Did the millions spent matter? Election ’24 Health Care Ads

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

Mark Masselli ( 00:04 ):
As President Trump prepares for his second term, the preliminary numbers show 4.5 billion was spent
on political TV and radio ads this year, and healthcare was front and center.
Erika Franklin Fowler ( 00:16 ):
The healthcare messaging this year, there was a lot about cost specifically, about lowering cost, and so
maybe not surprisingly, you have partisans of both sides of the aisle attacking the other for high costs
related. That also relates to economic considerations and inflation of course, but there was a lot of
discussion of healthcare costs specifically.
Narrator ( 00:38 ):
Kamala Harris knows what it's like to be middle class. It's why she's determined to lower healthcare
costs and make housing more affordable. Donald Trump has no plan to help the middle class, just more
tax cuts for billionaires. Being president is about who you fight for, and she's fighting for people like you.
Kamala Harris ( 00:58 ):
I'm Kamala Harris and I approve this message.
Margaret Flinter ( 00:59 ):
Our guest is Erika Franklin Fowler who holds a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin and is the
director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political ads. She also focuses on analyzing health
related communication.
Erika Franklin Fowler ( 01:13 ):
Specifically in House races, but I think there even were some in Senate races that used transgender
issues to make similar lines of attack against Democratic candidates, basically saying the Democratic
candidate is for they/them, and we are for you.
Margaret Flinter ( 01:30 ):
This is Conversations on Health Care.
Mark Masselli ( 01:40 ):
Dr. Franklin Fowler, welcome to Conversations on Health Care.
Erika Franklin Fowler ( 01:44 ):
Thanks so much for having me.
Mark Masselli ( 01:46 ):
Yeah. Now, I noted in your most recent report, and I say recent report because I know this gets updated
pretty regularly, but it showed some interesting data points. 18% of all the ads were focused in on
healthcare, 28% of them were pro-Democratic and only 7% pro-Republican. And 10% of all ads were
about abortion, 20% were pro-Democratic and the Republican ran zero ads on the topic. I'm wondering
if you could share with our audience what does this tell us right now?

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 02:21 ):
Yeah, I think it tells us that healthcare, I mean healthcare broadly is not polarized, I think in both parties
care about it, but certainly abortion specifically is a very polarizing topic and Democrats are talking a lot
about it and Republicans really don't know how to message on that particular issue at the moment.
Margaret Flinter ( 02:41 ):
Well, Erika, we're all living in Connecticut, you and Mark and myself. And your chart shows our media
market only aired 21 presidential ads in total in mid-October, compared to Philadelphia, which had
36,000 ads in the weeks before election day. So for those who did not see the healthcare spots, what
messages were they sending about abortion, prescription drugs, and healthcare for the undocumented
people.
Jake Tapper ( 03:07 ):
So you support giving universal healthcare, Medicare for All to people who are in this country illegally?
Kamala Harris ( 03:13 ):
I'm opposed to any policy that would deny in our country any human being public health period.
Meghan McCain ( 03:22 ):
Are you for defunding the police?
Kamala Harris ( 03:23 ):
How are you defining defund the police?
( 03:25 ):
It's actually wrong and backward to think that more police officers will create more safety.
( 03:32 ):
We need to get rid of money bail.
Don Lemon ( 03:34 ):
Convicted in prison, like the Boston Marathon Bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of
sexual assault, they should be able to vote?
Kamala Harris ( 03:41 ):
I think we should have that conversation.
( 03:44 ):
I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.
( 03:49 ):
I have always supported Medicare for All. I was very happy to sign on to Bernie's bill, and I give Bernie
frankly a lot of credit.
( 03:56 ):
There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

