Thank you very much.
I want to thank you both for your presentation.
Last week I was convinced that we wouldn't hear anything new, and we did a bit, Dr. Carleton. I think you're taking a new take on something we've heard.
One of the things we've heard from many practitioners is that making it mandatory without making it useful has no value, and if you make it useful you don't have to make it mandatory: people will voluntarily participate if they derive benefit from it. Practitioners, if they have some activity happening and can go to one page or site and say “This is the adverse event I'm experiencing with this patient” and get back useful information, would participate.
But what you're advocating is a little different, I think. What you're advocating is a specialization across the country of people who are doing in-depth research on individual cases to build the database.
Have you talked about bringing it that one step further and marrying the two, such that you would have online reporting of incidents by practitioners and then the information that you have discovered could be the feedback? It would serve as a database for you on where you send your specialist to do these studies of cases. You might start seeing a lot of commonality, a lot of bunching. Those would be the first cases you would want to investigate fully.