Episode 231: Q2: Ballot Questions and Answers

10/13/2022-- Today on The Horse Race, the team starts out with a quick Covid-19 update. Have you gotten your booster yet? Then Lisa runs through the latest with the migrant story we've been following in the past few weeks.

It's another ballot question episode this week. Today we're running through Question 2. If passed, this ballot question would introduce new regulations on dental insurance companies in the Commonwealth.

To offer the supporting argument, we're first joined by Brian Monteiro, director of governmental affairs and public relations at the Massachusetts Dental Society.

Later we're joined by Doug Rubin, a political consultant and former chief of staff to Governor Deval Patrick, to talk us through the other side of the question.

--

Full Transcript Below:

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:00:25] This week on The Horse Race. We're looking at ballot question two to regulate dental insurance in Massachusetts. It's Thursday, October 13th. [00:00:33][7.9]

Steve Koczela: [00:00:48] Welcome back to the horse race, your weekly look at politics, policy and elections in Massachusetts. I'm Steve Koczela here with Jennifer Smith and Lisa Kashinsky. And we have had a huge week already this week. We are recording this on Wednesday. You're, of course, listening to this on Thursday, the very first moment that it came out, which means there have been three important nights of activity already last night for you. Tonight for us, there was a gubernatorial debate between Maura Healey and Geoff Diehl that came after two full nights, 2 hours, each of Bachelor in Paradise. So tons to get into. What are we even going to talk about first? [00:01:22][34.3]

Jennifer Smith: [00:01:23] Steve, I'm deeply worried that this is going to bring about a resurgence of I'd like to characterize it as fan mail from when we regularly recapped The Bachelor during a very Massachusetts connection focused season in which people said, Please, please do not make me less informed on Massachusetts politics. I will be skipping through all of this. If you mention politics in connection with The Bachelor, I'm just going to miss it. So on that front, Lisa, do you think that there is going to be a substantial bachelor in paradise and gubernatorial debate connection that all of our listeners will not be hearing right now because they have skipped right on along. [00:02:01][37.7]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:02:02] Only if somehow in the debate it comes up that people don't know what a narwhal is. [00:02:08][5.9]

Jennifer Smith: [00:02:09] I love, I love that this is the content that we're getting right now from reality TV. It's not love relationships. Steve How do you always characterize The Bachelor something earnest? [00:02:18][9.5]

Steve Koczela: [00:02:19] Yeah, it's a genuine search for love and affection and also an. [00:02:23][3.6]

Jennifer Smith: [00:02:23] And also narwhals. [00:02:24][0.7]

Steve Koczela: [00:02:24] Sea unicorns. Anyhow, sorry, I don't want to cut that shortly. Lisa? [00:02:29][4.9]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:02:30] No, it's fine. You know, I don't. We don't actually need to get into narwhals. The debate did not get into narwhals. I will not get into narwhals. They are cute, though. [00:02:39][9.1]

Steve Koczela: [00:02:39] We're confident in saying, even though the debate hasn't happened, that it did not get into narwhals. We will make that prediction right here on The Horse Race at whatever, three or four minute mark. We're out right now. [00:02:49][9.4]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:02:50] Horse race race call right there. [00:02:51][1.3]

Steve Koczela: [00:02:52] Right. I've seen enough. One thing we're confident will come up at the debate that is tonight's yesterday. Depending on whether you're us or you is Covid-19. Lots going on there Jenn, give us the update. [00:03:03][11.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:03:04] Yeah. I mean, the updates not going to be especially shocking, I'd expect, or very encouraging, which is we are heading toward the time of year when after two some years we know that the levels of cases are going to rise, which is the winter holidays. In case you had that question on your bingo board. And we're already seeing wastewater levels rising in eastern Massachusetts, I think that's notable. I believe that The Boston Globe's Kay Lazar had a story on This Week in thinking about how the gubernatorial candidates may or may not address COVID winter. Number three, I guess, at this point is that there's a real question about what they're going to do to address it, because the public is basically tuning out because this has all gone on so long. And the recommendation from experts is basically, please encourage the new bivalent booster. But mandates might be a tricky sell just because the public is so tired of thinking about the global pandemic. So the FDA has approved these updated boosters for the sub variants that have been all over the place for the past few months for anyone as young as age five. And aside from that, maybe we learned something and maybe we didn't from the debate that we will have listened to during this period of time in which we are still not okay. [00:04:20][75.4]

