Just quickly, I think Dr. Laupacis made the point that for the front-line practitioners, they don't understand the process, nor do they wish to. What they understand is that drugs become available in a variety of ways, they become aware of it, and then there's a long time before they're able to write a script that's covered. And whether it's tied up at CDR or the lack of integration with other processes--the original approval process, other testing, monitoring, etc.--they're not aware. So I don't know that for the average practising physician it's necessarily that specific process, but the entire process seems somewhat complex and difficult to understand.
I would like to make a quick comment as well on the doability of a national formulary. It's interesting, if you think of it, that we have the equivalent of a national formulary for physician care. We seem to be able to manage that in the context that all physician services are covered under similar terms and conditions, and in fact the cost of physician services in Canada is actually less than the cost of pharmaceuticals now. So I think if there's a will, there's certainly a way, and we've shown that.
I would make another supplement to John's answer to the question of supporting a national formulary. The degree to which the provinces have variability in their formularies, I think, does compromise its integrity, at least in the eyes of the physicians. If there's great variability in what's covered, you begin to question the science that's used to make those decisions. And we're looking for a scenario where in fact the CDR process would be seen as infallible, would be the gold standard. You would trust it implicitly as a way to influence prescribing behaviour, and we'd like to see that. When it becomes used as a tool to ration or to manage the drug budget, our view is that it does compromise, then, its integrity to some extent, and it would be nice if it could be avoided so that you could trust the science, I think.