 Okay, welcome back folks. We're gonna continue on our testimony on S3, section six. And we have with us Devin Green, who is the Vice President of Government Relations with the Vermont Hospital Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. So Devin, welcome. And we just need to, we're just doing a quick look at section six in terms of a study group to look at establishing the possibility of establishing a forensic state run forensic unit. And we would just like you to weigh in on this in terms of what you're seeing from the world of the hospitals. So I'll turn it over to you. Welcome. My name is Devin Green, Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. And thank you for having me in here today to testify on section six of S3, the forensic care working group. Vaz does support this working group. And that is because we have three hospitals, or we have two of our hospitals, our members who accept forensic or patients with forensic status. And typically these patients are very resource intensive. And even the fact that the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital in Berlin accepts forensic patients, those patients typically stay, they can stay for a very long time of two years. And what that does is that takes beds out of the system. So that really reverberates through the whole mental health system. A typical length of stay for an inpatient psychiatric bed is seven days. When you have someone staying in a bed for years, then that ends up creating waves within the system where people can't get into beds, and then you have people waiting in the emergency department. So any movement that we can see to get people who do not need to be hospitalized out of the hospital is really what we're trying to do here. And we think that this working group will help in that effort. So not only with looking at the idea of a forensic facility, but also with looking at programs to restore competency. As you heard Judge Greerson say, the goal of the MH when it comes to competency is not necessarily to restore competency, it's to treat the patient. And that can leave someone in limbo for quite a long time. We would like those patients to get to a point of competency and get their legal issues resolved so that they're not necessarily, they may no longer need hospitalization at that point. So we appreciate that section six is looking at a variety of areas where we might improve the care and the time that it takes for these folks to get through the legal system, including care in the community and including a forensic unit. And we think that this is a good process to start that forward. Devin, does it feel to you that the decision has kind of already been made that we need a forensic unit or do you think that people are coming at this working group with an open mind? I think people are coming to this working group with an open mind. The section three talks about the boards where you can have people in the community and you have sort of a board that monitors how they're doing. There are a lot of alternatives throughout the nation in other states that people are doing to deal with patients who have this legal status. And so I think there are a lot of options out there to choose from. And I don't think a forensic unit is necessarily the end game here. Again, I think it's good to have a process where all these groups come together because it is a lot going on between the medical care and the legal world. And so to have us to come look at all the options, I think is a really good process of moving forward. Questions from the committee? I think we're winding down as a committee for today. I think people are tired. So Sarah, Devin, it's good to have you here. And you actually answered a question that I had had earlier, which was kind of like, where are some of these people and how well is our current system doing? So could you just elaborate a little bit more for us about where are these folks? You said you represent three hospitals and to talk about. This committee has also heard about this session, especially about step-down facilities for our mental health and our larger system of care and the discussions, the concern about people getting backed up in the emergency room, which you had mentioned. So do you mind, that's kind of a few questions bundled together, but if you could speak to some of those things that would I think help flesh out the picture for me. Yeah, great. So the three hospitals where these folks who have the legal status of forensic are at the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital in Berlin at Rutland Regional Medical Center and at the Brattleboro Retreat. And I should be clear, we do not represent VPCH. So I represent two hospitals that take forensic patients. And as I mentioned, they are fairly resource-intensive. They can stay there for a long time. They typically, for the Brattleboro Retreat and for Rutland Regional Medical Center, they're typically the patients who have been declared incompetent. And so again, we are really looking for those programs that lead to competency with that goal of competency to help them move out of the hospital system. And I think, let me see what else, what was the last question you asked? Before we go to that question, so Sarah can remember. Well, you listed Berlin and the Retreat in the Rutland Regional Hospital. That's where we have all of our level one acute beds. So the folks who are being held now in those hospitals are those in our state beds in those hospitals. So you're in level one beds, yes. So they're under state. So those for folks, if you remember, that's how we replaced the state hospital when we lost it to Irene. We had 14 beds at the Retreat, 25 beds that we built at Berlin. And we had six beds at Rutland Regional. Those are no refusal level one acuity beds that the state pays for. So those folks are under state custody that they're