On reference-based pricing, first we need to understand how weird the market is for pharmaceuticals. You can imagine this market as a dinner for three, basically. You go for dinner, and there's one guy ordering the meal, the physician. He's prescribing the product, but does not pay for it and doesn't care, as he doesn't have budget constraints. Then you have the patient, who is eating the meal, and then the drug plan, private or public, that is paying for the meal.
The question is, if you have a very aggressive waiter in terms of promotion and marketing who is saying that you need to take the most expensive meal because that's the best one for you, for sure the third party payer would like to have some words to say in terms of which meal should be ordered, and basically how the payer can get some bang for their buck. Reference pricing is basically just the capacity of the third party payer to say when, based on clinical evidence, there is...some drugs aren't therapeutically equivalent. We need to keep in mind that 80% of the new drugs that arrive in the market do not represent any therapeutic advances compared to already existing drugs.
Reference-based pricing is just saying that we'll set a reference price for this therapeutic category for all drugs considered therapeutically equivalent. Based on that, basically, usually we take the drug with the lowest price, we say that this is what we accept in order to reimburse for the product, and—