, we delve into the paradigm-shifting vaccine advisors meeting from last week.

The new look, RFK Jr.-selected ACIP has met, recommendations have been made – so what’s next?

Lecia: Hi Justin, great to have you here.

Justin: Thank you, Lecia, likewise.

Lecia: So before we dive in, I’d love to hear a little bit more about your background in commercialization in the pharma industry and what brought you to where you are today?

Justin: Sure. So I’ve been in industry now for 25 years. I came straight out of a college and and came as a trained chemical engineer. And over the course of about 19 years at a large pharma company, I worked in the laboratory, spent some time in corporate strategy, new product development, global market access, investor relations, and ultimately within the commercial oncology space. I came to Regeneron about six years ago to help lead the investor relations efforts there. And then as we put our forward into the oncology space was asked to lead the oncology hematology business.

Lecia: And oncology is a big focus for Regeneron. So, can you tell me a little bit more about Regeneron’s oncology and hematology business and what you’re most excited about this year and beyond?

Justin: Absolutely. So, the vision for Regeneron oncology predates me by several years, but what we can all agree upon is that the advent of immuno-oncology has completely transformed the treatment of cancer around the world.

When you think about how chemotherapy was really the main stay for so many years and so many different tumor types, to be able to develop a technology that harnesses the power of the immune system to fight cancer has again revolutionized the treatment of cancer for many, many patients around the world. But the challenge is is that even in the most responsive tumors to these drugs, only a fraction of patients benefit. And there are a whole host of other cancers out there when you think about blood cancers and pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer — they really haven’t had any benefit from immuno-oncology.

So the scientific leaders at Regeneron worked for years developing technology platforms that can truly harness the immune system and help expand the benefits of immuno-oncology well beyond the tumors and the limited number of patients that benefit today. And that’s really the vision that I bought into and I’m thrilled to be able to be at the early stages of our commercial journey and certainly looking forward to expanding that portfolio over time.

Lecia: And this is all part of Regeneron’s larger goal of being a global leader in oncology. Can you talk a little bit about that? You mentioned you’re kind of in the early stages of it, and how Regeneron is expanding its global footprint.

Justin: Sure. So I came into this role out four years ago, and at that time Regeneron from a commercial perspective was pretty much a 50-50 partner with our partner Sanofi and that was just in the US. And then outside of the US, essentially all of the oncology portfolio commercialization was handled by Sanofi.

In about mid-2022, we put forth a strong business development plan where we bought Sanofi’s rights to their share of the PDV one that we had in development, as well as some other pipeline assets so that we could really be out on our own and be in control of our destiny as it pertains to not only the commercialization side, but this also freed us up to pursue combinations as well as other indications with the with the current assets that really were in line with Regeneron strategy.

And so by doing that deal, we had the opportunity to very quickly established ourselves as the sole player with this PD-1 in the U.S., but then begin to build out our global footprint. Remember, Regeneron historically has been a Westchester-based U.S.-focused organization. We had two years to rapidly establish a global footprint. Many countries of which we had zero presence or a license to operate, but we had to do so quickly because the products that we market were still being being marketed by Sanofi at that time. So it’s been a really exciting opportunity for us, but we also had to do it in a smart way. So we’re not a traditional large pharma company. We could build it in a way that was appropriate for Regeneron.

And so we focused on key markets that were essential for our success, essential to lay the foundation for Regeneron Oncology so that we could ultimately build upon that with with more markets over time, but also as the portfolio matures to be able to add products to that commercial portfolio for patients around the world.

Lecia: And when it comes to pharma commercialization, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Commercial leaders have to take each market’s unique dynamics and stakeholder needs into account. Can you talk about that a little bit in in this broader global expansion goal that you have and how you implement this idea, this no one-size-fits-all approach into your commercialization business?

Justin: Sure. So first, let me talk about the disease areas we’re in, but then I’d also like to apply the lens of geography. So we operate in two very distinct disease areas currently in terms of our marketed assets, and that really comes down to non-melanoma skin cancer, where we are currently the global leader. And then a non-small cell lung cancer, where we are challenging the status quo and trying to establish ourselves as a key competitor within the space.