Steve Koczela: [00:04:20] For me personally, it is a little getting a little confusing just to know which boosters you're actually eligible for. But as Jenn said, there is now very clear messaging that these particularly these bivalent boosters are important. You should get them. So if you listening to this podcast or unsure about whether you're eligible, please, please do go look and, you know, read up on this stuff because this is important and we have a tough winter ahead, so please protect yourself. That, of course, is not the only news. Lisa, you've been keeping track of the ever changing, ever growing story on the migrants that were sent to Massachusetts a couple weeks back. Now, what's the news on that front? [00:04:58][37.4]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:04:59] The Treasury Department is now looking into whether Florida Governor Ron DeSantis improperly used money connected to federal pandemic aid to facilitate the flights. And this was spurred, it looks like they were already possibly probing Florida's use of COVID money. But this, you know, in response to the migrant flights, was spurred by a letter from Senator Ed Markey and several other representatives in our congressional delegation asking them to look into it. This is the first time that a federal agency or federal authorities have confirmed that they are looking into this. There have also been requests to the Department of Transportation. You know, one of my Politico colleagues had already written a story about the FAA in their potential jurisdiction or lack thereof over this. So this is an interesting development that comes on top of now three lawsuits against Ron DeSantis over these flights to Martha's Vineyard. [00:05:58][58.7]

Jennifer Smith: [00:05:59] Okay. Well, thank you for the speedy update, which brings us, I think, to the question that we've never really found a good answer for, but we do try. We persist every single week. Lisa, what are we doing here today? [00:06:12][12.8]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:06:13] Well, we sort of have an answer this week, and that is that we are continuing our tour through the ballot questions that you will see on your ballots either now or through November. This time we are looking at both sides of ballot question two, which involves new regulations for dental insurance. And before we hear from both sides, a quick reminder on what this ballot question would actually do if it passes. This ballot question would require dental insurers to spend at least 83% of the premiums they collect on dental expenses and quality care improvements, not administrative costs. And with that, let's get into it. [00:06:51][38.3]

Jennifer Smith: [00:06:55] We continue our ballot question education with a look at question two. Joining us in support of this ballot measure is Brian Monteiro, director of Governmental Affairs and public relations at the Massachusetts Dental Society. Thank you for coming by The Horse Race, Brian. [00:07:08][13.7]

Brian Monteiro: [00:07:09] Oh, thank you, guys for having me. [00:07:10][1.1]

Jennifer Smith: [00:07:12] So let's start at the top as basic as possible. What would a yes vote do and why do you think voters should support this measure? [00:07:18][6.7]

Brian Monteiro: [00:07:19] A yes vote would assure that patient dollars are spent on patient care. It would protect from large increases in dental insurance premiums that would put patients first over profits. That would increase transparency and accountability of dental insurance spending. A vote yes on two is a vote yes for better dental benefits. [00:07:35][16.6]

Steve Koczela: [00:07:37] The term medical loss ratio is one we've heard a lot in this ballot question and one people may be familiar with an insurance basic concept being that insurers in medical insurance are required to pay some specific portion of the money they take in on actual patient care. This has never applied to dental insurance before, which is what this ballot question looks to do. So what's the history there? Why has this not been applied to dental care in the past? [00:08:02][25.2]

Brian Monteiro: [00:08:04] You know, historically, we've we've advocated for medical loss ratio. At the legislative level, we haven't been able to make breakthroughs at the legislation that we supported this year was mainly transparency. The difference between the legislation that we supported and the ballot initiative that it actually sets a number that they would adhere to. So, you know, this was mandated by the ACA. And, you know, we think it's time that it comes to dental. So it's an important initiative. And, you know, it's it's it's putting patients first over profits. And that's what we're here to support. [00:08:38][34.4]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:08:40] And can you explain for those of us who are a little less up on the jargon here, what exactly is a medical loss ratio and what does it mean in this context? [00:08:49][9.3]

