WEBVTT - Fed Disunity and the Mifepristone Court Battle 0:00:01.280 --> 0:00:05.280 You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at 0:00:05.280 --> 0:00:08.400 one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the 0:00:08.480 --> 0:00:11.600 iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on 0:00:11.680 --> 0:00:13.760 demand wherever you get your podcasts. 0:00:15.920 --> 0:00:19.160 Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we 0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:21.720 look at the impact of a judicial review of MiFi 0:00:21.760 --> 0:00:25.239 presstone the abortion pill. Can that ruling have an influence 0:00:25.520 --> 0:00:28.680 on the future of pharmaceutical research and development and what 0:00:28.720 --> 0:00:31.800 would it mean for medications currently on the market. Plus, 0:00:31.840 --> 0:00:34.560 we'll look at the softening labor market. You might think 0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:37.519 it'd be easier to hire more workers, but some companies 0:00:37.560 --> 0:00:40.800 will continue to have trouble until they start to consider 0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:45.239 how that hiring process is conducted. And as summer approaches, 0:00:45.280 --> 0:00:47.840 we'll look at the cost of a quickie getaway Dirt 0:00:47.920 --> 0:00:51.760 Cheap airfares are pretty much gone, especially in the UK 0:00:51.920 --> 0:00:54.320 and the EU. We're going to find out why. But 0:00:54.440 --> 0:00:57.120 first we begin with the FED. As we are seeing 0:00:57.200 --> 0:01:00.440 hints of disagreement bubbling up at the Federal Reserve of Late, 0:01:00.760 --> 0:01:04.840 policymakers are being pulled in different directions. Former Treasury Secretary 0:01:04.959 --> 0:01:07.160 Larry Summers has noticed it, and we talked with him 0:01:07.160 --> 0:01:08.360 about it on Bloomberg TV. 0:01:08.760 --> 0:01:12.720 I think we're still looking at a very hard to 0:01:12.840 --> 0:01:18.720 read economy. I don't see inflation as on a secure 0:01:18.880 --> 0:01:24.760 path down to the two percent target unless the economy 0:01:25.000 --> 0:01:30.000 turns turns over a bit. So I think the FED 0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:32.760 has very difficult choices ahead of it. 0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:36.039 Let's find out more now, Bloomberg Opinion columnist Jonathan Levin. 0:01:36.120 --> 0:01:39.319 Jonathan has worked as a Bloomberg journalist in Latin America 0:01:39.360 --> 0:01:41.800 and the US, covering finance, markets and m and A, 0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:45.200 and most recently, he has served as the company's Miami 0:01:45.240 --> 0:01:48.520 bureau chief. And he joins me, now, now, Jonathan, you 0:01:48.560 --> 0:01:51.560 say in your column on the Bloomberg Terminal, if you 0:01:51.640 --> 0:01:54.480 think the debate seems firing, now just wait until the 0:01:54.520 --> 0:01:57.160 third quarter. What's happening in the third quarter. 0:01:58.280 --> 0:02:01.080 Yeah, Well, a lot of people think that's when I'm 0:02:01.520 --> 0:02:04.040 potentially going to see the start of a recession in 0:02:04.080 --> 0:02:07.280 the United States. And what's particularly interesting about a lot 0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:09.040 of these calls is that a lot of people are 0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:12.040 saying it's going to be a quote unquote mild recession. 0:02:12.440 --> 0:02:16.200 So when you think about how monetary policy works and 0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:20.040 sort of rules of thumb of monetary policy. Everybody sort 0:02:20.080 --> 0:02:23.079 of knows what you're supposed to do when you have 0:02:23.240 --> 0:02:26.320 really hot inflation and a pretty strong economy. 