That has been well established with other anti-PD-1s. And so when we think about the non-melanoma skin cancer space, we’re the global leader because we built that market. And so when you’re building a market when you’re going into a new disease area, ultimately you have to really understand what’s happening today. How can we make sure this innovation reaches every patient where possible?

And knowing that things are going to be different for an academic center in Atlanta compared to a rural cancer treatment center in West Virginia. So I think being the leader, you have to build that market. And as a result of that, you really have to understand your customer needs at a very granular level.

But similarly, coming in as a challenger into a more established market, you still have to find ways to understand your customer’s needs and present them with a compelling reason through your data Data is king in oncology, as to why your alternative may be a better option for the patient ultimately who is in need of that treatment.

But then when you take it out to a geographic level, think about that the fact that first of all, every market around the world has its own rules and regulations in terms of how you can operate. In the United States, we can market directly to the consumer. In most markets outside the US, you can’t. So you have to work within the regulations of each market to ensure that you’re playing by the rules, but at the same time getting the treatments that patients need to them.

Outside of the US, we also have many single-payer systems, and we have to really generate data to show the value that this is bringing to the healthcare system in the form of the quality of life, and ultimately how the healthcare system is going to not be burdened with cost of medicine, but how this is actually going to be a productive investment, just like the rest of their dollars might be.

So that requires really strong local knowledge and people who are used to working in those markets. And so going back to our international expansion, you couldn’t just take a a group of people from Terrytown, New York and hope that they could make business work in Paris, France.

You have to get the right expertise, the right experience, and what I can say is over the past couple of years, we’ve hired 400 people from 30 different companies around the world, and we’ve really been able to tap into the expertise the best of the best when it comes to operating in these markets in the oncology space.

Lecia: What would you say are some of the biggest challenges that you have faced as you’ve been trying to build out these certain markets either domestically or abroad? Are there any kind of challenges that really come to top of your mind when you think about some of the biggest obstacles to that?

Justin: I would say it’s been a relatively smooth process and and I really have to credit our broad cross-functional teams, their knowledge of the laws and regulations and and really helping set up a business.

At the end of the day, I don’t have the visibility into all it took to make it happen market by market, but I really do bring it back to the fact that if you get the right people in these roles and people who just have the experience of building something, which is really a lot of our vision and a lot of the excitement of why people want to join Regeneron, then ultimately that’s something that can be overcome when you have the right people in the role.

It’s definitely a challenge coming into some of the more well-established markets like lung cancer, where there is competition that is well entrenched. That is not a surprise.

But again, the strength of our data, the strength of the value proposition that what Regeneron is bringing to the table today, but also the promise and the future of the pipeline, and you referenced it earlier in one of your questions, the investment that Regeneron is making, more than half of our pipeline is in oncology, shows that Regeneron is really committed to this space advancing the science for patients with cancer.

Lecia: And you touched on, you know, this importance of having the right people and commercial success is very much dependent on not just fostering external relationships, but also those internal relationships. How do you incorporate a personal approach to leadership and people development internally at the company?

Justin: When I come to work every day, I think about just what is the vision that we’ve set and this is a vision that we set that four years ago, with regard to really becoming that global oncology leader. And then that has to translate into a strategy and an action plan that I myself cannot carry out, but we have to carry out as a group, as a team.

And we have multiple teams across functions that ultimately are accountable to ensure that the patient in need does get the treatment that could benefit them in terms of their non-malignant skin cancer or their lung cancer. cancer. So I also spent a lot of time just thinking about and having established our operating law. We’ve all worked at places where things can be very hierarchical, organizations can be very siloed.

We don’t have that opportunity, particularly as we’re trying to challenge and break in and and become that leader where we don’t have the name recognition, we have to operate flawlessly. And as a result of that, I spend a lot of time on not only building a seamless operating model between our teams, but also spending a lot of time on trust. Culture is really the key to ensuring that your strategy and your execution play out in the way you hope.

And so it’s really important for me to establish some of the softer areas that are going to cultivate performance beyond the data, beyond the pipeline. The other important aspects of leadership is really our people. And as we think about the commercial organization, it’s more than just sales and marketing anymore.

