I think that it's fair to say, though, that at the end of the day it may be the employers who are actually paying the premium to the insurance companies, but this is all part of the calculation of the pay packet for employees.
I think the benefit to employers and to insurers is that drug coverage costs are escalating, and in these—I'll call them, for lack of a better term, non-managed—privately financed drug benefit systems, this is getting to be an increasingly heavy cost burden for employers. Insurers find it difficult to offer major employers good drug benefit regimes, because of the costs they are facing.
Some of the efficiencies in the public plan—the formularies, some oversight on prescribing practices, price negotiation, generic substitution, all of these things—I think employers would welcome. They could certainly imagine—I don't want to say readily—scenarios where they could be offering exactly the same benefits to their employees at considerably lower costs. Even with no change, you could argue this might allow them perhaps to extend benefits to some of their part-time or non-unionized workers.
Anywhere there are savings opens up at least the potential that some of the coverage gaps.... You quite rightfully say—