ReportWire

Tag: drug prices

  • AbbVie reaches deal with Trump administration on drug prices in exchange for tariff relief

    [ad_1]

    North Chicago-based AbbVie has become the latest drugmaker to reach a deal with the Trump administration on drug prices in exchange for being exempted from tariffs and future price mandates, the company announced Monday evening.

    Under the voluntary agreement, AbbVie will offer “low prices” in Medicaid, a state and federally funded health insurance program for people with low incomes and disabilities, the company said in a news release. AbbVie will also invest $100 billion in U.S.-based research, development and building, including for manufacturing, over the next decade, according to the release.

    It will also sell more medications directly to consumers through TrumpRx. TrumpRx is to be an online platform that will allow people to buy medications directly from manufacturers, according to the Associated Press.

    The deal “was enabled by the Trump administration providing exemption from tariffs and future price mandates,” AbbVie said in its news release.

    “AbbVie is following President Trump’s call to action by reaching this agreement, allowing us to collectively move beyond policies that harm American innovation,” said Robert A. Michael, chairman and CEO at AbbVie in the news release.

    AbbVie plans to offer medications including Humira, Alphagan, Synthroid and Combigan on TrumpRx.

    In recent months, the Trump administration has announced more than a dozen similar deals with drugmakers, including Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi.

    The agreements follow an executive order issued by Trump in May that sought to bring most-favored-nation pricing on medications to Americans. Most-favored-nation pricing refers to lower prices charged for the same medications in other economically-comparable countries. Throughout last year, Trump threatened to impose large tariffs on pharmaceutical companies.

    Earlier on Monday, AbbVie announced plans to expand its U.S. manufacturing by acquiring a facility in Arizona. The company also announced last year that it would construct a new $195 million facility near its headquarters in North Chicago.

    AbbVie spun off from Abbott Laboratories in 2013 and has about 29,000 employees in the U.S. The company is known for medications including Humira, which is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis and other conditions, as well as the drugs Skyrizi, which treats plaque psoriasis, and Rinvoq for rheumatoid arthritis.

    [ad_2]

    Lisa Schencker

    Source link

  • What are biologics and why are they so expensive?

    [ad_1]

    If you watch TV and don’t mute ads, you’ve probably heard of a few biologics. They’re drugs such as Humira for arthritis and Trulicity for Type 2 diabetes.

    You may also know they are expensive. Biologics represented 5% of the drugs prescribed in the U.S. in 2024, but they accounted for more than half of the country’s total prescription medicine spending, according to health data analysis company IQVIA. 

    The Trump administration said it hopes to make these medications more affordable partly by increasing access to “biosimilars,” or highly similar products. What are biologics and biosimilars and will the administration’s proposals help drive down their costs? 

    Q: What are biologics? 

    A: Biologics is short for biological medications or products. It’s a broad category of products that include vaccines, blood and blood components, gene therapy and tissues. They are a class of complex drugs produced through biological processes or from living organisms such as proteins and genes. They treat cancer, autoimmune diseases and other rare disorders. 

    Biologics are typically administered by injection or through an intravenous infusion, said Alex Keeton, executive director of the Association for Accessible Medicines’ Biosimilars Council, an industry group that advocates on behalf of biosimilar manufacturers. 

    The FDA approval process for these products is rigorous and typically takes 10 to 15 years, said Brian Chen, a University of South Carolina health law and economics expert. Speedier timelines are possible in extraordinary circumstances: Federal agencies worked with vaccine manufacturers and scientists to expedite COVID-19 vaccines, for example.  

    Q: What are biosimilars?

    A: As the name suggests, these medications are similar to the original biologics approved by the FDA. Biosimilars are developed and sold after the original biologic has lost its patent exclusivity, Keeton said. Biosimilars for Humira include Cyltezo, Amjevita and Idacio.

    “They still work the same way, clinically, but they’re not exactly the same,” Keeton said.

    That’s because, unlike with generic versions of brand name drugs, it’s impossible to make exact copies of biologics. Biologics have complicated production processes and their components are derived from live organisms. 