Brian Monteiro: [00:08:52] So the medical loss ratio is is the amount of money that the insurers are spending on care. If they don't hit that threshold, they have to refund their they give a rebate back to the customer in the form of, you know, lower care, low premiums, or it could be in the form of rebate. You know, one of the one of the things that this legislation does is it forces insurers to comply. You know, a number of ways they could reduce premiums, they could streamline operations, they could pay more for dental claims. So there's a number of ways that dental insurance could hear this. But in a nutshell, medical loss ratio is the amount of patient dollars to be spent on patient care. Patients pay premiums. And right now we don't know how much goes to actual patient care. So a vote yes on two opens up the books and we could begin to see what the business model is like for these insurers. [00:09:44][52.0]

Jennifer Smith: [00:09:45] So is medical insurance a good comparison in this situation? Proponents, obviously, including yourself, have said the question is, you know, you should be regulating dental insurance in a similar way to the way we regulate medical insurance. Is there a substantial difference between these types of insurance that might account for this discrepancy? Is there a practical reason to treat them the same way or differently, basically? [00:10:11][25.2]

Brian Monteiro: [00:10:12] You know, I. I just feel, you know, we haven't had the opportunity to pass dental medical loss ratio at the dental level. You know, the insurance lobby is pretty strong. The question we need to ask ourselves is, is why hasn't this been implemented? It works on the on the medical side. And there's no reason to believe that a yes vote on this would preclude dental insurers from from meeting the same standards. You know, it's about putting dollars back in people's pockets so patients as their visibility on how the premiums are being spent. Research suggests that the majority of insurance carriers currently don't meet the 83% threshold. And, you know, we hope that greater transparency will result in better regulation to help patients get the most value for premiums. It was obviously new from medical insurance, too. And now that that's been in place, we've seen its benefits. It's time to bring this consumer protection to, you know, dental patients. [00:11:13][60.9]

Steve Koczela: [00:11:14] Following up on what Jenn asked. There is some difference in medical and dental in the sense that dental cases are smaller, people get dental care less often. So one of the things, for instance, that opponents of this have argued is that it just we're taking in less money per person. So we need to spread out our costs over over basically a larger portion of the premiums that are paid. So a different loss ratio than what medical insurers are paying as appropriate. And the amount that they're taking in is appropriate. This is their argument. So what do you say to that? Is there actually a pretty substantial difference between medical care or is that kind of a red herring? [00:11:52][38.0]

Brian Monteiro: [00:11:55] You know, I mean, I don't think we really know. You know, we haven't had the opportunity to to see how these insurers are operating. And I think that's the question we need to be asking is transparency. If we had the opportunity to see how they were operating and were able to come in there and check over their books, you know, might present a different picture. And that's what we're trying to figure out. We've been advocating for that for years. We've been unsuccessful, obviously, and now we've arrived at this ballot initiative. So this, you know, this this would be a lot easier if we knew dental dental loss ratios for for the plans, but we don't. Part of the problem that question to address is is providing that transparency. [00:12:38][43.6]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:12:40] So we're seeing Delta Dental and other major insurers spending heavily to oppose this question. So what, in your view, is dental insurers interest in this question and does it align with patient or practitioner interests? [00:12:53][12.6]

Brian Monteiro: [00:12:54] You know, I can't I can't speak to an organization's, you know, what their business model is and you know how they move. But, I mean, they're they're obviously, you know, protecting profits. That's what we believe. I mean, you know, during the pandemic, dental offices were closed and folks weren't able to receive care. You know, where did those dollars go? They didn't pay out any claims. You know, so I don't know what their business model is, and that's what we're trying to figure out. [00:13:22][27.9]

Jennifer Smith: [00:13:23] So kind of building on on that question from Lisa here, what's the dentist interest here? We're seeing a real split between the insurance companies and then kind of the practitioner level side of this. So why are most of the major dentists groups pushing for this measure? [00:13:41][18.1]

Brian Monteiro: [00:13:42] Easy. It's it's it's patients. It's the real benefit here is patients. Patients have better benefits and better and better care. You know, dentists would better be able to serve their patients. You know, I can't tell you how many times dentists tell me that, you know, patients have to forgo care, whether it's receiving a mouth guard of an ear, the crown root canals, you know, because they can't afford the cost of care, you know. And I think in the climate that we're living in right now and we're just seeing increases in everyday life from food to energy, people shouldn't have to forgo their oral care, which is tied closely to overall health care because insurers don't want a fair business model that works for the patients. So it's easy. It comes back to patients, and that's the real benefit here. [00:14:26][43.9]