Reporter ( 03:58 ):
Do you ban plastic straws?
Kamala Harris ( 04:00 ):
I think we should.
Erika Franklin Fowler ( 04:05 ):
Yeah. So very different sets of messaging. And I can also describe how the messaging has changed over
time, if that's useful. But for residents of Connecticut, we didn't get a lot of presidential ads. What we
saw were essentially the national buys, so when either presidential candidate purchased an ad that
aired everywhere basically, whereas residents of battleground states were getting inundated with a ton
of advertising, not just on television, but also on their mobile devices, at the gas pump, basically
anywhere they have a screen. The healthcare messaging this year, there was a lot about cost, specifically
about lowering cost. And so maybe not surprisingly, you have partisans of both sides of the aisle
attacking the other for high costs related. That also relates to economic considerations and inflation of
course, but there was a lot of discussion of healthcare costs specifically, and then some discussion of
Medicare premiums as well going up. I think Donald Trump aired some ads attacking the Harris
campaign for increasing Medicare premiums specifically.
( 05:13 ):
On the abortion side, there was obviously a lot of Democratic messaging about concerns over women's
rights, the Republican candidates up and down the ballot supporting national abortion bans, and/or
taking away women's reproductive freedoms. So those I think were the main topics. With respect to
immigration, there was a ton of messaging on that this year. A lot of it, the healthcare related
conversation within it was about fentanyl and fentanyl coming across the border and securing the
border that way, which is very different than the prior messaging that we used to see on opioids and
concerns over opioid use.
Mark Masselli ( 05:56 ):
Well, certainly in the mix of all of those ads and perhaps the TV spot getting the most attention is
President Trump's anti-trans ad, the so-called they/them ad.
Narrator ( 06:06 ):
Kamala supports taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners.
Kamala Harris ( 06:10 ):
Surgery-
Narrator ( 06:12 ):
For prisoners.
Kamala Harris ( 06:12 ):
For prisoners. Every transgender gender inmate in the prison system would have access.
Narrator ( 06:19 ):

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

It's hard to believe, but it's true. Even the liberal media was shocked Kamala supports taxpayer-funded
sex changes for prisoners and illegal aliens.
Kamala Harris ( 06:28 ):
Every transgender inmate would have access.
Narrator ( 06:31 ):
Kamala's for they/them. President Trump is for you.
Donald Trump ( 06:34 ):
I'm Donald J. Trump and I approve this message.
Mark Masselli ( 06:36 ):
There are reports that the Trump campaign and others spent over $120 million airing this ad, oftentimes
during football games. I wonder if you could tell us about the commercial and its impact.
Erika Franklin Fowler ( 06:50 ):
Yeah, it also aired a lot during the World Series.
Mark Masselli ( 06:54 ):
Right.
Erika Franklin Fowler ( 06:55 ):
Yeah. And so definitely it was a very prominent spot. It got a lot of free media attention, not just the
paid advertising that the Republican campaign spent on it. I think one important thing to note too is that
it echoes lines of attack that are not just in the presidential race. There are other Republican candidates
further down the ballot specifically in House races, but I think there even were some in Senate races,
that used transgender issues to make similar lines of attack against Democratic candidates, basically
saying the Democratic candidate is for they/them and we are for you. In most cases, those ads go after
transgender surgeries and support for transgender surgeries. The language is something along the lines
of, from the Republican perspective is something about we're protecting children from life-altering
transgender surgeries. But it also leans sometimes also into biological men being in women's bathrooms
and women's sports. And so you find sort of a combination of one of those three, sometimes all three in
Republican messaging, and that is definitely a topic. We saw some of these attacks in the 2022 cycle
from Republicans. Democrats mostly do not talk about this issue. They didn't talk about it in 2022 and
they didn't do it again in 2024.
Mark Masselli ( 08:24 ):
Did any of the ads suppress votes? I think I noted that Harris was 10 or 12 million below Biden's
numbers in terms of Democrats or allies of Biden coming out. Any sense of what happened there, if ads
had an impact on those voters or nonvoters?
Erika Franklin Fowler ( 08:51 ):

