Again, I think the way in which the process works penalizes the clinician and the patient, and we don't have to do it that way. I think that if you have patients, as you've rightly said, who are on a lifetime drug, the necessity to reapply every three months because it has not actually been given NOC makes no sense whatsoever. It's the anomaly in which the SAP is written. We get it, in terms of the way the law is written, but that can actually be changed.
Our recommendation is to bring those drugs into a national rare disease pharmacare program. We can deal with them in the same way as we deal with all of the drugs that have uncertainties. You have a panel. You set up the guidelines in the protocol, and you make sure that the patient and the clinician are fitting within that protocol. The monitoring sits within that program. It doesn't have to be bumped up. As long as you say there's no adverse event, as long as the patient is responding appropriately to it, and as long as the physician can attest to it, then the patient just stays on the therapy.
There should not be the necessity of having to go back every three months to reapply. As all the clinicians say to us, they don't get paid to do this. I'm not saying that in any kind of derogatory way. They have hundreds of patients. This is actually taking away from them being able to do something else.
So yes, we could do that, and I think what we want is to go back and ask what the real experience is here. In some respects, I think what we often hear is a request for a modicum of common sense when we're doing these things. If we could just introduce that, I think that would help a whole lot in terms of what we're able to do.