taking up those beds. So what you're saying, Devin, is there more or less folks who are there who are incompetent to stand trial are really more stabilized, but they're not receiving the treatment and the program that they should be receiving to get them to the point of being competent to stand trial. I don't have the expertise to say that necessarily, but I think that's my understanding. I think what I've heard in other testimony is that there's a difference between the goal of treatment and the goal of competency. And so we're looking for a goal of competency as opposed to just the goal of treatment. Okay. Sarah, did you finish your second question? I mean, remember it? Well, I think it was similar to that. So I guess that question is kind of like the ideal number of beds and what's the bed flow. We keep coming back to this question and the way that our criminal justice system and mental health overlap and with corrections too. So we have 12 beds that are going to come online with the Brattleboro retreat and now some beds that are going to come online with a step down facility. I guess, well, I guess I'm probably asking the question of the working group. So maybe I'll just pause there. And my question, I guess we had heard some testimony that the Vermont Medical Society or some would want to be part of the working group. And I don't think they're included. Is that something that you wanted to weigh in on? I would love to have the Vermont Medical Society part of the working group, but I will let them weigh in on that with the next witness. Okay. Oh, sorry. Sorry, Jill. Sorry. But I did want to... What were you saying just before that? Because I did want to address... Oh, what I was going to say was with the secure residential legislation, there is going to be a bed survey. So looking at the bed needs. So I think that will both sound nicely with the work of this working group as well. We hope the language survives the Senate Institutions Committee. Pass the house, it's got to survive the Senate. Okay. Scott? I don't know if this is the place to ask this question, but I'm trying to understand the distinction between the secure residential facility and this forensic unit. Can you elucidate that at all, Devin, or can anybody? So I can't necessarily... Since the forensic unit is still up in the air and we don't know much about it and that's what this work group is for, I can just say, clarify that the secure residential facility is for people who no longer need hospitalization, but who are closer to getting into the community but need help before they can go back to the community. So... Those are the people that you were just talking about or taking up level one beds or... No, these are people who are considered incompetent to stand trial. Those are the folks. Because they're not ready. They're not transitioning to a secure residential. They still need... Well, it's kind of a clinical decision. I mean, I would imagine if they're incompetent, they probably... This is where you were getting into the conversation of is there an incompetent person who can go back to the community or it's sort of a clinical decision about whether or not they need hospitalization or a secure residential facility, something a little bit stronger than community, but not hospitalization or community. But I guess what I'm trying to get at is we're talking this forensic unit that's being investigated would be something different from the secure residential. It would be for a different kind of offender or a person who needs a different kind of population. Yeah. Okay. I'm still trying to understand this because I'm new at this topic, but all right. Thank you. Excuse, next year, Scott. Okay, what? Can't use that excuse to be... I'm gonna keep using it for a long time because this is really complicated stuff. Anyway, go ahead. It is really complicated. And I guess just to clarify, I think right now, there's no real difference in terms of the legal status or where someone is in the legal system when it comes to, you know, if they're declared in need of hospitalization, then they go to a hospital. If they are declared not needing hospitalization, then they go to, but not ready for the community, then they go to the secure residential facility. The forensic unit would have folks who are involved in the judicial system because there are plenty of people out there who need high levels of care who aren't involved with the legal system. The legal system being the criminal system. The criminal system. Because to get in the state hospital, you still need to go through the legal system. There are people in the state hospital who have not gone through the criminal system. Correct. But they need to get there through the legal system. Right. They haven't created a crime. That's why I said it. But the forensic unit theoretically is for a group of people who are still somehow justice-involved, criminally-involved, and also need mental health services. But the shade's more on the criminal side then. Whereas the secure residential is all mental health. Is my, am I getting that right? In terms of the forensic, there is a criminal action there. And the courts have deemed that they needed an evaluation. And the largest sector is the competency to stand trial. So if they agree, if the evaluation and people agree that yes, this person's incompetent to stand trial, then the question is, can the person receive the treatment that's needed in a non-hospital setting or do they need to be hospitalized? So if they need to be hospitalized and there's some severe criminal charges beneath that that they were incarcerated to begin with as a detainee, then move to your level one acute beds whether at the state hospital in Berlin, Rutland or the retreat. The question is the treatment they receive there is does it restore them to competency? Or does it just kind of level everything off? And