    “Biologics are like strands of flexible, cooked spaghetti folded in very specific ways, making exact replication nearly impossible,” Chen said. 

    The FDA evaluates proposed biosimilar products against the original biologic to determine that the product is extremely similar and has no meaningful clinical differences. It is expected to have the same benefits and risks as the original biologic. To be approved, biosimilar manufacturers show that patients using their products don’t have new or worsening side effects compared with patients using the original biologic. 

    FDA approval for biosimilars often takes five to six years, Keeton said.  

    Biosimilars also increase market competition, incentivizing brand name drug manufacturers to lower their prices. 

    Q: How much do biologics and biosimilars usually cost?

    A: They’re pricey, but exact costs vary. 

    One 2018 study found that biologics and biosimilars can cost a U.S. patient $10,000 to $30,000 each year on average. 

    Humira was listed at $6,922 in early November. The Humira biosimilar Cyltezo advertises for 5% off Humira’s cost; the makers of Cyltezo also offer a non-brand name option for people who pay cash at pharmacies while using GoodRx at a price of $550. 

    The actual amount an insured patient pays also depends on their plan and their insurer’s negotiated rates.

    Biosimilar prices typically run 15% to 35% lower than their brand name biologic counterparts, one 2024 study reported. The FDA found biologics produce a more dramatic cost savings of 50% on average.

    Q: Why are these medications so expensive? 

    A: Biologics and biosimilars are difficult to develop and produce, which adds to their expense. 

    Making a standard over-the-counter medication such as aspirin requires five ingredients. Making insulin, a biologic, requires genetic modifications to living organisms. 

    These complex manufacturing procedures and proprietary information make it difficult for competitors to create alternatives. 

    To put this in perspective, there were 226 marketed biologics in the U.S. as of July 2025, and the FDA had approved 76 biosimilars such as insulin. When it comes to non-biologic medications, the FDA has approved more than 32,000 generic drugs — that’s more than the number of approved brand name drugs.

    Q: Can biosimilars be used in place of the original, FDA-approved biologics? 

    A: Yes. All biosimilars must meet FDA requirements and show that their products are highly similar and have no clinically meaningful differences from its existing FDA-approved biologic counterpart. 

    The Food and Drug Administration campus in Silver Spring, Md. on Oct. 14, 2015. (AP)

    Q: So how does the Trump administration hope to change the FDA approval process for biosimilars? 

    A: Under its draft guidance, the administration proposed reducing some of the tests required as part of the FDA process used to prove a biosimilar drug is as safe and effective as its biologic counterpart. 

    Previously, a manufacturer requesting a biosimilar license had to provide clinical study data proving its product’s similarity. The FDA’s new proposal would no longer require drug developers to conduct these comparative clinical trials. 

    Manufacturers would still be required to test proposed biosimilars. Other data — including comparative analysis, immune response data and human study data showing how the drug moves through the body — could sufficiently demonstrate the drug’s similarity to an existing biologic, the FDA said. 

    Q: Why does the FDA want to change the biosimilar approval process? 

    A: Ultimately, the agency said it aimed to incentivize drug manufacturers to quickly develop biosimilars by eliminating redundant, costly and time-consuming clinical studies, Keeton said. 

    Saving that time might increase the number of biosimilar alternatives. 

    It will almost certainly lower the front-end development costs for drug makers, Chen said. 

    Q: Will that change lower the costs of these medications for patients who need them? 

    A: Regulatory changes alone may not significantly drive down prices for the average American.

    Several non-brand name options need to be available in order to produce significant price drops, according to a Department of Health and Human Services report

    But prices could remain the same even with more options.

    A 2024 JAMA Health Forum study found that annual out-of-pocket costs either increased or remained stable for most biologics even after biosimilars were available. Patients who used biosimilars didn’t pay less than those who used the original biologics.