And I know that we need people from a lot of different diverse backgrounds, not necessarily thinking about in terms of some of the more traditional forms of diversity, but also thinking about I need more than marketers. I need data scientists. I need engineers.

There’s no substitute for having a good foundation in core marketing, but given how complicated, given how data-driven the business is, I really need people from a lot of different backgrounds and perspectives who can put a different lens on how a a patient ultimately needs to get it his or her treatment, how to solve a problem or a bottleneck that we’re running into.

And my philosophy on leadership too is not to necessarily have a checklist where every candidate has to check every single box. I was given a lot of opportunities for roles that I didn’t check a lot of boxes and I like seeking out talent from a lot of different backgrounds, maybe obscure locations, maybe not your traditional talent pools, but finding people who are hungry and agile and bring different perspective is really important as you think about building the team, building the culture of the team, and ultimately making the team better to reach our goals as an organization.

Lecia: One of the things that we like to ask a lot of leaders in the pharma space is around AI. Of course, everyone’s talking about AI. So I wanted to ask you, how are you using AI in your commercial oncology strategy and have you seen any positive results so far?

Justin: There’s a lot of excitement around AI. And candidly, I’m excited about it. You can’t turn on the TV and not hear about something related to AI.

Candidly speaking, when it comes to commercial oncology, at least my organization, AI really doesn’t have a role today. I think we’re still trying to figure out where that role may be. You can certainly see some applications beginning to take root in in terms of protein design and biology, some of the synthetic work that goes on. But ultimately, the power of AI is going to be able to look at large data sets and create predictive models.

And we’re just not there in the commercial space right now. Now that doesn’t mean we don’t have our feelers out. That doesn’t mean we’re not monitoring the environments. We’re not going to follow follow a trend, just to follow a trend, but we also want to make sure that we have a pulse on any sort of technology, any sort of enabling tool out there that can make us better at bringing our treatments to patients.

If you think about what our job is, which is exactly that, to bring drugs to patients, you need the right tool and tools to do it, and you don’t want to necessarily force a hammer to do the job of a screwdriver, if that makes sense from an analogy perspective.

Lecia: Yeah, absolutely. I think there’s been a bit of a shift from AI as a buzzword that everyone needs to implement in some way or another to more of a not hesitant but more of like a thoughtful and careful approach to AI where it’s like you know pharma leaders want to incorporate it when they know it’s actually working to provide results for them and it is proving to be efficient or tangible in some way. So it seems like that’s that’s more of the approach you’re taking.

Justin: Exactly.

Lecia: What are some of the broader trends that you expect to see emerging in in pharma marketing or commercialization moving forward in 2025 and beyond that you are particularly excited about?

Justin: We’re in a very exciting time when it comes to just the understanding of biology, immunology, and the ability to get after a number of targets as it pertains not only to treatment of cancer, but to multiple diseases out there.

So I’m seeing data get generated at an exponential pace, and I’m really hopeful for the future that we’re going to continue to see more and more dramatic interventions when it comes to patients with cancer and other grievous diseases. One of the things that we always have to be mindful of is that our customers are people as well. And finding ways to get to them and to get our opportunity for some share of voice with them has become more and more difficult.

So this is not necessarily a trend that gets me excited, but it is an opportunity to think about how do we get to our customers where they are in a meaningful way. I’ll tell you, COVID was a real setback in terms of our ability to get in front of customers with our sales force, which is our number one investment when we think about our commercial resources.

It’s not a surprise that hospitals did not want people from the outside coming in when they have immuno-compromised patients undergoing chemotherapy or other treatments and presenting the risk of a COVID infection to them. But even as we’ve come out of the pandemic, we really have not seen a full return to business as usual so to speak.

And when we think about our customers, some customers never really wanted to have that live interaction. They consume their material. They get their updates through podcasts. They may get it through other deep digital means. And so we have to really get to know the customer at an individual level and provide provide to them in a meaningful way, what interventions, what data, what we can provide to them that is important to them in terms of where they are today. That’s a trend that will continue. There’s going to only be more noise, more of a battle for share of voice. We need to get smarter and how we ultimately reach our customers.