Steve Koczela: [00:14:27] Would this, though, results in increased premiums? And I ask that because as you said yourself, we don't really know exactly what's going on right now. We don't really know what the books like look like. So can we say that setting it at 83% without knowing really what is going on behind the scenes now won't result in increased premiums for patients. [00:14:46][18.6]

Brian Monteiro: [00:14:47] You know, as I said, insurers have a number of ways to comply. They could reduce premiums, streamline operations or pay more for dental plans. Increasing premiums in order to comply would be difficult. This ballot referendum allows the insurance commissioners to disapprove of any rate increases over a certain threshold. There was an independent study done by Tufts. And, you know, it's not clear whether dental insurers are currently close to or far from the proposed 83% requirement. The limited information that we do have, and this is directly from the report, you know, the limited information we do have suggests dental insurers could probably adopt the 83% standard, just as medical insurers did with some of the standards set by the ACA, the Affordable Care Act. You know, and like I said, insurance could meet the 83% requirement in a number of ways, including, you know, covering a wider range of procedures. You know, insurances is supposed to help patients. It's supposed to help patients manage risk and afford the necessary care. Not health insurers generate excessive profits or maintain high administrative costs. So in order to get insurance insurers to focus more on care, question 2 borrows from, you know, the world of medical insurance where, you know, the minimum loss ratios are already the standard here. And mass medical insurers are required to spend either 85 or 80% of their monthly premiums on care, depending on the type of the plan. You know, so this works on the medical side of the house. And we have reason to believe, according to the Tufts report, that it could work just as well on the dental side. [00:16:27][99.9]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:16:28] So this is a pretty technical ballot question and one that's gotten a bit less attention than some of the others that people will be voting on or already are already voting on. I should say this fall. So what is your strategy for reaching voters? You know, both in general and as we get further into this early voting period. [00:16:48][19.5]

Brian Monteiro: [00:16:49] You know, we've you know, obviously we've been up on radio. We've been reaching voters through the media. You know, we have TV ads that we'll be running shortly. You know, we're using our dental network, the success of network of five member dentists throughout the Commonwealth. And, you know, they've been eager to help. They've been eager to reach out to their patients and educate them on this. They understand the benefits of that. And that's you know, that's one of the best resources that we have. You know, folks trust the dentists, what they care, and they're going to come to them with questions on this. That's going to be the most important resource that we have. But we've done radio, we've done mailers, MDS, member to member, volunteer contact, digital outreach and media. You know, so we continue to get out there and spread the message. [00:17:37][47.2]

Jennifer Smith: [00:17:38] All right. Well, on that note, that is all the time we have for today. Brian Montero, thank you so much for stopping by the horse race to walk us through this. [00:17:45][6.6]

Brian Monteiro: [00:17:46] Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. [00:17:47][1.4]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:17:57] Now that we've heard from the proponents of ballot question two, we're going to hear from the opposition. Joining us is Doug Rubin, a political consultant and former chief of staff to Governor Deval Patrick. To talk us through the other side of the question. Thanks for joining us. [00:18:12][14.5]

Doug Rubin: [00:18:13] Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. [00:18:14][1.1]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:18:15] Great. So very simply to start this off, what would a no vote on question to do? [00:18:20][4.8]

Doug Rubin: [00:18:21] A no vote will prevent a very bad idea from becoming law in Massachusetts. It's an idea that will likely lead to higher dental premiums and less access to dental care. Let me tell you why that is. I spent some time working as Governor Deval Patrick's chief of staff in an administration that was very focused on health care issues. And when these kind of issues came to us, we looked at them through a lens of three really important questions. What impact would it have on costs? What impact would it have on access to health insurance or dental insurance? And what impact would it have on quality of care? And on all three of those measures. This this ballot question fails. This will very likely lead to higher premiums for Massachusetts residents, less access to dental insurance, and have no measurable improvement on quality of care. [00:19:09][48.0]

Jennifer Smith: [00:19:11] So when you say this would likely lead to higher premiums, what would drive that incentive? [00:19:15][4.3]

Doug Rubin: [00:19:17] Well, look, we did a study. There was a study done by Milliman, which is an actuary from a nationally known actuarial firm. And they took a look at kind of a conservative representative example in Massachusetts of a dental plan that broke even. That then tried to then cut administrative costs by 10%. And in that scenario, that dental plan would have to raise premiums by 38% to meet the thresholds in this bill, in this question. And so it's very likely, if this bill passes, that premiums for Massachusetts residents on dental who have dental insurance will go up. [00:19:51][34.7]

