You have just made me think of not asking the question I was going to ask. I wanted you to follow through, Dr. Gagnon, on the value-based pricing that is now beginning to be looked at in the U.K. How does it work based on outcomes of the drug? There could be all kinds of other reasons why that particular drug will not work on that particular patient, which may give you a skewed outcome. What if the patient has pre-existing illnesses that are conflicting with the drug? I'd like to see how that works. I'd like to hear more about it because I think it's interesting. I think the reference-based pricing idea is a good idea. I think it should be used. But I think it's something we need to delve into a little more.
How do we harmonize coverage? Many provinces pay for certain drugs on their formulary. Let's imagine they are doing the right things. But they are paying for certain drugs on their formulary because it's all that province can afford based on its GDP, its size, and a whole lot of other things. So how do you harmonize something when you have such unequal players in the game? Who will harmonize it, and how should it be harmonized? What would we do with drugs that are not on formularies, the 20% of new drugs dealing with new and specific diseases that aren't yet generic because they haven't reached the end of the patent? How would you deal with those drugs? I think the most important thing is to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, will get the therapy they need, when they need it, in the most cost-effective way. In other words, what are the outcomes? Do they work or not?
I wouldn't mind listening to you expand a bit on some of those things. Maybe Dr. Gagnon can start, because I picked up on your value-based pricing first.