First to Cameron's point about using tamper-resistant strategies, we would believe that has to be done proactively at the initial stage, versus reactively once you determine that something has caused harm within the community. We're all about getting at the front end, at the front end of the river versus the downstream impact. Quite often from a policing perspective, we see the downstream and then we see the reactions from health care from a reactive perspective.
We think we need to change our thinking and move to a proactive stance that for any drug, and not just the current drugs that we have now, but any new drug in the future, we need to be looking at what the potentiality for harm is within the community, and what we need to do to reduce that risk within the community.
A lot of it is education of the physicians and the entire system about the drug and the potentiality, and the steps and measures needed to put it in place. Certainly you can have a great prescription monitoring program across this country, but you also have to make sure that people use it. It's well and fine to have a system, but it has to be somehow more than just a guideline. It has to be one of telling the prescriber, “You need to access this before can give a script for anything.” That's our thinking on it.