0:02:26.560 --> 0:02:27.519 And everybody sort. 0:02:27.360 --> 0:02:31.240 Of knows what you're supposed to do when the economy 0:02:31.280 --> 0:02:34.280 is tanking and you're in a crisis. You just cut 0:02:34.360 --> 0:02:37.400 rates to the bottom, right, But what exactly are you 0:02:37.480 --> 0:02:41.840 supposed to do when inflation is still pretty sticky and 0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:45.440 you're in a quote unquote mild recession. And the way 0:02:45.480 --> 0:02:48.400 I sort of think about it is, you know, you're 0:02:48.440 --> 0:02:51.160 going to have some pain in the labor market, but 0:02:51.320 --> 0:02:55.200 perhaps the recession just isn't so deep as to extinguish 0:02:55.400 --> 0:02:58.240 that inflation that we're talking about. That, to me is 0:02:58.280 --> 0:03:03.320 a real recipe for policy squabbles over at the Federal Reserve. 0:03:03.600 --> 0:03:05.519 Now, when did we first start seeing some of the 0:03:05.560 --> 0:03:06.600 descent within the Fed? 0:03:07.760 --> 0:03:12.040 Yeah, I think it's been bubbling up more over the 0:03:12.080 --> 0:03:15.920 past few weeks. I think, you know, there there's no 0:03:16.080 --> 0:03:21.440 question it's not a coincidence that this coincide with with 0:03:21.560 --> 0:03:25.520 Austin Goulsby being a voter this year. You know, he 0:03:25.600 --> 0:03:29.520 came in for the Chicago Fed. He has a reputation 0:03:30.000 --> 0:03:32.800 as a Dove, and I think, you know, he also 0:03:34.200 --> 0:03:38.720 he feels he'sn't important and smart and influential economist, but 0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:42.720 he also seems to have this outsize influence because he's 0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:46.720 a very good public speaker. You know, he has this 0:03:46.800 --> 0:03:48.840 a lure to him. He's he's kind of funny, right, 0:03:48.880 --> 0:03:52.520 He tells dad jokes when he's out there talking about 0:03:52.560 --> 0:03:55.760 monetary policy, and I think that makes us listen to 0:03:55.840 --> 0:03:59.160 him a little bit more. And so in recent weeks, 0:03:59.320 --> 0:04:03.080 you know, we had a major speech from Austin, Austin 0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:07.840 Goulesby which sort of no surprise, came off as very 0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:11.880 very delviish. There was a big focus on the risks 0:04:12.000 --> 0:04:17.719 going forward, especially after the banking crisis that we've seen 0:04:18.839 --> 0:04:22.600 over the past month and change. And then you sort 0:04:22.680 --> 0:04:27.359 of hold that up against another speech, for instance, the 0:04:27.360 --> 0:04:31.159 one given by Governor Waller, where Governor Waller says, in 0:04:31.240 --> 0:04:35.040 no uncertain terms, look, there's still there's still some heat 0:04:35.080 --> 0:04:38.920 out there, and we've got a raise rates. He doesn't 0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:44.000 specifically say how much more, but his starting point is 0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:46.760 we've got a raise, and you could even go a 0:04:46.760 --> 0:04:49.640 little bit further. I didn't talk about Bullard in my 0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:52.360 column because of course he's not a voter this year, 0:04:52.720 --> 0:04:55.960 but he is at the far other side of the spectrum, 0:04:56.000 --> 0:04:59.560 and he's essentially talking about we probably need to go 0:04:59.720 --> 0:05:03.280 to something like five point seven five percent at the 0:05:03.279 --> 0:05:06.920 top end of the range. And Buller's rationale basically is 0:05:07.480 --> 0:05:09.919 he doesn't see the recession that everybody's talking about. 0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:12.880 All right, So then would this be a manifestation of 0:05:12.960 --> 0:05:15.599 the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. You 0:05:15.640 --> 0:05:17.920 mentioned that this has sort of started a few weeks ago, 0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:19.880 and that would coincide with that event. 