Lecia: I think that’s a point very well taken in this sort of post-COVID world where during COVID, we saw this shift to everything being virtual. But now, as you mentioned, it’s kind of a new world where it’s not necessarily going back to the way things were and it’s not necessarily all being virtual either. There’s a bit of a it’s a little bit more nuanced now, I would say. Justin, thank you so much for joining us today.

Justin: Thank you, Lecia.

—

Jack: So for the second half of the show, I want to talk about the ACIP meeting that happened last week and before we get into the actual contents of the meeting which here is going to kind of walk us through a little bit of. Want to just get the timeline straight in terms of how we got to here. So in June, HHS Secretary Kennedy fires all 17 members of the CDC’s ACIP committee. An unprecedented move widespread. I won’t say condemnation, but certainly attention given by leaders on both sides of the aisle from a across the healthcare industry.

And Kennedy’s reasoning for this was that he had cited allegations that the members had conflicts of interest. They were too heavily influenced by Big Pharma. And so he wanted to hand select their replacements and he said he was going to do that before the ASAP meeting that was scheduled to take place the last full week of June.

Um while he was in the interim between when he made that announcement when he actually unveiled those new appointments, the members of the committee had said that their termination was abrupt and had quote left the US vaccine program critically weakened. This is all helpful context for when he makes his hand selected appointments. Lesha had written a piece on the website about that including some vaccine skeptics.

Again, a lot of trepidation across the healthcare industry in terms of what this new look ASAP is going to do in functionality. And before we even get into the meeting, the morning of the first day of the two-day session, Dr. Michael Ross decided to withdraw during the financial holdings review which is required of members. So All of this context is to say, we had 17 people who were on the pre-existing ASAP committee. All of them get fired by RFK Jr. Eight of them are replaced, one left.

So we have 17 people on the roster and then we go into this two-day session which is open to the public. So I I believe the numbers I saw were they were in the thousands of people actually watching the live stream on YouTube. There were photographers in the rooms. That was good in terms of sunlight, but then comes the actual content. And here, do you want to kind of give us the run down here of some of the bigger news that came out of this meeting. Yeah, for sure.

So, just in terms of the convening as well, it was like a two-day kind of conversation around vaccines, obviously with a whole new panel that was appointed. And uh one of the biggest conversations was around an ingredient called the merosol, which is an ingredient that has been disputed over the last two decades.

Those who are are skeptical of vaccines, have said that this ingredient has been linked to autism and has some other side effects as well, but there have been numerous studies that have come out over the past couple of decades saying that it is a safe preservative that has been used in vaccines.

It’s currently being used in like less than 4% of vaccines as well and has stopped being used by the CDC since 2001 in most vaccines including almost all childhood vaccines, even vaccines like measles, MMR vaccine, the polio vaccine as well. But one of the biggest conversations was around that and that is actually something that Robert F.

Kennedy Jr. has also kind of, you know, talked about and disputed over the past couple decades as well. And in 20 uh 2005, he published a story in Salon and Rolling Stones where he the alleged conspiracy regarding the measles and the connection to the rising rates of autism in children.

And I think that that area of conversation was basically the biggest kind of thing that a lot of the ACIP members were kind of discussing of whether, you know, they would want to keep it in or not and decided that it would not be in in future vaccines anymore.

And it’s also interesting, I think, what Jack mentioned about the fact that a whole new panel was appointed and some of the folks, one of the folks um excused themselves before the panel convened for the two-day meeting uh because of financial disclosures is that you know our Robert of Kennedy Jr.

HHS Secretary said that there was a lot of um conflict of interest with the previous panel appointees, but there seems to be kind of a similar situation with some of the appointees on the current panel. So, Reuters actually found that the new chair of the committee, which who is a former Harvard University professor, Dr.

Martin Koldorf, he was actually fired from his previous post for refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and not meeting the standards from his former employer and the media as well. And so, there are, you know, some controversies that some of the current ASAP members also face sitting on on the committee.

So, it’s interesting to kind of note that dynamic as well as, you know, the rhetoric that oh, there are there’s kind of no conflict of interest with these current members. Yeah, I think your point points well taken there here, and it’s it’s one of those things that’s interesting to me where it’s like and this is not only the case in pharma but certainly across healthcare in any industry too, any any regulatory bodies.