    That’s at least partly because biologic manufacturers often offer substantial rebates to pharmacy benefit managers, companies that work with insurers, employers and others to manage prescription drug plan benefits. In exchange, insurers give the name brand biologics preferred or exclusive placement on their lists of insurance-covered drugs, Chen said. Rebate walls ultimately prevent the sale of cheaper biosimilars, he said.

    Q: Are there any other obstacles to getting more biosimilars on the market?  

    A: Yes, another key hurdle remains: Name brand biologic manufacturers often hold many patents and file lawsuits blocking approved biosimilars from being commercially marketed.

    Chen’s 2018 study found that of 12 FDA-approved biosimilar products as of October 2018, five were commercially available. Six others were unavailable because of patent disputes. 

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    RELATED: Fact-checking Democrats’ talking points about Affordable Care Act subsidies

    RELATED: Donald Trump exaggerates speed, certainty of prescription drug price reductions

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Novo Nordisk Hires US Pharma Veteran as Trump Pricing Pressure Mounts

    [ad_1]

    Novo Nordisk has appointed U.S. pharmaceutical executive Greg Miley as its new global head of corporate affairs, as the obesity drugmaker faces growing pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing.

    Miley recently served as senior vice president of government affairs at U.S. pharmaceutical giant AbbVie. He posted a statement about his appointment on LinkedIn on Friday and Novo Nordisk shared the statement with Reuters.

    A Novo spokesperson said on Saturday that Miley would join the company in early November, overseeing global communication and global public affairs.

    Novo is turning to an American executive with deep U.S. pharmaceutical experience to help navigate political risks under the Trump administration in the United States, its largest market.

    New hire to focus on relations with Trump administration

    The appointment comes as new CEO Mike Doustdar tries to revive investor confidence through a restructuring to sharpen Novo’s focus in a fierce obesity drug battle against U.S. rival Eli Lilly. The overhaul includes cutting 9,000 jobs, with 5,000 positions being eliminated in Denmark and layoffs under way across multiple U.S. departments.

    “In this new role, I see great potential to strengthen our Global Communication and Public Affairs efforts,” Miley wrote on LinkedIn, adding that he would relocate to Denmark, Novo’s home market.

    Miley’s urgent priority will be improving Novo’s relations with the Trump administration, said a source familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential information.

    Other big pharmaceutical companies have hired public affairs experts with long backgrounds in Republican circles in order to navigate the administration’s pressures on the industry, a source at a European drugmaker told Reuters on Friday.

    Trump says Ozempic price in U.S. will be lowered

    Shares of Novo and Lilly fell on Friday after Trump said that the price of Novo’s Ozempic diabetes treatment would be lowered. Ozempic contains the same active ingredient as its weight-loss drug Wegovy.

    Miley spent the past decade at AbbVie in Chicago and was promoted two years ago to senior vice president of government affairs, according to his LinkedIn profile. He has worked in the pharmaceutical industry since 2004, building his career at U.S. drugmakers including more than four years in public affairs at Abbott and nearly five years at Pfizer.

    AbbVie did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Miley did not reply when contacted by Reuters earlier on Friday.

    Reporting by Maggie Fick in London and Stine Jacobsen in Copenhagen, Editing by Louise Heavens, Kirsten Donovan and Cynthia Osterman

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • 80% With Diabetes Eligible for New Drugs, but Cost Is a Barrier

    80% With Diabetes Eligible for New Drugs, but Cost Is a Barrier

    [ad_1]

    March 6, 2023 — More than 80% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes meet the criteria to use new treatment drugs, such as semaglutide, which is marketed as Ozempic, according to a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

    However, only about 1 in 10 of those who meet the criteria used the drugs in recent years, the study found. In addition, the high prices for some of the drugs means they may put them out of reach as the first drug treatment for these patients. Most people with type 2 diabetes are prescribed metformin initially, but generally have other medications added on, but some of the newer drugs are now recommended as first-line treatment for some. 

    “It’s critical that we continue to study the best ways to manage type 2 diabetes (including medications and lifestyle changes), but it’s also important to examine how available these methods are to people,” says lead author Shichao Tang, PhD, a researcher with the Division of Diabetes Translation at the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention.