0:05:20.360 --> 0:05:23.200 I think a major reason why a lot of economists, 0:05:23.279 --> 0:05:27.840 including at the FED staff, started to write in a 0:05:28.480 --> 0:05:31.159 second half for session with a bit more certainty is 0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:34.800 because of what went down at Silicon Valley Bank and 0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:38.719 Signature Bank, right. And the thinking is that this is 0:05:38.760 --> 0:05:43.400 going to lead over the medium term to tighter credit 0:05:43.440 --> 0:05:46.080 conditions going forward, but it's going to take some time 0:05:46.640 --> 0:05:50.920 for it to really play out. So you know, when 0:05:50.960 --> 0:05:55.080 you think about the math of that, people think that 0:05:56.000 --> 0:06:01.640 that credit conditioning tightening actually substitutes for for FED hikes, right, 0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:06.160 And there's a great degree of discrepancy as to the 0:06:06.279 --> 0:06:08.320 extent of that effect. 0:06:08.400 --> 0:06:08.560 Right. 0:06:08.640 --> 0:06:13.480 Some people think it's negligible. Some people think it's twenty 0:06:13.480 --> 0:06:16.120 five basis points. Some people think it could be seventy 0:06:16.120 --> 0:06:19.720 five basis points. So to your point, Amy, that very 0:06:19.800 --> 0:06:24.400 much goes to the uncertainty around policy right now. You know, 0:06:24.760 --> 0:06:28.600 Bullard is saying we've got to go to five seventy five. 0:06:28.720 --> 0:06:31.040 But if you're the type of policy maker who thinks 0:06:31.080 --> 0:06:34.560 that what happened at Silicon Valley Bank just substituted for 0:06:34.640 --> 0:06:37.560 seventy five basis points of hikes, obviously you're going to 0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:38.960 be at the other end of that argument. 0:06:39.080 --> 0:06:42.880 Now, Jonathan, what's the big deal if there's a disagreement 0:06:42.880 --> 0:06:45.200 within the Fed? Why is that an issue? Why would 0:06:45.240 --> 0:06:47.599 that be something to be watching for and be concerned about. 0:06:47.839 --> 0:06:52.039 The big deal is that policy is essentially transmitted through 0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:57.039 rhetoric these days. Right ever since Bernanki came into the FED, 0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:02.560 you know, rhetoric and quote unquote transparency has been a 0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:07.960 big part of how the FED manages financial conditions, especially 0:07:08.000 --> 0:07:11.240 further out the curve. Right when we talk about the 0:07:11.280 --> 0:07:15.680 FED funds rate, that's really just policy makers controlling the 0:07:15.760 --> 0:07:20.200 short rate. But as we learned in the Great Financial Crisis, 0:07:20.960 --> 0:07:24.000 you can't wield a lot of influence unless you're also 0:07:24.080 --> 0:07:28.320 controlling those longer rates, especially like the ten year, which 0:07:28.520 --> 0:07:33.320 has a tremendous influence over what mortgage rates are, what 0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:38.119 auto loans are, what corporate borrowing costs are, and so forth. 0:07:38.560 --> 0:07:44.640 And so you need to convince the market that your 0:07:44.680 --> 0:07:48.200 policy is going to be a certain way two years 0:07:48.200 --> 0:07:51.440 from now, three years from now, five years from now. 0:07:51.480 --> 0:07:54.320 It's not enough just to convince the market of what 0:07:54.360 --> 0:07:57.480 your policy is going to be tomorrow or in three months. 0:07:57.840 --> 0:08:02.440 So when you have sort of all these different narratives 0:08:02.560 --> 0:08:10.120 spinning out there, you know, at on these financial television shows, 0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:13.960 or at these speeches that these FED governors love to 0:08:14.000 --> 0:08:17.920 give at universities and at their local economic clubs, it 0:08:18.000 --> 0:08:23.440 becomes problematic. It becomes dissonance. People lose the lose track 0:08:23.520 --> 0:08:27.320 of the narrative, and they no longer have a feeling 0:08:27.480 --> 0:08:30.000 of what the FED is thinking in terms of where 0:08:30.000 --> 0:08:31.720 we're going to be three years down the room. 0:08:32.160 --> 0:08:35.240 Is there a risk of too much transparency? Is that 0:08:35.280 --> 0:08:36.079 even such a thing? 