And then how did the Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management clarify the role of these USPSTF members and the secretary's authority over the task force and its recommendations?

So the US Supreme Court was presented with a constitutional question as to whether the members of the task force are appointed and serve in their positions in a capacity that's consistent with the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution.

And that clause requires that principal officers of the federal government must be appointed by the president and confirmed to their positions by the Senate.

And usually when we think of principal officers, we're thinking of people such as secretaries of cabinet and people with that level of authority.

So the Supreme Court was presented with the suggestion or the argument that the members of the USPSTF are unconstitutionally appointed because rather than being appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are simply appointed by the Secretary of HHS without a confirmation procedure and without the president's involvement.

And the argument goes that they are principal officers because they were not sufficiently supervised by another official who is appointed consistent with the process outlined in the Appointments Clause.

The Supreme Court looked at that argument and concluded that, in fact, the members of the USPSTF are not principal officers under the US Constitution.

So finally, what role do you see for policymakers and clinicians in protecting the ability of the USPSTF to adhere to rigorous scientific methods and to issue evidence-based recommendations?