Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I did anticipate the question, but I don't have a pat answer—not surprisingly, I think.
It is a very important question. I'm not going to have an answer today that it ought to be 40-20-20. We are working on it. I'm not sure we're going to come up with ratios, but there are two points I would make.
First of all, I don't think we can divorce the question of the ratios from the question of the overall level of funding. I think the starting point has to be, how are we doing against international competitors, and within that, how do we allocate the investments to make sure we remain competitive? I know you didn't pose it this way, but I frequently had it posed to me by officials: let's assume there's not another dollar; how would you divide up the existing pie? Well, it's not a conversation that I think is useful, and I know you didn't pose it that way. But I do think the point needs to be made that the starting point is how we are doing against the rest of the world and our competitors.
As to the relative balance, the one other point I would make, which I made in our opening presentation, is that for our members the issue of institutional costs remains the overriding priority. We feel that moving to a minimum 40% reimbursement rate is crucially important. So that would be our priority.
That's as far as I would go in offering up numbers as to ratios.