There’s always this accusation of are they too close to the business that they are actually covering and and accounting for and I think that’s something that every regulatory body has to answer for at some point in time, but the wholesale firing, you know, throwing everything in the kitchen sink out the window to then handpick members to get to this largely symbolic vote. Like you said, it’s less than 4% of vaccines even have the measles-mumps-rubella as an ingredient.

It was removed from most childhood vaccines in 2001. Again, in part from that uproar over the Wakefield report which was later retracted and debunked linking autism to childhood vaccines. Like this was very much a a long time coming for RFK Junior in terms of being able to achieve this result that we’re no longer to recommend this one specific non-toxic ingredient that’s found in less than 4% of vaccines. They they got to their end result.

There were a couple other developments that came through there. I don’t know if you want to walk through that Merck getting their RSV vaccine recommended and then also the news about the childhood immunization schedule. Yeah. So two of the other things that were mentioned is that you know Merck announced that the committee actually voted to recommend influenza.

which is a treatment option for RSV in infants younger than eight months of age who are born during or entering their first RSV season, which is also kind of an interesting development from the committee as well. And something else which Jack, you also mentioned is just the panel pledging to review the childhood immunization schedule and shots over the next little while as well.

So including shots for influenza, mpox, and the childhood vaccine immunization schedule and also that of teens has been kind of talked about and debated over the past couple months since RFK Jr. took office.

And there have been some changes that have already been made, you know, to the COVID-19 schedule, especially when it comes to teenagers, healthy teenagers, as well as pregnant women, you know, the CDC kind of recommending that um pregnant women and healthy teenagers now don’t need to get boosters.

But then you know there were there was also a lot of confusion about that because they also came out saying that that if a parent as well as a doctor recommended it, then they should get vaccinated. And so curious to see whether how much was is going to change especially when it comes to childhood vaccines and you know there’s the whole conversation of still you know measles kind of going on and the outbreak and that also impacting children.

So, how much of that is going to shift versus not? And you know this is very much part of kind of the whole Maha movement that a lot of you know Kennedy has been touting since he’s gone into office about trying to get back to uh quote unquote healthier ways of living for children. Yeah, I I want to just highlight one aspect of that too that you talk about where it’s like it’s not limited just to what we saw here as it relates to the Marisol and the RSV vaccine approval.

You know ACIP has three regular meetings to review data and vote on vaccine recommendations. They are supposed to have another one later this summer. Data’s not been released yet. And then the final fall one is for October 22nd and 23rd. So we could be looking at some other vaccines that are going to be getting the spotlight from that. And to your point, whether it’s this kind of argument of oh we need this idea of cleaner vaccines or like a better examination of the ingredients in them remains to be seen.

But obviously it’s in line with what we saw with the COVID-19 vaccine saga as it relates to Jorna and Novavax, that was, you know, a few weeks ago and obviously it’s bled into this latest meeting here. Lesha, I want to bring you in in terms of some of the reaction that you saw across the board. I I have some on my end, but I wanted to see what people across the industry were saying because there was plenty of conversation during the course of this meeting and certainly after it ended.

Yeah, I think the general consensus from what I’ve read on reactions is that we can expect to see more of this. Um, you know, here I kind of gave a rundown of the other vaccines and other diseases that kind of might be in the spotlight. And I think experts are expecting to see this committee and Robert F. Kennedy’s entire team basically raise questions around vaccines across all these other diseases.

Senator Bill Cassidy, who has been a long time uh questioner of Kennedy, um actually pointed out that he had some serious concerns about the APF members not having um significant experience studying microbiology, epidemiology technology or immunology. He also pointed out that they lack experience studying new technologies like mRNA vaccines and may even have a preconceived bias against them.

And then former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who served under the previous Trump administration, told CBS News that that sort of lack of experience shown through in the most recent at ACEP meeting, it even led to some awkward moments, he said, where some members needed to be briefed on the basics of vaccine science. And one member in particular had to have explained to him the difference between an antibody prophylaxis and a vaccine.

Um, so there’s kind of this consensus among, you know, the the medical establishment that the members of ASAP don’t quite have the necessary training to be on this committee. Gotlib also said that he expects more of this down the road.

