Arrangement, and are you guaranteeing what is the price of the drug when are you saying you are only going to get paid x if you reach a cure level or certain level of adherence. Theres some interference there, and its used as an excuse for those types of arrangement or getting out of those arrangements by pharmaceutical companies. The other is the fda approves the drug if it works. And they dont necessarily approve it saying whether it works better than things that have previously been approved or whether it doesnt work better than thing previously approved. And that can create some friction when it comes to dealing with providers who seem to want to gravitate toward the newest and the latest, even if it really doesnt turn out to work any better than some of the alternatives that have come down the pike before. So whats the solution there . More as we heard on the earlier panel, more effectiveness, information and data . I think the comparative effectiveness would really help. Then you
Providing low income service. Sort of almost to make it politically good, not just politically acceptable, politically good for a company to price discriminate. I wasnt sure where you were headed with that. I cant think of what it is right now. But if they were to take samples of fingerprints that are on some of those voluntary agreements, you might find fingerprints somewhere. Thats good. I think thats great. The programs are there. Just one thing, back to yesterdays conversation. He said the one thing about the act is it allowed competition to enter. What the competition did, is before the telecomact, the prices that we had didnt make a whole lot of sense. All kinds of different cross subsidies. 25 cents a minute long distance. And what the competition did is forced all those prices to get rationalized. The High Cost Fund kind of impedes that whole process. One thing, theres really i think the benefits in terms of incentives for investment and those other things in the high cost area