It's important to understand no two regimes are alike internationally. The thing that's unique about Canada, as Dr. Levine alluded to, is we don't have the monopsony power that most other developed countries have when they include prescription drug coverage as part of their universal health care system.
Every country that I'm aware of uses market size and pharmacoeconomic value to some extent in trying to figure out what price they think is socially acceptable for a product. They don't use it in the exact same way. Japan, the Netherlands and France use market size as a trigger for conducting pharmacoeconomic value assessments. Some countries, like the U.K., have specific thresholds for pharmacoeconomic value in place. We're going to have a ceiling price that's a function of pharmacoeconomic value. I'd say the distinction is one without that much of a difference. In either case, it's sort of the gateway to meaningful market penetration.
These new factors that we're adopting are based on best practices internationally, but adapted to a made-in-Canada context, as is necessary, given the unique characteristics of our regulatory regime.