then they're kind of in this limbo. So they can't go back to trial because they're still incompetent to stand trial. So the question is, where do you house them? So they're being housed in our level one acute beds. The question Scott has, would they ever transition down to the secure residential? And that would be a question for Morning Fox. Yes, thank you. Or is it? Remind me when we have Morning Fox in here. Okay. About that, please. Or this is the purpose or this is what we're investigating with this forensic unit possibly. Okay, I'll just leave it there. Thank you. Welcome to the world of institutions. We deal with a lot more than building a building or mowing a lawn. I just want to build buildings. Well, you got to know what you're building the building for. Any other questions of Devon? She has to move on to a meeting at four. So thank you. Thank you for your patience this afternoon. It's been a long afternoon and we appreciate you hanging in there. Thank you. I'm sorry, I can't stick around. That's fine. Thank you. So now we're going to shift gears to the Vermont medical society with Jill Sudhoff Gurren. Is that how you pronounce? It's Jill Sudhoff Gurren. Yes. Thank you very much. I don't think I've been in this committee. So thank you for having us today. Well, we actually asked to be able to speak on this bill because it's really a priority for us. Our current president of the Vermont medical society. She actually testified in house judiciary and house of health care. So she wasn't able to be here this afternoon. But she's actually the chief medical officer of the Howard center. And she's also the assistant clinical professor in law and psychiatry at Yale. Because she specializes in forensic psychiatry and she also does these competency evaluations that we were speaking of. So we've actually been working on this proposal because this legislation has been through a couple of sessions now, but hasn't actually passed. And for us, it's really strengthening the forensic mental health infrastructure. It's not just a unit. And I would say that we haven't really discussed it being a unit for us. It's really the system. And so the reason that we support this work group is we really want, you know, Vermont is so unique and this population is so unique. So it's really looking at things that states have done that are successful because Vermont is an outlier and not having a forensic mental health system. And, you know, trying to figure out what is going to be the most effective for Vermont and what's the best that we can take from other states. So we don't have to reinvent the wheel. And, you know, so for us, we have, I would say we're agnostic on whether this not, you know, needs to be a unit or not. Because, you know, there is a lot of community-based care that has done very well. And specifically when people are on those orders of non-hospitalization. But the most important thing for us is what Devin said and is what the Defender General said as well. It's really that competency restoration. Because that bar is extremely low, like the Defender General said. And so you're really just trying to get somebody to understand what's happening with their case and have the ability to defend themselves. And many states have robust competency restoration programs. And that's actually best clinical practice. Dr. Ravin, who is our president, was saying that the literature shows that 60 to 80% of the people that go through competency restoration can be restored to competency. And that means that they can go back to their trial and really have a meaningful trial and go through the process. And I think that that is really what Devin was pointing out too, is that without that competency restoration, you kind of have these people lingering in the system and that's not helping Vermont anywhere. So for us, one of the things that I put in the memo is that we really want the focus to be on this study and this analysis. And right now it's in the bill. And I believe that House Judiciary and House Healthcare understand this. But right now the working group would be established August 1st. And then their report would be November 1st. And we feel like that there's no way that each of these issues that they have bulleted out could take a year on its own. And so we really urge the House and on all of your committees, I guess, all of you are weighing in. So think about this and to at least have this study be a six to 12 month study at the minimum, I would say. And, you know, as a part of that, you know, to really weigh out how that forensic unit would work because I think that there's concern that the Defender General brought up like what kind of system is this and are people going to be receiving that competency restoration. And then we also feel like, you know, all of all of you that that are in the legislature, there's so many studies that are ordered, but without adequate resources and without some funding for this study, you can't really bring in the experts, you know, from out of state, maybe an independent evaluation, maybe somebody who can really pull together all of this information because the bill also asks for concrete legislative issues with in that same timeframe. And so, and then if we are talking about a unit, then all of you in your committee understand all of the decisions and analysis that has to take place as well within our current system. And so that's, that's what we said. And yes, we did request that the Vermont Medical Society be a part of this. This is, you know, for us, it's really the clinical perspective and just going back to that competency piece. You know, I think bigger picture. This is really about how do we communicate? How does DMH and how is the, how are those lines of communication, you know, better opened up where there's a protocol to take care of these mentally ill patients, but to really help them understand