Quote, he said, “A lot of people on my side of the political aisle feel that a lot of these policies that Kennedy is championing are going to be contained to vaccines and not bleed into a broader public health doctrine. I think that’s not right.” Um Um, he added that the secretary is going after issues that have long been bugaboos of his and his anti-vax group Children’s Health Defense. I don’t think that’s mistakable at this point.

He believes that restricting access to certain vaccines is going to grow and the list of vaccines that will be questioned by this committee will will continue to grow and will go beyond the flu and COVID vaccine. And then on the greater when it comes to the greater impact on Pharma and biotechs, he also noted that he believes innovation and vaccine science will be stunted a little bit. He noted that there’s already been a pull back of biotech startups that have been looking to develop new vaccines.

And quote we’re going to see less innovation in vaccine science as a result of the environment we’re in. Yeah, I don’t think any of that can be debated there and I think Gilead always has a very keen sense of what the industry is dealing with certainly from a regulatory standpoint. I think to his point it’s not just contained to these vaccines and I think any lead in the pharma biotech space that thinks otherwise would kind of be fooling themselves on that point.

I did want to kind of further what Lesha had highlighted there in terms of Senator Bill Cassidy, who was one of the deciding, if not the deciding vote to get RFK Jr. to a full Senate vote and then obviously confirm to the post that he’s in now. Before the meeting had happened that week, he had tried he had suggested that they should delay the meeting and there was his strongest condemnation of RFK Jr.

since he had taken office largely in of firing all the AC members and then putting his own hand-picked selections in there. And the meeting still went off without a without a hitch and the Marisol was recommended against and it it was as if Bill Cassidy had not said anything. And so I think this is still and I’ve said this for months since January when we had those first confirmation hearings and certainly everything that’s happened since.

I think it shows the lack of foresight that Senator Cassidy had as related to the prospect of RFK Jr. as HHS secretary and just his own you know, talk about not having any sort of juice that you as the chair of the Senate Help Committee say we shouldn’t have this meeting and you call out the HHS secretary and they still go ahead with the meeting and they still make recommendations against what you as a physician by training have suggested they do.

It’s it’s one of those things that I think it’s just a further blemish on his resume and it’s only going to grow. The longer that Kennedy is in office, I do want to say just one other thing too is to the point that this could have have a larger contagion effect on the pharma industry. You know, the stocks of most of these vaccine makers was unaffected by the news and obviously Merck got a little bit of a bounce because they did get the recommendation for the RSV shot. Moderna just put out some promising data about its flu shot.

So most of them have been buoyed the past week or so, but I don’t think that you should mistake the short-term impact with the longer-term damage that’s being done to the reputation of pharma companies. And just to the further erosion of science and medicine in America. I mean, this is one of those things where is grown from a fringe movement of oh somebody doesn’t get vaccine for their child or they question the vaccine schedules to something that is now becoming policy.

And I don’t think that that’s something that can be lost on leaders in our industry. And you know it was hard enough to get people to get a flu shot that’s we’re still only at like 40 or 50% of Americans do. And the uptake of COVID-19 shots waned drastically over the past few years and certainly after the public health emergency was lifted in May of 23, there’s only going to be more impediments in the way.

So, I think this is more of a portent things to come and it’ll be interesting to see how that meeting later in the summer goes along with the one in October. And who would say there aren’t more meetings that happen now since they kind of have carte blanche from leadership in Washington to tackle this. But yeah, it’s it’s a sign of things to come and if people are not fully on board with where RFK Jr.’s pharma policy is. is they’re getting a quick education on. I’ll say that.

On that note, thanks for joining us on this week’s episode of the MMN podcast. Keep an eye out for a special Fast Break episode on Thursday from here at And be sure to listen to her interview next week when she’ll be joined by some folks behind the Can Lions winning No More Hypocrites campaign. Take care everyone.

The MMNM podcast is produced by Bill Fitzpatrick, Gordon Faylor, Lesha Bushek, Eire Rick Raj, and Jack O’Brien. Great, review and follow every episode wherever you listen to the podcast. And be sure to check out our website mm-online.com for the top news stories on the pharmaceutical industry and medical marketing agencies.