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

Yeah, yeah, thank you for the question. And I realize I didn't answer your impact question on the
transgender side. So two things I think are important to say. From a political science perspective, we
know that election outcomes tend to be driven by the fundamentals, which tend to be the support of
the incumbent party or president and then economic conditions, along with any other big external
events, which could include wars or pandemics or other big picture things. Those set the basic terms
within which a campaign can try to make a difference. But the campaigns themselves, and advertising is
just one small part of an obviously larger campaign strategy, which would include the ground game, the
mailers that you see, telephone banking, and other sorts of things. The advertising we know in
presidential cycles typically affects, the extent to which advertising can persuade is roughly inside of one
percentage point. So advertising really just matters at the margin. That doesn't mean the margin doesn't
matter because a one percentage point difference can be the difference between putting you in the
White House versus not.
( 10:00 ):
But to just put in sort of the scope of the activity, advertising has less of an effect than citizens
sometimes think that it does. And it's really challenging, any one particular message is hard to parse out
during the heat of an election cycle because you have a ton of other messaging that's reaching citizens
at the same time. So the careful social science that will be done to try to unpack the effects is still to
come. But I do think that this cycle in particular, the Democrats had a really tough, the headwinds were
working against them. There were political scientists who correctly predicted the outcome in all 50
states here, and what they did is use the presidential approval and state economic conditions. And using
those two things, given how unpopular the Biden administration is right now, I think the fact that the
campaign was closer, the battleground states was closer, may be indicative that the campaigns were
effective, just not enough to move against the really strong headwinds that were working against
Democrats.

Mark Masselli ( 11:04 ):
[inaudible 00:11:05].

Margaret Flinter ( 11:05 ):
Well, it's so interesting around healthcare, there's healthcare and there's healthcare coverage. And we
go back to the memorable 2008 campaigns, the Affordable Care Act, the '12 and '16 repeal, replace.
Now enjoying unprecedented popularity as a part of the American healthcare system. But I don't think I
ever saw that in the polling or in the ads that were out there. It seems like for both protecting it, the
Democrats would've put more emphasis on it, and the Republicans continue to shy away now from
repeal, but saying they're going to make everything better. What did you see happening within this
domain in terms of healthcare coverage and the Affordable Care Act?

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 11:54 ):
Yeah, it's a great question. And this is an issue that we've tracked extensively over time because some of
our first analyses were tracking the Affordable Care Act. What's interesting, so Democrats after they
passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, sort of ran away from the issue. They didn't talk about it for
basically a decade. The Republican messaging on healthcare was much more prominent in the early
2012, 2004, 2016, and it was all about repeal and replace. It wasn't until the 2018 cycle when
Republicans had tried to repeal the act and turns out that a lot of the provisions in the Affordable Care
Act are very popular, that Democrats finally found, oh, okay, perhaps we should come back and talk
about preexisting conditions and other sorts of things. And so we had, the Wesleyan Media Project

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

actually had dubbed the 2018 election as the healthcare election because there was such a prominent
focus from both parties on healthcare because Republicans couldn't run away from it entirely. They
were trying to defend their votes and defend, say that they were for protecting preexisting conditions
and other things.
( 13:08 ):
We sort of expected 2020 to be like another healthcare election. COVID, obviously although it was
clearly a health pandemic, had an interesting interaction in that because there was so much economic
disaster that occurred, that it was both healthcare and the economy sort of shared the advertising
attention that year. And then of course, the Dobbs decision has sort of shifted the healthcare landscape
to talking more about abortion. I would say that I think abortion restrictions are very unpopular. I mean,
there's a lot about healthcare that works in Democrats' favor because of the popularity of a lot of
different types of provisions. And what's interesting this cycle is you had a lot of abortion amendments
passing in states and even some really conservative states that also went for Trump. And I don't know if
that is potentially indicative of residents sort of buying the Republican line of argument, that Trump
actually said this explicitly like, well, I sent it back to the states. And so there may be some indications
that the population thinks that making amendments to their state constitutions will protect them from
potential abortion bans. Whether or not that pans out is to be determined.

Mark Masselli ( 14:33 ):
Well, it has in a couple of very conservative states, and so maybe they got the idea that it was coming to
them might be ill-formed. I want to go back to your earlier answer about the efficacy of ads. I noted the
New York Times carried a piece before the election day that said Democrats won the ad war in terms of
dollars spent. Since they lost, I think you've already sort of opined a little bit about the effectiveness of
TV ads. Is it over or diminishing? But I guess I'd also like to know if you had to spend money, would you
spend it on advertisement or get out the vote campaign? I mean, have you looked at what's the best
investment that one could make in a campaign?