0:08:36.960 --> 0:08:42.160 I think that there is a risk of too much cacophony, 0:08:42.440 --> 0:08:45.840 you know, you know, like we think about even how 0:08:45.840 --> 0:08:49.240 democracy works in our congress, right there are lots of 0:08:49.280 --> 0:08:53.480 different voices, but you want the parties to have a 0:08:53.559 --> 0:08:58.120 coordinated strategy. And I think it's essentially the same at 0:08:58.240 --> 0:09:02.880 the Fedsparency in and of itself is certainly a virtue 0:09:02.920 --> 0:09:06.240 and a democratic society, I think in the long in 0:09:06.320 --> 0:09:09.800 the long run, monetary policy has definitely benefited from this. 0:09:10.160 --> 0:09:14.960 You want accountability in an organization as powerful as the FED, 0:09:15.800 --> 0:09:23.400 but you also want coherence because transparency and messaging is 0:09:23.440 --> 0:09:27.319 not just about accountability. It is about it is about 0:09:27.360 --> 0:09:31.160 financial conditions at the end of the day as well. 0:09:30.280 --> 0:09:34.640 And having dissension within the FED or watching these disagreements 0:09:34.679 --> 0:09:38.760 bubble to the surface. Have we seen that before historically? 0:09:39.080 --> 0:09:40.080 Is this unusual? 0:09:41.000 --> 0:09:45.840 Well, I think the circumstances are unusual in the era 0:09:45.960 --> 0:09:49.000 of the modern transparent FED, because it's it's important to 0:09:49.040 --> 0:09:52.200 remember that this is such a new, such a new 0:09:52.240 --> 0:09:58.320 phenomenon in the United States. Right, Alan Greenspan famously said, uh, 0:09:58.520 --> 0:10:01.560 you know, since I've become central banker, I have learned 0:10:01.559 --> 0:10:06.720 to mumble with great incoherence. Right in the olden days, 0:10:07.480 --> 0:10:10.600 opacity was kind of part of the model, and it 0:10:10.760 --> 0:10:14.440 wasn't really until we saw Bernanke come in in two 0:10:14.480 --> 0:10:18.920 thousand and six that he really brought the values of 0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:25.200 transparency to the FED, and of course he used messaging 0:10:25.440 --> 0:10:29.160 and transparency as a major tool during the Great Financial Crisis. 0:10:29.480 --> 0:10:32.920 But we haven't lived through an environment quite like this 0:10:34.240 --> 0:10:40.200 with almost nineteen seventies like inflation in this modern transparency era. 0:10:40.640 --> 0:10:42.720 All right, Jonathan, thank you so much for taking the 0:10:42.760 --> 0:10:45.079 time with us. This was a really great discussion. I 0:10:45.120 --> 0:10:46.319 appreciate you taking the time. 0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:48.319 Thank you very much, Jamie. 0:10:48.400 --> 0:10:51.840 Bloomberg Opinion columnist Jonathan Levin, And coming up, we're all 0:10:51.920 --> 0:10:55.120 take a look at concerns within the medical research sector 0:10:55.400 --> 0:10:59.400 after a judicial ruling on mifiprestone. Could judicial review have 0:10:59.480 --> 0:11:03.600 a chilling effect on pharmaceutical research and development? You're listening 0:11:03.600 --> 0:11:04.640 to Bloomberg Opinion. 0:11:14.320 --> 0:11:18.119 You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays 0:11:18.160 --> 0:11:21.280 at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, 0:11:21.360 --> 0:11:24.480 the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen 0:11:24.559 --> 0:11:26.719 on demand wherever you get your podcasts. 0:11:28.760 --> 0:11:31.600 Hi, Amy Morris, and you're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. A 0:11:31.679 --> 0:11:35.040 judge in Texas ruled Miffa prestone should be removed from 0:11:35.080 --> 0:11:38.520 the market and while the Supreme Court briefly preserved the 0:11:38.559 --> 0:11:42.079 broad availability of the abortion pill, there are other issues 0:11:42.120 --> 0:11:45.160 to consider. Let's talk about it with Lisa Jarvis. Lisa 0:11:45.240 --> 0:11:48.920 is a Bloomberg opinion columnist covering biotech, healthcare, and the 0:11:48.920 --> 0:11:52.839 pharmaceutical industry. And Lisa, you have a column on the 0:11:52.880 --> 0:11:56.480 Bloomberg terminal and it looks at the different impacts of 0:11:56.559 --> 0:12:00.280 the Texas Court decision, not just the impact on a 0:12:00.320 --> 0:12:02.000 woman who may be looking for this pill. 0:12:02.400 --> 0:12:03.600 That's right, I think. 