what they've done and be able to have a meaningful participation in the criminal justice system and or get the treatment that is clinically appropriate. So we would like to be part of the working group. And then the memo that I sent, you know, we had put this into judiciary and also included other pieces. But one of the pieces I just wanted to highlight that we and a lot of other stakeholders don't support the notification requirements that are put into this bill. And so one of the things that the working group has to look at, because Senator Sears took that and said, okay, we understand that stakeholders don't like this. So we'll have this as one of the things that the work group looks at, because basically it's, it's an extremely broad notification requirement without any real boundaries and really changes the way that the clinician would be treating their patient and really turn it into a robust reporting role rather than treatment role. And so Senator Sears amendment on the floor put this notification requirement into the working group, but it didn't change in statute when that would go into effect. And so one of the other things that we would just ask is that if that notification requirement in section three states that it does not go into effect until the working group decides how to delineate it. And sorry if that's confusing. I know I'm jumping to a different section of the bill and that you've had enough to kind of comprehend quickly today. You know, I know Scott has a question, but I don't think that's so confusing, but I'm not sure because the language says that the working group would make any recommendations that need, it deems necessary to clarify the process. Right. My concern is that if the effective dates are the same, then the notification requirement goes into statute at the same time as the working group goes in without effective date of what would happen. I would just say that the notification requirement would not go into effect until the working group has determined what that process would be. And so when if you, if you were to keep the working group, their reporting requirement, you know, whatever that reporting becomes, that then that would be when the notification process would become effective. Because I'm just wondering if this part would be part of the report that would be given to the justice oversight with recommendations that possibly could be legislative. Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. But at the same time, we don't want that section to go into effect. Does that make sense? You don't want, I'm trying to clarify for section three. Section three. You don't want to clarify a new notification process that may result from the work study group looking at the current notification process. No, what I'm saying is that right now, if you passed this bill, it would say section three goes into effect. And it would say that the working group is going to determine that process. So to us, we're just, we don't want the reporting. To start to go into effect without the working group really delineating how that process will happen. Because if it goes into effect without the working group figuring it out. I think that's what that section says. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it says that. The working group would consider a notification process under a certain part of statute. When the commissioners required to provide notification to the prosecutor, blah, blah, blah. The working group shall make any recommendation and deems necessary to clarify the process. Including recommendations as to what facts and circumstances should trigger the commissioners duty to notify the prosecutor. And recommendations as to steps that the prosecutor should take after receiving the notification. So what you're saying is that. Upon passage of this legislation. The working group would be considering the notification process. And they could make recommendations and they could become effective. And that's what I'm saying. Before. The work. Finished its work. Well, that's what I didn't, I didn't, I wasn't sure because of it. If it's effective, I just wasn't, I wanted to make sure that that's what would happen. That the work group would get to do the work before there was any notification requirements in statute. And that's what I'm saying. And that's what I'm saying. I'm saying, oh, it will go in simultaneously and be effective. So we just wanted to clarify that. We really have a lot of issues with this notification process. So we want to make sure that that's done. Correctly. Okay. And this was a floor amendment that was done. Yes. So section three was in there already. And then. And then it was in there. And then it was in there already. And then it was recognized how many stakeholders were not. Happy with it. And so. Then he put it to the work group. So. So the intent of that, if he put it with a work group, the intent is the work group really needs to look at this. Come out with recommendations. And I'm, I'm. It's all part. It's all part. It's all part. It's all part. It's all part. It's all part. The department of mental health would submit a report containing the findings and recommendations of the working group to the joint justice oversight. Yes. My hunt, the way, the way I interpret it is that this notification, nothing can change to the notification process. Until there's a report to the justice oversight committee with recommendations for legislative change. Okay. That's what we would prefer. So I like your interpretation. Okay. We'll check. Okay. So we have another question. Scott. Thanks. I want to go back. Go back to the. Treatment and necessary to restore a person's competence to stand trial. Yeah. So you mentioned it and, and, and, and Devin mentioned, and Matt mentioned also that the, the competency is, is a, is a, is a pretty low bar. And so I guess what I'm wondering