Oh completely agree on lifestyle. Not sure our HHS secretary realizes that or cares though

I would be surprised given RFK's public skepticism on GLP-1s, suggesting "lifestyle changes" should be the focus

Also, while the FDA of the next 4 yrs may not care, the FDA of the future may care once more. And how many pivotal trials being started now will have a PDUFA date within 4 years? Probably not the vast majority

Even from a development economics perspective. Reaching underserved populations, those away from academic centers, etc much needed to help trial recruitment and trial timelines.

Hopefully this is just trying to fly with the political wind without really changing behavior.

Ah mightve just assumed George was same as Len. Still feel like with the science emphasis + harder to remove them they're most likely

Other issue here is unlike tech no one is irreplaceable (like Zuck) because no one owns enough voting rights, at least amongst the bigger players -> riskier to act. Len/George at Regeneron most likely to say something imo (especially given general outspokeness and strong Dem support historically)

To some extent same for board members and larger investors. Even moreso w backdrop of hoping IRA implementation isn't as aggressive. But I suspect it could catch up to the industry, much as years of ignoring drug pricing issues has. But for those in charge today it probably won't be "their problem".

Best proxies on non-profit behavior in these circumstances may be in healthcare space w number of large non-profit hospital and insurer (eg blue cross blue shield plans) deals over the years, albeit none of this size. Spoiler is they behave pretty much like their for-profit counterparts

Coupling modeling of price change w contractual agreement on price drop at date x (a la Peter Kolchinsky's contractual genericization) could be a win-win here and reduce some uncertainties.

Re competitive landscape maybe something like NICE's TA-level CEA in RCC but that has it's own issues