    “This includes researching how many people are using certain tools or medications and how many people are eligible for them, which was the aim of this study,” Tang says. 

    A 2022 report from the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommended the use of certain drugs, such as Ozempic, which is given as a weekly injection, with other similar drugs available as daily injections, and oral tablets, for patients with type 2 diabetes. 

    This is because, as well as lowering blood sugar, these new drugs have been found to reduce the risks of complications of diabetes, such as heart disease and kidney disease, and they also result in weight loss, compared with older drugs. 

    The researchers estimated that, for the 22.4 million U.S. adults with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, about 82.3% would meet the recommended criteria to use drugs from these two new classes. About 94.5% of Medicare recipients with type 2 would be recommended to use them as well.

    However, only 3.7% of those who met the criteria used them during the study period and just 5.3% of those eligible for the oral tablets used them. 

    About 9.1% used either of them before the most recent 2022 guidelines, which opened up the medications as first-line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes.

    Based on retail prices listed on a US-based website, a 30-day supply of an oral tablet drug can cost about $550-$600/month, while common injected drugs can run from a few hundred dollars for a daily injection or close to $1,000 for a version given weekly.

    Prior studies suggest that the two drug types could be cost-effective as second-line treatments, the authors note. However, the current costs would need to drop by 70% for them to be cost-effective as first-line treatments. 

    Additional studies are needed to understand if the new treatments are cost-effective for certain patient subgroups as first-line medications.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lowering the Cost of Insulin Could Be Deadly

    Lowering the Cost of Insulin Could Be Deadly

    [ad_1]

    When I heard that my patient was back in the ICU, my heart sank. But I wasn’t surprised. Her paycheck usually runs short at the end of the month, so her insulin does too. As she stretches her supply, her blood sugar climbs. Soon the insatiable thirst and constant urination follow. And once her keto acids build up, her stomach pains and vomiting start. She always manages to make it to the hospital before the damage reaches her brain and heart. But we both worry that someday, she won’t.

    The Inflation Reduction Act, passed last month, aims to help people like her by lowering the cost of insulin across America. Although efforts to expand protections to privately insured Americans were blocked in the Senate, Democrats succeeded in capping expenses for the drug among Americans on Medicare at $35 a month, offering meaningful savings for our seniors, some of whom will save hundreds of dollars a month thanks to the measure. In theory, the policy (and similar ones at the state level) will help the estimated 25 percent of Americans on insulin who have been forced to ration the drug because of cost, and will prevent some of the 600 annual American deaths from diabetic ketoacidosis, the fate from which I’m trying to save my patient.

    Indeed, laws capping co-payments for insulin are welcome news both financially and medically to patients who depend on the drug for survival. However, in their current version, such laws might backfire, leading to even more diabetes-related deaths overall.

    How could that be true? Thanks to the development of new drugs, insulin’s role in diabetes treatment has been declining over the past decade. It remains essential to the small percent of patients with type 1 diabetes, including my patient. But for the 90 percent of Americans with diabetes who have type 2, it should not routinely be the first-, second-, or even third-line treatment. The reasons for this are many: Of all diabetes medications, insulin carries the highest risk of causing dangerously low blood sugar. The medication most commonly comes in injectable form, so administering it usually means painful needle jabs. All of this effort is rewarded with (usually unwanted) weight gain. Foremost and finally, although insulin is excellent at tamping down high blood sugar—the hallmark of diabetes and the driver of some of its complications—it is not as impressive as other medications at mitigating the most deadly and debilitating consequences of the disease: heart attacks, kidney disease, and heart failure.

    Large clinical trials have shown that two newer classes of diabetes medicines, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, outperform alternatives (including insulin) in reducing the risk of these disabling or deadly outcomes. Giving patients these drugs instead of older options over a period of three years prevents, on average, one death for about every 100 treated. And SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists pose less risk of causing dangerously low blood sugar, generally do not require frequent injections, and help patients lose weight. Based on these data, the American Diabetes Association now recommends SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists be used before insulin for most patients with type 2 diabetes.

