I would say it is certainly in the right direction, and it is a positive way of moving forward. Obviously, if the insurers can't contact each other, they can't identify the social networks that develop within organized criminal rings. That's the key. Right now, yes, it's a manual process, but it doesn't take very long, and it doesn't take too many files, to start identifying a possible trend and pattern. Once that exists and we are brought into the scene, we will start looking into our database, where we store all of our investigations going back to 2002, when we got into organized activity. We would start looking at whether there is overlap, and often there is overlap. It's a start of identifying and dealing with each insurer independently, giving them reasonable grounds why we believe there may be a suspected fraud. Then, on the other side, they have reasonable grounds to feel that they can disclose that information. It's like putting together a puzzle.
As you know, in the fraud task force—I was a member of one of the committees dealing with this—there was a recommendation to move to analytics to identify that information, so that it would very quickly raise a flag over a certain threshold, saying, “You may want to investigate this further.” It doesn't mean there is fraud. This bill allows the insurers at this point in time to take that manual type of approach and identify possible red flags that give them reason to hold off on payment, bring us into the picture, and possibly involve other insurers so that they know the same thing: time to stop the payment.