Thank you.
I want to return, just a bit, to a question I didn't get an answer to, about urban, rural, and remote.
You mentioned in part of your answer back to me that there are different ways of identifying high-risk people. I'm concerned that maybe people who are out in the rural areas should start off rated at a higher risk. In your comments to me earlier, you mentioned that there are timelines and care has to be planned more ahead of time.
We're used to that when we live in the rural areas. We understand what it means to travel for services and everything else, but I would almost make the point that in rural areas they should be at a higher level, and the remote areas definitely should be at a risk because they have very few or no services, with almost no travel options. I'm talking about fly-in locations at the extreme level.
Going back to the two studies you mentioned, have we missed something with not putting more of a focus on studying how we serve in the rural areas?