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 15:22 ):
Yeah, all good questions. I mean, I think a campaign has to do all of the above. So since we've been
tracking television advertising, which the Wesleyan Media Project started in 2010, we have data that go
back a decade earlier than that to 2000, but since 2010, every cycle everyone has predicted is this the
year that television ends. And we really still, I mean even this cycle, although it's not a historically high
year for television because 2020 when folks couldn't campaign in other ways, television sucked in a lot
of that additional funding, television is still important. It's still an important way to reach mass audiences
and especially older Americans who do tend, are more likely to turn out. But the television advertising is
really for the persuasion public. There are some get out the vote ads, but they're mostly to try to
persuade the undecideds. That doesn't replace your sort of campaign strategy to also try to mobilize the
base.
( 16:27 ):
And so digital advertising actually, which has seen really large increases especially this cycle. The Harris
campaign, we haven't totaled all the dollars yet, but early in the cycle, they came up and said that they
were already committing $480 million to digital and streaming, which that was mind-blowing. And they
definitely had advantages, especially on the Meta properties, so Facebook and Instagram, relative to the
Trump campaign. Google and YouTube, it was tighter, but they also had advantages there. The
advertising that happens online, there are two purposes. So some of it is traditional persuasion that it

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

looks like more like what you would see on television, but then there also are donation appeals trying to
get people to, they're trying to raise money so that they can spend more on advertising. And then there
also are get out the vote advertising at the end. But the get out the vote is also going to be through door
knocking and phone calls and other sorts of things. I think campaigns ignore one of those strategies,
persuasion or mobilization, at their peril. So they're going to do both. And so I think the answer is more
of all. So part of the reason why we see increasing amounts of money going to elections is because there
are increasing number of platforms and ways to try to reach citizens, and campaigns try to do more and
more of all of those things.

Margaret Flinter ( 17:55 ):
Well, we can only imagine the media industry was very happy with the elections just for the sheer
volume of business. But Erika, I want to give you a moment to perhaps go a little bit hyper-local and
generational. There are lots of polls and a lot of feedback about how young people were voting. You are
on the campus of Wesleyan University here in Middletown, Connecticut. You're surrounded by young
people. Probably have a few work study students with you to analyze data and a lot of engagement with
faculty. What did you hear from young people relative to the election and how did it stand in contrast or
similarity to what the national polls were saying?

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 18:37 ):
Yeah, so I mean, our campus and president Michael Roth here has really been pushing democracy
initiatives, trying to reach our constituencies here and ensure that they're engaged in democratic
practice and all of those things. And so I think the Wesleyan student body tends to be pretty politically
active generally. I do think this cycle, speaking about the headwinds, was challenging for young voters
for lots of reasons. I think there are a lot of young people who are concerned about democracy and
concerns about democratic backsliding. I think there also are a lot of concerns about the war in Gaza and
what is happening there, and that has implications for the Biden administration and the Harris
campaign, frankly, because of their involvement in the activities over there.
( 19:31 ):
And so I see a lot of different... Students in my classes would be students who are already sort of very
interested in politics. Hearing from some of them, I think there's a varying interest in politics. There is
some level of disengagement, I think more broadly among the youth population, in part because the
politicians of both parties have historically been so aging. That dynamic shifted I think when Harris
entered the race, but maybe isn't completely replaced in part because there still are a lot of issues that
aren't necessarily being talked about that are really important to younger voters, including climate, for
example, that doesn't get maybe enough attention.

Mark Masselli ( 20:18 ):
I want to connect the dots here. You were talking a little bit earlier about the millions spent on digital
ads and then sort of where young people are. And this was also election about podcast. So you had
Trump really very focused in on the Joe Rogan Experience, and he was on Six Feet Under and this past
weekend with Theo Von and others. And I'm wondering how you're dealing, how this has come into, this
is a sort of new experience or a new data point for elections where there was a real strategy in the
Trump campaign to make sure. Now, Harris got out to a few places, but really not the depth that it
seemed that President Trump was engaged in. How are you assessing the impact there of these bro-
casts that were out there?