is. This may not be the question for you. Probably should have asked Devin, but. Why are folks who are, who are taking up level one beds in the three facilities? Why, why are we, aren't they be giving being given that? I mean, given that treatment so that they can. So the competency can be restored and they can move on through the system. Do you know, or does anybody know? Well, I mean, I, I wish that Dr. Robin was here, but I will just say that it's really that. We haven't, I'm not going to say that the treatment isn't. Effective, but they're, they're specific treatment around competency restoration. And so we haven't really embraced that in the state. And I think that that's one of the things that we could really do, whether or not it's a forensic unit or whether or not it's a forensic mental health system. So that there's really, because you're talking about really looking at people in two different ways, right? You're thinking about them as defendants, but then they become patients. And so how do we keep. Those patients still within our system? That's, that's the other piece of it. Because they, you know, they. I think that the clinical decisions that are happening right now are completely appropriate, but I just think that there could be more competency restoration specifically. Is there something about that treatment to restore competency that is not amenable to, to the. Level one beds that we have in Berlin and. I can't, yeah, I can't comment on that because I, I don't know. I'm not a clinician. But I can definitely ask that question. Because I, you know, I mean, it seems that if we have people who are taking up level one beds, we need those beds that administering that treatment. If we could, that would be a good thing. And then people could move on through the system, right? Yeah, I mean, I think that that's really what this forensic care working group is going to look at of how do see. Intersex with, with judiciary and mental health and how they can all work in a streamlined way. That's going to provide the best care. And so that's why I think the, the really the focus of this bill should be on this work group and any sort of. Appropriate resources would be helpful. Okay, great. Thank you. Sarah. Jill, you helped clarify something for me that I just, which was really helpful, which is this. Well, competency restoration is not necessarily like a physical building, but it could be. A program, a process, something that gets into our system, which really helped me a lot in thinking about this. So one of the things that this working group could come back with is coming up with a way for it to bring these programs into our system. And so I think that's one of the things that I think is really helpful. I think that's one of the things that I think is really helpful of our current. Institutions and facilities, potentially, right? So. Okay. And then the community settings as well. And in the community settings, right? And so that, that was very helpful. And so thank you for that. And then I noticed in one of the section of this, the bill. And I'm just wondering if this is in connection with Dr. Raven's work in. The Connecticut psychiatric security review board as a. As a. And I was, it just jumped out of it. It jumped off of the page to me to be for us to name a such a specific. Entity to look at, because I'm sure there are, there are, there are several entities, but is that, do you think that that came from. Dr. Raven's experience or, or do you have any insights as to why that, that would need to be in the bill? I do know, I don't know specifically if that's why it's in the bill, but I do know that it's one of our regional models. And I think that that I'm, if I'm correct, which Dr. Robin would know a lot more about this. And you can actually ask deputy commissioner of mental health. Fox. I believe he's there tomorrow in your committee. I would ask him as well. Because I'm not sure that they have a facility, but they have a process for all of their forensic patients. And so I think that that review board. Is really the entity. It's an independent evaluation review board. So it is the entity that oversees those patients. From their time of being a defendant to going to a being a patient and possibly going back to being a defendant. And so that would take the onus away from. DMH and DOC and put it on this review board. Which is independent from the state. So I think that that's just one model that you could look at. I think there's a lot of different models, but I think that that is maybe one of the, the regional models that doesn't require a facility. So that's just one. But then I think there are. States that have their forensic units as well that you could look at. Thank you. Thank you. That's, that's clarifies. So for recommendations from you folks for the study committee. Number one is to be a member of the committee, the study committee. Yes. You and judge Greerson. Yeah. Number two to really clarify the number three, which is the notification process to the state prosecutor. About when a person is not complying with their orders of non hospitalization to make sure that that goes. Into the report that comes in. Later than November 1st, you're, you're, you're recommending that we give at least six months to a year for the report. But that number three would be included to the report. To the justice oversight committee that would also possibly make recommendations for legislative changes. Yes. And you're saying for the timeframe. For the report. The study committee gets put together by August and convenes by August 1st of this year. So you're saying really that the report should be in August, like August 1st in 2022 or the fall. Of 2022. Yeah. I think just in order for this to really be a comprehensive analysis and for it to be done. Thoughtfully. I think that. That it would just be. Far more meaningful. For everyone to