0:12:03.840 --> 0:12:06.880 While obviously a lot of people are concerned about the 0:12:06.880 --> 0:12:10.079 impact on abortion and on mif ofpristone access because that 0:12:10.160 --> 0:12:13.800 now represents up to fifty percent of abortions in the 0:12:13.920 --> 0:12:18.040 US right now, there could be much broader implications for 0:12:18.080 --> 0:12:22.960 the pharmaceutical industry. Inventing a new drug is a very 0:12:23.000 --> 0:12:27.720 expensive and timely process, and companies want certainty. And the 0:12:27.800 --> 0:12:31.360 way that the judge ruled in the Smith of pristone case, 0:12:31.720 --> 0:12:36.439 it essentially undermines the FDA's authority. The judge essentially said, 0:12:37.120 --> 0:12:40.320 I have gone through the data myself, and I have 0:12:40.440 --> 0:12:44.360 decided that your ruling was your decision on the drug 0:12:44.480 --> 0:12:46.800 was incorrect, and I'm going to remove it from the market. 0:12:46.800 --> 0:12:49.920 That's unprecedented and it's making the drug industry very nervous. 0:12:50.000 --> 0:12:52.760 So we're not just talking about the impact of not 0:12:52.840 --> 0:12:54.760 having the drug or the impact of the drug being 0:12:54.800 --> 0:12:56.880 on the market as far as women are concerned, but 0:12:56.960 --> 0:13:00.800 also the effect on the innovation within the pharmacy sector. 0:13:01.040 --> 0:13:04.440 Let's talk about that specifically. How much does it cost 0:13:04.800 --> 0:13:07.880 and how long does it take? Typically? I know every 0:13:07.920 --> 0:13:10.720 drug is going to be different, but typically to bring 0:13:10.920 --> 0:13:13.000 just a new drug to market. 0:13:12.920 --> 0:13:16.720 Typically it costs about one to two billion dollars on 0:13:16.800 --> 0:13:18.720 average to bring a new drug to market, and it 0:13:18.800 --> 0:13:23.040 takes ten years. That's just the clinical component. You know, 0:13:23.120 --> 0:13:26.120 that's not even counting the discovery stage when you're looking 0:13:26.200 --> 0:13:29.080 for the new drug. So you know, companies are looking 0:13:29.120 --> 0:13:31.480 for certainty in that process that when they get to 0:13:31.520 --> 0:13:34.320 the end, to the finish line, that the FDA approves 0:13:34.360 --> 0:13:37.079 the drug and they can sell it everywhere in the US. 0:13:38.000 --> 0:13:42.200 So companies that make that investment, we're talking billions of dollars, 0:13:42.679 --> 0:13:46.000 and when they make that investment, they assume that their 0:13:46.120 --> 0:13:48.640 drug will then be available because they're going to want 0:13:48.640 --> 0:13:50.719 to return on that investment. 0:13:50.360 --> 0:13:54.360 Right exactly, right, So right now you get a drug 0:13:54.360 --> 0:13:59.040 approved and that's you know, national approval. And we've seen 0:13:59.120 --> 0:14:03.880 in the past in one example of a state that 0:14:04.000 --> 0:14:07.120 tried to challenge a drug approval in a state that 0:14:07.200 --> 0:14:10.120 was in Massachusetts, and they tried to challenge the approval 0:14:10.160 --> 0:14:12.800 of an opioid drug that they didn't want to sell 0:14:13.080 --> 0:14:15.520 in their state, and the courts pushed back on that 0:14:15.640 --> 0:14:19.520 because they said, you know, the FDA's authority preempts your 0:14:19.560 --> 0:14:23.080 state authority. And so seeing you know that the FDA 0:14:23.200 --> 0:14:26.520 has generally had a lot of leeway in terms of 0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:30.720 their you know, decision making and the authority given to 0:14:30.760 --> 0:14:32.560 them around their decisions. 0:14:32.920 --> 0:14:35.240 So could this have a chilling effect then on the 0:14:35.280 --> 0:14:37.920 development of new drugs? I mean, is that where this 0:14:38.000 --> 0:14:38.520 could be going. 0:14:38.920 --> 0:14:42.640 I think that's really a concern, a valid concern, you know. 0:14:42.680 --> 0:14:45.360 I think the first more immediate thing to worry about 0:14:45.520 --> 0:14:48.360 is drugs that are already approved, because the way that 0:14:48.400 --> 0:14:50.840 this ruling was worded, it could be sort of a 0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:53.760 roadmap for how to take other drugs off of the market. 