Steve Koczela: [00:19:53] But this is the way that medical insurance works already. I mean, there already is a medical loss ratio requirement for regular old health insurance. So why should dental insurance be different? Why shouldn't dental insurance also be required to spend a fixed portion of their premiums on actual patient care? [00:20:09][15.9]

Doug Rubin: [00:20:10] It's a great question. But there's first of all, there's the tough study, which was an independent study done on this issue, made it quite clear that that the, you know, loss ratio in this one is not is not similar. It's not exactly the same as a loss ratio for medical insurance in Massachusetts. But more importantly, there's a reason why no state in the country has a medical fixed medical loss ratio and why Obamacare, when they took a look at this and a big package of federal health care reform, decided to not include dental insurance. And in 2014, here in Massachusetts, we had a special commission on dental insurance that looked at specifically at this issue and rejected it. It's because dental insurance is very different than medical insurance, a number of really key aspects. First, dental premiums of 5 to 10% of medical premiums. Dental is a voluntary insurance. And so there's fewer people to spread the cost over. But the cost structure and administrative costs are very similar between dental and health care and medical care, and so are everybody who has looked at this, whether at the federal level, other states right here in Massachusetts has determined that this does not make sense. [00:21:20][70.1]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:21:21] So you hit on something there by kind of reminding folks that dental insurance is voluntary and it's also something where you pay a lot of money into it. But sometimes when a big bill comes due, it's still mostly on the patient's shoulders. So why doesn't that need to be reformed? [00:21:37][15.8]

Doug Rubin: [00:21:38] Look, I think that if that's what you're trying to get at, this this proposal doesn't get there. I think one of the things that's very scary about this proposal is BW Research did a report on what would happen if under the Milliman scenario, premiums did rise. Nearly half of residents in Massachusetts would consider dropping coverage. 90% of businesses said they would make changes to their dental insurance, either reducing employer contributions or dropping dental coverage altogether for their employees. So this has big, major ramifications. The other side, unfortunately, has not brought anything to the table in terms of data, research, analysis to prove their points. And there's a wide range of kind of people who have looked at this, like I said, both at the federal level in other states and here in Massachusetts who have concluded this doesn't make sense. [00:22:28][50.3]

Jennifer Smith: [00:22:30] So I'd love to get into actually kind of the interests of both sides of this for a second. On on a wider level, it sort of looks like insurance groups are often lined up in opposition against this, against dental practitioner groups, if you're thinking macro level. So how would you characterize the interests of both parties here? There is, I think, a very basic read on it of insurers wanting to retain as many of the profits as you can. But the question is, what's the interest of Delta Dental, other major insurance groups? And what do you think the motivation would be of the dental practitioner groups if you're saying this is actually in fact going to raise the patient premiums and they think that it's going to improve quality of patient care? [00:23:15][45.5]

Doug Rubin: [00:23:16] Look, I don't want to speak to what their motivations are in this. I'll let them address those. I think in this case, what we're presented with is a proposal that has been reviewed in multiple other places and rejected. And so from our perspective here in our coalition, we want to make sure that Massachusetts residents understand that, understand what could happen if this passes, and then make an informed decision on the merits of this. We have tried to come to the table with both facts and data and research to back up our claims. Unfortunately, the other side hasn't. But I can't speak to what their motivations are, what their strategy is on this. [00:23:53][36.9]

Steve Koczela: [00:23:54] So what would be an appropriate loss ratio for a dental insurance group? I mean, maybe 83% is not the right number based on what you're saying. I mean, that's the assertion perhaps that the no side is making. But should there be one should there be some level of expectation that consumers can think, okay, I've paid all this amount in and me and all the other policyholders are going to get some defined portion of that back. [00:24:17][22.6]

Doug Rubin: [00:24:18] Well, look, the Milliman study that I referenced earlier took a look at the three largest dental insurers in Massachusetts and concluded that their average is around 77% loss ratio. So not far off from the 83% in this in this question. So I would point to that and I would point to the market here working in a way that is keeping premiums and trying to address these issues down on a market based strategy. [00:24:41][22.9]