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 21:18 ):
Yeah, I mean, I think notably the Harris campaign went on Call Her Daddy, which was another one of
those that has a large audience, notably a female audience, in contrast to the Rogan Experience. I think
those types of events, there has always been a strategy of presidential campaigns finding innovative
ways to try to talk to voters. So if we go back to the 1990s for example, there's a reason why Bill Clinton
took his saxophone and went on late night TV. So the campaigns are looking for audiences. Most
Americans, and this is true across the board, and in fact, it's one of the things I say to all of my media
and politics students the first time that they show up is I say, by definition of you being here, you're not
the average American. Most Americans tune politics out, frankly. It's not that they're not interested, it's
just that their lives are busy and it's not top of mind and top priority for them necessarily. And so
campaigns know this, and they have always, going back to the innovation of the modern campaign and
modern campaigning, are always looking for new and different ways to try to reach voters in places
where they might not always hear from politicians. And so I would say that both the phenomenon of the
podcasts and going on podcasts, it's a new tactic but it's an old strategy of campaigns.

Mark Masselli ( 22:50 ):
But is it the engagement there? I mean, you get the shout-outs, the tweets by Taylor Swift or Beyonce,
but these podcasts are really about a long conversation with people over a wide range of topics versus
just, hey, I've got celebrities lined up and they're doing a one-off for me. But the podcasts seem to have
more texture, engagement, drawing people in, which is their job because they're looking to have an
audience and a meaningful one. So it does seem to be somewhat of a shift here.

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 23:25 ):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's a different format. And certainly a longer format allows politicians both to
convey to citizens that they are more normal maybe than they-

Mark Masselli ( 23:37 ):
Because they're talking about sports, they're talking about other things. They're not just talking about,
hey, I'm here to give you my spiel and, you know.

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 23:44 ):
Right. Exactly. And I think that is in line with campaigns that have gone to entertainment leaning
programs, to include late night TV but also daytime talk shows and other sorts of things. Those
strategies are always beneficial to a campaign because it shows a different side of the candidate than
you would get through a more formal setting. So yeah, I mean, I think the exposure that candidates get
from those settings can be really important. And you're right that the longer format and the way in
which some of those, the three-hour conversation in particular enables a much lengthier look at a
candidate than most citizens get in any other format.

Margaret Flinter ( 24:32 ):
Well, Erika, the election is behind us, and that means it must be ready to get ready for the midterm
elections. Right?

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 24:41 ):
Yeah, we get very little break unfortunately.

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

Margaret Flinter ( 24:42 ):
Coming right up. Very little break. And I'm curious as we look forward, and based on some of the
comments to the degree to which people tuned out much of the political ads of the presidential
election, I'm wondering whether there is a strategy to maybe put forward some of the younger
members of the administration and certainly some of the people proposed for high profile posts that the
president says he'll appoint are not shy about being on camera, have a long history of being in the public
eye. Do you think there'll be more use of people in other positions in political ads than just an aging
president going forward for the midterms?

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 25:27 ):
Yeah, for sure. And I do think already, if you watch as many ads as we end up watching, and there are
thousands of them on television and then many, many, many more on digital, they do often feature
younger people. Just by their nature, they're trying to convey to a wide variety of residents that the
candidate is for people like them by featuring people like them. So definitely I think that will continue to
be a strategy. And then the other one big feature that both campaigns use is bringing on your model
citizen to convey support from a particular constituency. So in the context of healthcare, that can often
mean doctors and nurses are showing up in advertising to convey their support for a particular
candidate or their concern about a particular problem that's not being addressed. And both of those
things can be effective in terms of conveying what is at stake basically.

Mark Masselli ( 26:26 ):
That's interesting. Maybe individual providers are resonating, but if you look at the institutional view of
the CDC, of the Department of HHS and the like, those are really underwater significantly. And I'm just
wondering in terms of the public health, how are we going to get very important health messages across
to people when there's been such an undermining of the traditional go-to healthcare organizations that
are steeped in science, and yet people are saying not going there and not believing them?