0:14:53.840 --> 0:14:56.040 We see a lot of areas of science right now 0:14:56.080 --> 0:15:01.320 politicized HPV vaccines prep, which is the medicine that you 0:15:01.400 --> 0:15:05.880 take to prevent HIV covid, vaccines, birth control. There's sort 0:15:05.920 --> 0:15:08.320 of a short list you can imagine, and then when 0:15:08.360 --> 0:15:11.720 you sort of extend that out to innovation, you think about, well, 0:15:11.720 --> 0:15:14.000 a company is only going to invest the money to 0:15:14.000 --> 0:15:16.040 invent a new drug if they think they can sell it, 0:15:16.120 --> 0:15:19.320 So you can imagine that immediately these areas that already 0:15:19.440 --> 0:15:23.960 are kind of being politicized might be places they wouldn't 0:15:23.960 --> 0:15:26.680 want to put their R and D dollars. And then 0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:29.680 if this roadmap is very broad, you know, there could 0:15:29.720 --> 0:15:32.280 be anyone who decides to challenge anything. I think people 0:15:32.320 --> 0:15:35.480 aren't assuming that everything is up for grabs and there's 0:15:35.520 --> 0:15:37.920 no reason. But at the same time, I do think 0:15:37.960 --> 0:15:42.920 there's plenty of areas that could legitimately, legitimately be you know, harmed. 0:15:43.160 --> 0:15:46.240 Well, I want to talk about that too, the stifling 0:15:46.240 --> 0:15:49.560 of innovation, judicial review, and questioning of other drugs that 0:15:49.600 --> 0:15:54.360 already exist. You mentioned yourself how science is already becoming 0:15:54.800 --> 0:16:01.920 a polarizing, politicized thing. Science and certain drugs. Clearly, we 0:16:02.040 --> 0:16:04.960 all lived through covid and should we vexxed should we not? 0:16:05.120 --> 0:16:10.080 We've all seen that already be politicized. Can you politicize 0:16:10.120 --> 0:16:11.480 just about any drug out there. 0:16:12.080 --> 0:16:13.520 I mean, it seems possible. 0:16:13.800 --> 0:16:18.280 You know, I think we heard from HHS Secretary, you know, 0:16:18.360 --> 0:16:22.360 Javier Basara mentioned a few drugs that he thought could 0:16:22.400 --> 0:16:23.000 be at risk. 0:16:23.640 --> 0:16:25.560 One of those was Alzheimer's drugs. 0:16:25.320 --> 0:16:29.720 Because they were their approval was controversial, and they're very expensive. 0:16:29.800 --> 0:16:32.560 So you know, one could pull any number of, you know, 0:16:32.760 --> 0:16:36.080 reasons to challenge the approval of a drug if you're 0:16:36.200 --> 0:16:38.440 the right person and you pick the right judge. I 0:16:38.480 --> 0:16:41.920 think that's the key here, is that you know, you 0:16:41.960 --> 0:16:44.720 would have to pick the right judge who has decided 0:16:44.760 --> 0:16:47.040 that they can undermine the FDA's authority. 0:16:47.760 --> 0:16:49.720 Okay, well, let's talk about that for a minute. The 0:16:49.880 --> 0:16:52.720 undermining of the authority of the FDA. Was this an 0:16:52.760 --> 0:16:56.400 undermining of their authority? Is their reputation somehow damaged by this? 0:16:56.720 --> 0:16:59.560 Well, I would say that the reputation is not necessarily 0:16:59.640 --> 0:17:04.760 damaged unless you're someone who probably walked in not respecting 0:17:04.800 --> 0:17:05.920 the FDA's authority. 0:17:06.400 --> 0:17:08.120 I already had that leaning. 0:17:08.400 --> 0:17:11.360 Exactly, But I do think that it undermines their authority 0:17:11.800 --> 0:17:16.840 significantly if it stands, Because you know, we typically considered 0:17:16.880 --> 0:17:19.280 the agency to have a lot of discretion and their 0:17:19.320 --> 0:17:22.120 authority over the safety and efficacy of our drugs. There's 0:17:22.119 --> 0:17:23.720 a good reason for that. You know, there was a 0:17:23.760 --> 0:17:26.120 time where we didn't have an FDA. You know, we 0:17:26.119 --> 0:17:29.000 weren't assured as consumers that their drugs were taking were 0:17:29.040 --> 0:17:31.879 safe and that they worked. You know, we look to 0:17:31.960 --> 0:17:34.639 the agency for that. I'm happy that when I, you know, 0:17:34.800 --> 0:17:38.840 take a prescription, I know that someone has made sure 0:17:39.000 --> 0:17:40.720 that I'm not going to die from it or have 0:17:40.840 --> 0:17:42.160 side effects, and that it's. 0:17:42.000 --> 0:17:42.560 Going to help me. 0:17:43.680 --> 0:17:46.199 And so I think, you know, the broadness of this 0:17:46.320 --> 0:17:50.840 decision and this idea that the FDA had reviewed the data, 0:17:50.960 --> 0:17:54.879 and that a judge could look at just components of 0:17:54.920 --> 0:17:57.320 the data, not even the full data set, and say, well, 0:17:57.359 --> 0:17:59.440 I know better, that's alarming. 0:17:59.880 --> 0:18:02.199 I think that would put a chilling effect not just 0:18:02.240 --> 0:18:05.399 on the innovation that we talked about, but also on 0:18:05.880 --> 0:18:09.720 what the FDA decides to do. Like it might I 0:18:09.720 --> 0:18:12.560 don't want to say paralyze them, but it might definitely 0:18:12.600 --> 0:18:15.920 slow down the process, which is not a fast process 0:18:15.920 --> 0:18:17.639 to begin with. Do you follow me? 0:18:17.800 --> 0:18:18.480 No? 0:18:18.480 --> 0:18:18.560 No. 0:18:18.840 --> 0:18:21.280 In fact, one of the things that's been pointed out 0:18:21.280 --> 0:18:23.520 that we haven't talked about is the FDA does have 0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:26.480 authority to withdraw a drug from the market, and that's 0:18:26.520 --> 0:18:29.440 a very slow process. It's been criticized for how slow 0:18:29.480 --> 0:18:33.159 it is, but there are you know, really avenues in 0:18:33.160 --> 0:18:35.040 place to take a drug off the market if it 0:18:35.080 --> 0:18:38.160 truly is not safe or effective. And this judge has 0:18:38.240 --> 0:18:40.879 sort of come in to say like, well, I've decided this. 0:18:41.040 --> 0:18:42.920 You know, we're not going to go through this process 0:18:43.200 --> 0:18:46.880 that FDA would normally go through, where it's very public, transparent, 0:18:47.240 --> 0:18:49.760 people have an opportunity to weigh in on the importance 0:18:49.800 --> 0:18:53.920 of the drug in the market place. Patients can win instead, 0:18:54.240 --> 0:18:56.960 you know, this is what's happening. So I do feel 0:18:56.960 --> 0:18:59.639 like it has a chilling effect, and it does, you 0:18:59.680 --> 0:19:02.520 know sort of as a consumer, I worry about what 0:19:02.560 --> 0:19:06.520 that means, you know, for people's attitudes about the safety 0:19:06.560 --> 0:19:07.240 of their drugs. 0:19:07.280 --> 0:19:12.200 I would think as a consumer, as a stockholder, uh, 0:19:12.520 --> 0:19:15.120 members of you know, people who work in big pharma, 0:19:15.560 --> 0:19:20.440 independent medical research, all of those would be impacted by 0:19:20.560 --> 0:19:22.160 a judge stepping up and going. 0:19:22.119 --> 0:19:26.800 No, oh, definitely, And we are finally starting to see 0:19:26.840 --> 0:19:28.359 pharma come off the sidelines. 0:19:28.440 --> 0:19:30.560 I mean it's taken a while. Obviously. 0:19:31.040 --> 0:19:34.200 When Roe was overturned last summer, you know, there were 0:19:34.240 --> 0:19:36.760 concerns from the outset about some of these lawsuits that 0:19:36.800 --> 0:19:41.520 could emerge to challenge the status of mifipristone, and they 0:19:41.560 --> 0:19:45.359 did finally file a group of companies and Bio, which 0:19:45.400 --> 0:19:48.679 is one of the industry you know, sort of lobbying organizations, 0:19:48.720 --> 0:19:53.320 filed an amicus brief last week pointing out all of 0:19:53.359 --> 0:19:58.120 these things that this is really undermining the authority and 0:19:58.480 --> 0:20:01.720 you know, expertise, signed typic expertise that we all rely 0:20:01.880 --> 0:20:05.440 on as consumers, as investors, as inventors. 0:20:05.960 --> 0:20:09.960 Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, healthcare, 0:20:10.160 --> 0:20:12.800 and the pharmaceutical industry. And now stay with us. Coming up, 0:20:12.800 --> 0:20:15.120 we're going to take a look at the softening labor market. 0:20:15.560 --> 0:20:18.240 Will that make it easier for you to hire new employees? 