    When a young person dies from diabetic ketoacidosis because they rationed insulin, the culprit is clear. But when a patient with diabetes dies of a heart attack, the absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist doesn’t get blamed, because other explanations abound: their uncontrolled blood pressure, the cholesterol medication they didn’t take, the cigarettes they continued to smoke, bad genes, bad luck. But every year, more than 1,000 times more Americans die of heart disease than DKA, and of those 700,000 deaths, a good chunk are diabetes-related. (The exact number remains murky.) Diabetes is a major reason that more than half a million Americans depend on dialysis to manage their end-stage kidney disease, and that about 6 million live with congestive heart failure. The data are clear—SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists could help reduce these numbers.

    Still, uptake of these lifesaving drugs is sluggish. Only about one in 10 people with type 2 diabetes is taking them (fewer still among patients who are not wealthy or white). The main cause is simple and stupid: American laws prioritize profits and patents over patients. Because SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain under patent protections, drug companies can charge exorbitant rates for them: hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month, sometimes even more than insulin. Doctors spend hours completing arduous paperwork in the hopes of persuading insurers to help our patients, but we’re frequently denied anyway. And even when we do succeed, many patients are left with painful co-payments and deductibles. The most maddening part is that despite their substantial up-front expense, these medications are quite cost-effective in the long run because they prevent pricey complications down the road.

    This is where addressing the cost of insulin—and only insulin—becomes problematic. Doctors are forced daily to decide between the best medication for our patients and the medication that our patients can afford. Katie Shaw, a primary-care physician with a bustling practice at Johns Hopkins, where I’m a senior resident, told me that plenty of her patients can’t afford SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. In such instances, Shaw is forced to use older oral alternatives and occasionally insulin. “They’re better than nothing at all,” she said.

    If the cost of insulin is capped on its own, insulin will be more likely to jump in front of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in treatment plans. That will mean more disease, more disability, and more death from diabetes.

    Medicare patients might avoid some of these effects thanks to provisions in the IRA allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and capping out-of-pocket spending on prescriptions at $2,000 a year. The law also guarantees price negotiations for a handful of medications, but SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists won’t necessarily be on the list. And most Americans are not on Medicare. Already, Shaw said, the patients in her practice who tend to be least able to afford SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are working-class people with private insurance. Some health centers, including the one Shaw and I work at, enjoy access to a federal drug-discount program that can make patent-protected medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, more affordable for the uninsured. But most Americans without insurance aren’t so lucky.

    It would be cruel to choose between a world in which more people with type 2 diabetes are nudged toward a drug that won’t stave off the most dangerous complications, and one in which those with type 1 diabetes are priced out of life. In place of capping the out-of-pocket cost of just insulin, lawmakers should cap the out-of-pocket cost of all diabetes medications. This will both protect Americans dependent on insulin and smooth SGLT2 inhibitors’ and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ path to their revolutionary public-health potential.

    The argument for lowering the cost of these drugs for patients is the same as the argument for insulin affordability: that it is both foolish and inhumane to make lifesaving diabetes medications unaffordable when their use prevents costly and deadly downstream complications.

    Patients like mine need affordable access to insulin. But even more need access to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. If the laws stop at insulin, many Americans could die unnecessarily—not from inadequate access to insulin, but from preferential access to it.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Rose

    Source link

  • Biden administration moves ahead with Medicare drug price negotiations amid industry lawsuits | CNN Politics

    Biden administration moves ahead with Medicare drug price negotiations amid industry lawsuits | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Undeterred by a growing number of lawsuits, the Biden administration on Friday released revised guidance for Medicare’s new drug price negotiation program.

    The latest guidance outlines how the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will negotiate with drugmakers to reach agreement on a maximum fair price for a selected medicine, the agency said. It was informed by public input on the initial guidance the agency released in March, which explained how it will select the drugs and how the negotiations will be conducted.

