 I'm going to ask that we turn to S 120 and Jen is not yet here but we do have a proposal that has come to us after some work by the advocates and I'm going to ask Helen Laban and Devin Green if they're here. There you are. Good morning. Jen will be with us soon but perhaps you could give us a quick insight into how you develop the language and I haven't heard I think I've heard from Sarah teach out that this is agreeable. I've also heard that the AG and DFR are agreeable so maybe the two of you could help us understand the proposal a little bit. First the process and then the specific proposal. I would like to go first. I can go first. So Helen Laban by State Primary Care Association. So the intent of this language change is to make it more clear than it previously was what it was that we were trying to do and let me just pull it in front of me so I'm not looking off screen. So we have it on page seven of our beginning on page seven of the bill that Jen sent us and here is Sarah teach out. Sarah teach out is here in the nick of time. So we'll also look for your comments on this proposal Sarah. So Helen is starting off on the process and then what's here. Right. So so as discussed yesterday I guess it was what are our basic goal is to get ahead of the national changes or at least keep pace with the national changes that are happening around 340B participation with actions by both the pharmaceutical drug manufacturers and the PBMs around this federal program. So we have changed the opening of that report request to indicate that there will be a report on national activity that impacts 340B participation and we have provided an example of what we're talking about there in case we forget what was happening this time of year when we look at it again so including recent changes to how pharmaceutical manufacturers pay rebates to PBMs for prescriptions filled through 340B pharmacies. So that is setting the overall intent of what we're looking at. And then again as discussed in committee we wanted to clarify that when we were talking about potential impacts we mean all Vermont stakeholders. So that's going to be both organizations like the pharmacies the providers in the practices the payers and also impact on individual Vermonters because this is a complicated program and by its definition 340B is intended to ultimately benefit individual patients and Vermonters. And then we were we are not simply collecting this information for our own amusement. The idea is that we will outline possible state responses to these actions and so the third component of the description of this report is to say that there will be a report on possible state responses to these actions around 340B. We know that that's a complicated question right because it is a federal program. So the example that we had of the administrative burden by express scripts that this legislation of both points when to is addressing that's an example of where there was a national conversation around a national action. It was determined that yes, they do have a role to play. Here's what it is. So the idea is that we are going to look forward to what those might be and anticipate them so that we are not in the situation we are this year where we're trying to get something passed in a rapid fashion in response to changes. So that is how we are intending this report to happen with DFR and the Attorney General's office leading that because they do have the expertise and the national connections again to help inform that work. Hopefully that this rewrite clarifies the intent of this report. I don't know if Devin or Sarah have anything to add to my summary of our group writing process there. Devin, Sarah. Oh, Helen did great. This is good to hear. Thank you. Devin, you're all set then. I'm all set. OK, so the language that we're looking at actually is two sections, section four and then section six and the section four is repealed. That means that the requirements for a PBM that say shall not that's repealed in on January 1st, 2023. So by that time, then some consideration of the report that's in section six would be available and the legislature theoretically could have acted next session next year of the biennium in 2022. So that's the thinking with that. OK, that's good. So we are we are going to wait until we have our ledge council to go through this with us. But I am greatly appreciative of the alacrity and the both the pace and the intensity with which you all have worked. We understand that sometimes these issues come up at the last minute and we have tried to accommodate resolution as best we can in the in the bill. And so hopefully this this will fit with us as it does with you. Oh, thank you. Thank you. We do really appreciate you taking this up. We know it was the 11th hour. And so thank you again. It'll be really helpful. Right. And we always get the blame for the 11th hour. But you know, this is the way it was the way things happen. And I completely appreciate any understanding or lack thereof. That's part of the job. So I'm going to reach out to Nellie unless there are questions. Are there questions here for the folks who have testified? Before we get to Jen. Madam chair, I don't have a question. I just want to thank you for making the language clear. It's much better than yesterday. So thanks. Totally. We can even understand it. That's that's the good news. So Nellie, I'm going to reaching out a lifeline or a to a friend. Okay, good. Jen is going to be with us shortly. So why don't we take a little break? Are there shortly? Okay, let's take like a three minute break at the most as soon as you see Jen on the screen, then we'll come back live.