0:20:18.760 --> 0:20:21.960 It turns out there are more complications you'll have to consider. 0:20:22.200 --> 0:20:25.280 And don't forget. We're available as a podcast on Apple, 0:20:25.359 --> 0:20:29.600 Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion. 0:20:39.320 --> 0:20:43.320 You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast Countess Saturdays at 0:20:43.320 --> 0:20:46.439 one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the 0:20:46.520 --> 0:20:49.639 iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on 0:20:49.720 --> 0:20:51.720 demand wherever you get your podcasts. 0:20:53.600 --> 0:20:56.840 This is Bloomberg Opinion. I Maymy Morris. Executives have been 0:20:56.880 --> 0:21:00.360 looking forward to a softening labor market when labor terry 0:21:00.400 --> 0:21:02.520 Gina Raimondo delivered the news. 0:21:02.359 --> 0:21:06.160 This is an excellent jobs report. You're seeing record low 0:21:06.240 --> 0:21:11.280 black unemployment. You're seeing record low unemployment among people who 0:21:11.320 --> 0:21:14.520 have been left behind. And the best news for me 0:21:15.520 --> 0:21:19.480 is higher percentage of people working in the workforce. 0:21:19.640 --> 0:21:22.560 And while executives have been waiting for some relief, they 0:21:22.680 --> 0:21:25.840 might be in for an unwelcome surprise. Now you might 0:21:25.880 --> 0:21:29.080 think it would be easier to hire people, but not necessarily. 0:21:29.160 --> 0:21:32.040 And a survey released April fourth by the Conference Board, 0:21:32.359 --> 0:21:36.000 fifty seven percent of chief executives said they were having 0:21:36.080 --> 0:21:40.480 problems attracting qualified workers. And while that number has declined 0:21:40.520 --> 0:21:43.080 from the final quarter of twenty twenty two, it still 0:21:43.119 --> 0:21:45.479 means that more than half of companies are finding it 0:21:45.560 --> 0:21:49.280 hard to hire. So why is this so hard? We 0:21:49.400 --> 0:21:54.240 turned to Bloomberg Opinion editor Sarah Green Carmichael for some insight. Now, Sarah, 0:21:54.320 --> 0:21:57.080 we usually see fingers of blame pointed at the economy 0:21:57.200 --> 0:21:59.880 or the workers themselves for creating a tight job market. 0:22:00.200 --> 0:22:01.760 What else is going on here? 0:22:02.960 --> 0:22:05.440 Yes, I think that companies actually need to look a 0:22:05.480 --> 0:22:10.280 little bit at themselves in the mirror. Bad hiring practices 0:22:10.320 --> 0:22:13.639 are also contributing to the problem. Part of it is 0:22:13.680 --> 0:22:17.040 that companies are potentially doing too much outside hiring right 0:22:17.040 --> 0:22:20.840 now rather than promoting from within and compounding the problem. 0:22:20.880 --> 0:22:24.040 And really the heart of the problem is that job interviews, 0:22:24.119 --> 0:22:27.520 hiring processes, vetting processes just take too long and are 0:22:27.560 --> 0:22:30.879 too involved. So it's hard to hire because companies have 0:22:31.119 --> 0:22:32.280 made it hard to hire. 0:22:32.680 --> 0:22:36.440 Yeah, you say in your piece that companies just simply 0:22:36.480 --> 0:22:39.199 don't hire. Well, is that what you mean? That they 0:22:39.280 --> 0:22:41.280 just take too long and they give you too many 0:22:41.359 --> 0:22:42.760 hoops of fire to jump through. 0:22:43.520 --> 0:22:46.040 Yeah, I'll give you an example of something that I 0:22:46.040 --> 0:22:48.320 think companies get wrong, right at the start with the 0:22:48.400 --> 0:22:51.960 job description. It's natural if you're bringing someone on board 0:22:51.960 --> 0:22:54.000 to start out with a wish list of forty two 0:22:54.160 --> 0:22:56.600 different attributes of what you want in a candidate. 0:22:57.040 --> 0:22:59.240 But that's not realistic to find in one person. 0:23:00.119 --> 0:23:03.360 The less companies will often insist that no someone has 0:23:03.359 --> 0:23:04.960 to be able to hit the ground running and do 0:23:05.040 --> 0:23:07.119 the job on day one, and they really need all 0:23:07.160 --> 0:23:10.560 these qualifications, but they actually don't have the budget to 0:23:10.640 --> 0:23:13.320