I want to thank my colleague for the question.
As I mentioned previously to Dr. Ellis, we take these concerns very seriously, which is why we asked officials to further investigate the anecdotal reports that were made available. We also wanted to ensure we took steps so the pilot projects we are funding have the appropriate and important safeguards, guardrails and measures in place to control diversion.
In terms of actions taken, our officials undertook a detailed assessment of the risk mitigation measures that all federally funded programs providing pharmaceutical alternatives are obliged to have. The outcome of doing that detailed assessment was this: Most programs demonstrated very strong approaches and have a range of protocols in place to mitigate diversion. In the instances where further information or improvements are required, we've instructed officials to reach out to those sites and continue to work with them.
We're committed to saving lives. Some of the steps we've taken on these projects to ensure they implement the practices we want in place to reduce risks of diversion include patient screening, matching drugs to patient tolerance, risk-based protocols for assessing patient eligibility for take-home dosing and patient monitoring.
Actions also include instances related to diversions we were concerned about. We took the option to switch the observed dosing prescriptions, transfer the individuals to a different set of support services or, in some cases, remove them from the program.
We want to ensure that this is as safe as possible. We also understand, as everyone around this table does, that diversion is illegal. We will continue to maintain safety in our programs.