Steve Koczela: [00:24:43] But dentists don't really seem to think that. Right? I mean, that's what Jenn's question was sort of getting at. I mean, you've got dentists saying we need to have more insurance premiums be spent on actual patient care. So, I mean, if the ones giving the care don't feel like enough of the premiums are being spent on actual care, isn't that something we should pay attention to? [00:25:00][17.8]

Doug Rubin: [00:25:02] I mean, look at Tufts, which did an independent study on this issue, took a look at this issue and basically said that imposing the 83% figure would make us the only state in the country with a fixed ratio for dental insurance, and that there was no clear basis for that 83% figure. They also said that this ballot question was built on very thin information. I think that's really the problem here, is we are trying to skip a process where there's review and analysis and people can come to the table with data and figure out a way to move forward. What's happening here is we're skipping all of that process and trying to go right to the voters with this. And I think the ramifications of this potentially are very grave from Massachusetts consumers. [00:25:46][43.6]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:25:47] So people are starting to vote already. And this is a very complex issue that hasn't quite gotten as much attention as some of the other ballot questions. So how is this message being received among voters, do you think, so far? And what are you doing in this very important stretch to reach people and make them understand? [00:26:06][18.8]

Doug Rubin: [00:26:07] Look, we're trying to get the facts out there and bring data and kind of research to to the voters. And we believe that if voters have full information on this, they will vote no on this because they realize the harm it could cause them, both in terms of access to dental care and the cost of dental care. And one other point I wanted to raise here, Steve, is really one of the points that you raise is some of the reporting requirements that are that are a part of this ballot question. The other side talks about those, and a lot. Those were actually put in place here in Massachusetts in 2010. The legislature passed those those kind of reporting requirements almost verbatim, almost very similar to what's in the ballot question. And then one year later, 2011 repealed that because there was no practical use for those actually in 2018, repealed similar ones in the medical state, in the medical insurance space. So these are issues that have been tried and looked at in multiple forums and rejected. [00:27:03][55.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:27:04] And I think the last question here that that at least is lingering in my mind is what would you like to see as a better approach if we were assessing? Is there perhaps a ratio that might be workable or is this something to pursue at all? Are you looking for more legislative involvement or are you looking for more committee work or are you looking for more independent research? Or do you think the matter is effectively settled? [00:27:28][24.2]

Doug Rubin: [00:27:30] I think this issue has been looked at in multiple jurisdictions and a lot of data that backs up that says this is a bad idea. You know, we would always be open to further conversation on this. [00:27:39][9.3]

Lisa Kashinsky: [00:27:40] All right. Well, we have to leave it there. Doug Rubin, thanks so much for walking us through this. [00:27:44][3.8]

Doug Rubin: [00:27:45] Great. Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. [00:27:46][1.5]

Steve Koczela: [00:27:53] And that brings us to our favorite segment. And based on millions of listener interviews taken across decades of doing The Horse Race, your favorite segment, too. And that, of course, is trivia. We had a tough question last week. Jenn, what's the question? [00:28:05][12.5]

Jennifer Smith: [00:28:06] Well, in light of a recent attempt, current attempt, in fact, to amend the Massachusetts Constitution through the Fair Share Amendment, we asked you what was the last ballot question which would have amended our state constitution and what was it? The answer here is actually twofold. In the year 2000, there are proposed constitutional amendments that would basically handle redistricting terms, and the second would and did prevent those who were incarcerated on felony convictions from voting in elections for statewide office. So the last time we had a go at this, we made some pretty odd choices here as a Commonwealth, in my personal opinion. [00:28:45][38.6]

Steve Koczela: [00:28:46] Yeah, that one passed 64-36. So very interesting. Congratulations, as always, to Ari OfsevitI've just recorded a recorded a little snippet that says, hey, guess what, Ari won trivia. There are no points awarded this week. Sorry, Ari, we're not giving out any more points to you at this point after extensive consultations with our legal staff. But please keep playing anyway. But for now, that is all the time we have today. We hope you've been enjoying three quarters of our tour through the ballot questions. Tune in next week for the big finale. That's the last question question for of course, I'm Steve because I was signing off for Lisa Kashinsky and Jennifer Smith, our producer, as always is Elena Eberwein. Don't forget to give The Horse Race a review wherever you're hearing us now, subscribe to the Massachusetts Politico Playbook and reach out to us here at the MassINC Point Group if you need polls done. Thank you all for listening and we will see you next week. [00:28:46][0.0]

[1593.8]