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 27:05 ):
It is a real challenge. And that is something, I work with a collaborative on media and messaging for
health and social policy, and this is something that we care deeply about because the polarization and
politicization of health-related messaging has tremendous and important, and sometimes life-altering
consequences. And so I do think it is really important for us to be thinking about how medical and public
health and CDC level guidance is perceived and taken in, and how do we communicate about those
topics in ways that build back up trust is super important. So thinking, I think first about leading first and
foremost with values. And I do think that individual messengers can be more important and helpful than
the institutions themselves. It's important that the institutions are trusted too, but part of the way that
we can get there or sort of try to build back is about the messenger and about the sort of leading with
values. We all care about health of society and health of our children and those sorts of things. And I
think leading with messages like that are super important.

Margaret Flinter ( 28:17 ):
Well, Erika, you mentioned the collaborative on media and messaging for health and social policy. We'd
love to have you take a minute to talk a little bit more specifically about your work on advancing health
and racial equity. Tell us what you're doing in that area.

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 28:32 ):

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

Yeah, so the collaborative is a three-institution organization. We have Wesleyan is part of it. We direct
the media tracking hub. We also work with researchers at Cornell University that lead the media impact
hub and they do messaging experiments and tests and other things. And then the University of
Minnesota hub is our dissemination and engagement. So between the three institutions, we've done a
fair amount of work both talking and listening to healthcare communicators and health communicators
more broadly about what are the challenges that they have seen and what are they facing in this more
polarized and politicized climate. And some of the questions that have been asked in that setting are
about, do we talk about health equity? Do we talk about race? Do we talk about these different issues?
And how do talking about any of those things affect the perceptions and the impact of the messaging
that we put forward?
( 29:34 ):
And then once we have gathered that information from the practitioners on the ground, our goal is to
take that back and try to work on messaging that can help move policy forward in a productive way. So
what we've been working, some of my colleagues have been working on messaging about the Child Tax
Credit. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that that has been super beneficial lifting people out of
poverty. And one of the questions is, can we talk about the Child Tax Credit in a way that specifies who
the beneficiaries are without sort of a backlash effect from other citizens? And at least the preliminary
evidence suggests that yes, there is a way that we can talk both about the universal benefits, but also
the targeted benefits of the policy without backlash. And so those types of research evidence, I think can
be helpful in bringing back evidence to the people on the ground about how to talk about policy in ways
that improve and increase support or policies that we know improve health and racial equity.

Mark Masselli ( 30:40 ):
Let's end on a high note. While most political ads are negative, some can be positive and even
humorous. I note that one of your grads, Senator John Hickenlooper, is famous for some of his quirky
ads. I'm wondering if any ads stick out to you for being very good or for being entertaining in this cycle.

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 31:01 ):
Being good or entertaining in this cycle. You put me on the spot.

Margaret Flinter ( 31:07 ):
Think hard.

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 31:10 ):
One of the most notable things about this cycle is the presidential campaign was unusually negative.
That was driven by the Trump campaign who aired very, very, very few positive ads, so much so that
they don't even appear in our graph. It's all negative or contrast. So I think that sticks out more in my
mind this cycle. There have been some really interesting good ads in the past that are humorous and
positive. I'm just hard-pressed to come up with one from this particular cycle. I'm sorry about that.

Mark Masselli ( 31:42 ):
No problem.

Margaret Flinter ( 31:43 ):
Next time. We'll catch you the next time on that.

Transcript by Rev.com

This transcript was exported on Dec 05, 2024 - view latest version here .

Erika Franklin Fowler ( 31:45 ):
Next time.
Margaret Flinter ( 31:45 ):
And thank you, Erika, for joining us. And thanks to our audience for being here. Just a reminder, be sure
to subscribe to our videos on YouTube, find us on Facebook and X with our account name, CHC Radio.
And as always, you can go online to CHCradio.com to sign up for email updates. And please also feel free
to share your thoughts and comments about this program. Take care. Be well. Thank you again, Erika.
( 32:12 ):
This copyrighted program is produced by Conversations on Health Care and cannot be produced or
retransmitted in whole or in part without the express written consent from Community Health Center
Inc. The views expressed by guests are their own, and they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of
Conversations on Health Care or its affiliated entities.

Transcript by Rev.com