The only thing I would add is that we see the advantage of comparable data for looking at things such as outcomes, and for understanding what we are producing, and whether, if you measure one set of activities in the same way as others, you can then compare it with others. Some of those comparisons are what can lead us to understand outcomes.
This is the reason we've reported wait times as we have them now, even though they're not perfectly comparable. We believe that when we put the information there, noting the differences, it's still very valuable and useful information. I think comparability is the gold standard, and we should certainly strive towards it, but I think we can gather information and use it and make decisions on it even when it's not perfectly comparable.