    The program, which was authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act that congressional Democrats passed last year, has prompted a fierce backlash from the pharmaceutical industry. Two drug manufacturers and two industry groups have filed lawsuits, arguing the measure is unconstitutional.

    But the administration is not backing down from implementing its historic new power. It intends to keep its timeline of announcing the first 10 drugs that will be selected for negotiation by September 1. CMS and the drugmakers will negotiate during 2023 and 2024. The prices will be effective starting in 2026.

    “The Biden-Harris Administration isn’t letting anything get in our way of delivering lower drug costs for Americans,” Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “Pharmaceutical companies have made record profits for decades. Now they’re lining up to block this Administration’s work to negotiate for better drug prices for our families. We won’t be deterred.”

    The initial set of drugs will be chosen from the top 50 Part D drugs that are eligible for negotiation that have the highest total expenditures in Medicare. CMS will consider multiple factors when developing its initial offer, including the drugs’ clinical benefits, the price of alternatives, research and development costs and patent protection, among others.

    If drugmakers don’t comply with the process, they will have to pay an excise tax of up to 95% of the medications’ US sales or pull all their drugs from the Medicare and Medicaid markets. The pharmaceutical industry contends that the true penalty can be as high as 1,900% of sales.

    CMS said it received more than 7,500 comments on its initial guidance from patient groups, drug companies, pharmacies and others.

    The changes it is making are aimed at improving transparency while keeping confidentiality in mind, as well as fostering “an effective negotiation process,” the agency said.

    They include revising the confidentiality process to state that CMS will release information about the negotiations when it publishes the explanations of the prices. Also, drug companies may publicly discuss the negotiations – the prior secrecy requirement had been a point of contention among manufacturers that was mentioned in the lawsuits. And they won’t be required to destroy data relating to the negotiations.

    In addition, CMS will hold patient-focused listening sessions to provide drug companies and the public more opportunities to engage with the agency. The sessions – which will give patients, caregivers and others the chance to share input on how a medication addresses unmet needs, how it impacts specific populations and what therapeutic alternatives exist – will be held in the fall for the first round of drugs.

    Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, and the US Chamber of Commerce have all recently filed lawsuits in federal courts across the US. They each argue the program is unconstitutional in various ways.

    The challengers also say that the negotiation provision will harm innovation and patients’ access to new drugs.

    Among the arguments are that the program violates the Fifth Amendment’s “takings” clause because it allows Medicare to obtain manufacturers’ patented drugs, which are private property, without paying fair market value under the threat of serious penalties.

    Plus, the negotiations process violates the First Amendment, the challengers say, because it coerces manufacturers into saying that they agree to the price that the government has dictated and that it’s fair.

    Another argument is that the process violates the Eighth Amendment by levying an excessive fine if drugmakers refuse to negotiate and continue selling their products to the Medicare market.

    Merck expects its diabetes drug Januvia to be among the drugs named in September and its blockbuster cancer treatment Keytruda and diabetes drug Janumet to be subject to negotiation in the future. Bristol Myers Squibb believes its blood thinning medication, Eliquis, will be subject to negotiations this year, and its cancer medication, Opdivo, will be selected in a subsequent round.

    The changes in the revised guidance did not allay the complaints of the pharmaceutical industry. PhRMA said that transparency remains “severely limited,” patients’ views are not being taken into account and Medicare beneficiaries could have less access to drugs.

    “The very few substantive changes to the final guidance demonstrate CMS saw this as a box checking exercise, not an opportunity to mitigate the negative impacts this price setting policy will have on patients or the broader health care sector,” PhRMA said in a statement.

    “The approach CMS took in this final guidance confirms what we claimed in our lawsuit – Congress’ unconstitutional shortcuts taken in the law have given the administration far too much flexibility to set prices at their whim without any oversight or accountability to anyone,” the group continued.

    The Biden administration will “vigorously defend” the drug price negotiation program, said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

    “We feel the law is on our side,” she said in a call with reporters Friday.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link