take their time with this. Because the way it's drafted, it really looks like they want us next session. To do something about a forensic unit. But you're saying it's going to be a much deeper dive to do it right. That's what I think. Yeah. Okay. Sarah, your hand went back up. Yeah, I just, because I was after while I was listening. And this is, might not be as much for Jill's, but for the committee, there's. In this section of the bill. It just continues to say facility, forensic facility. And I'm just wondering if for our committee at some point. That we might want to look at that. Just based on the testimony that we've received that this is. Not necessarily. A facility. Like. You're not. Thinking about this necessarily as a facility, but maybe we should make sure that that language is not so prescriptive. And it almost seems like it's directing us. To thinking only about a facility. And yours still was really looking at, looking at the restoration models, competency restoration. It's really the issue. And that could be done. In a variety of ways, possibly. Yeah. And I think that that's part of this working groups. Mission, I would think is really to look at creative. Solutions. That will fit Vermont and not. You know, become very difficult to manage. And I will say in the other committees, I, I haven't felt like this was the focus, even in a Senate judiciary. I didn't hear as much testimony around a specific. But obviously the working group can look at that as one of the options. It just gives us some thoughts to work through that. If you're doing a restorative competency restorative model, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing it within a forensic facility. Right. Priority is the priorities looking at restoring competency. And how is that best achieved. And you'd look at a list of items of which one might be a forensic unit. But there might be other items listed too. Yeah, definitely. Well, that's helpful. That's very helpful. And I know that healthcare committee is looking at this and I would assume they would have received the same testimony. From the medical society this morning. Were they up there this morning? Do you know? Yes. So we were in there this morning. Dr. Robin testified. One of the things that. She emphasized and that DMH also emphasized that I'm not sure if your committee needs to. Really weigh in on is the. In section one. Subsection two. The bill. Would separate competency evaluations and sanity evaluations and saying if there's any evidence. That would be a sanity evaluation at that time. Because the reason that we support that as we really feel like the patient or the defendant. Would. Be in a situation where they would not. You know, If someone was found incompetent to stand trial that they, there would not be a sanity evaluation at that time because. The reason that we support that as we really feel like the patient or the defendant. Would be in a situation where they would not be able to. Speak. Comprehensively. And make cohesive arguments about their sanity at that time. And so it would just be a very. Vulnerable position for them. And so. We feel like the competency evaluations should be separate. Because. You know, I'm not sure if you're aware of that. I'm not sure if you're aware of that in terms of the low bar for competency and. People really not understanding where. Where they are. What is happening in the. Criminal justice proceedings. So. But not sure if your committee is weighing in on that at all. No, we're just weighing in on section six. Okay. So Sarah, do you still have more. Yeah, just, it's one quick thing. I was no. Based on what you were just saying, Jill. I just wanted to make a reference to a memo earlier. And I, I wasn't sure where it was, but I see that you sent something to. The, the healthcare committee. And it's, I'm wondering if. We already, we had that. It was. I want to make sure. Post it. Great. Yep. Anything else for Jill. On the committee. Anything else, Joe. No, thank you very much. This has been very helpful. I want to thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It kind of helps us get our head around the language. It's really helpful to think of it more in terms of restoring competency. That that doesn't necessarily need to occur within a forensic unit. It could occur, maybe a different. Avenues along the way. Yep. So I think that's important. And that the medical society should be added to the work study. I think that's important. I think that's important. Okay. Anything else for folks before we wrap it up for this afternoon. It's been a long afternoon. It's been a long day. Okay. Thank you, folks. For you too. We're going to stream off. We're back here tomorrow. At nine o'clock, we're still sort of figuring out. What's going to happen. Either we can have deputy commissioner Fox and commissioner Baker in at nine to follow up. If that doesn't work at nine o'clock, we have a presentation being made to us by the UVM justice research initiative that also is in partnership with. Department of corrections that's working with the urban Institute in terms of really looking at. Managing our corrections population and initiatives that. Are in the works and other states and how we can bring those initiatives into Vermont. And that kind of ties in. With our Hock report and those particular options to help us kind of focus in on which option we want to. Settle in on. So we're not sure when that's happening tomorrow that could happen at nine or it could happen at 10. It depends on commissioner Baker and deputy commissioner Fox on their schedule. Okay. So, I'm not sure it has been confirmed now that at nine a.m. We'll be discussing. S three section six with morning Fox and Jim Baker. And then at nine 45 or 10 o'clock, we'll be moving on to the UVM partnership for the rest of the morning. Okay. That sounds great. Oh, thank you. So let's zoom up.