 If everyone could take their seats, we'll now get started with our panelists' discussions. And so we have four speakers who are going to be presenting just brief five-minute comments on some topics and what they've heard so far to get some different perspectives on today's discussion. So we're going to start off with David Flannery. And we're going to go through all four of the panel discussions in a row, and then we will have some time for discussion afterwards. John mentioned he wanted me to be here because there were some issues about payers and building and that kind of stuff, and in my role at the ACMG, I deal with payers a lot, and payer coverage policies and things like that. And we had a brief discussion about some of the thought process of payers earlier today, and I thought I'd just mention briefly that right now payers really do want to know there's some value to what's going on, and if there's actually some rational basis for why people want to do testing. And talking about medical necessity is sort of the old model. The evolving model is proving clinical utility, and we had a discussion not only here, but actually offline also about what is clinical utility? And in the formal definition of clinical utility, it's actually showing improved outcomes and the improved outcomes that the payers would love to see are indeed controlled trials, but that's not going to happen as we already discussed here. I think that some of the things that the UDN can do to develop some outcomes of some sort, they've been alluded to already, is sort of like the low-hanging fruit that I mentioned really still is the cost avoidance, and that's going to be the diagnostic odyssey in showing by doing this evaluation, the patient's already had $75,000 worth of valuations, and now you do this and you have an answer. That's cost avoidance. That doesn't carry as much weight with payers as other kinds of things, but still it's positive. The other thing is a concept that was mentioned briefly, and I've tried to bring up in making comments to payers coverage policy decisions, particularly one that was about multi-gene panels for epilepsy, and I was trying to make the point of there that making the genetic diagnosis sometimes does target therapy. Right now, therapy for seizures is just empiric. It's like, well, let's try Dylantin. That's an increased dose, but that didn't work. Let's try this, let's try that. Well, for certain genetic forms of epilepsy, certain drugs are not indicated and are going to make you worse, and for certain ones, you're known to start with a particular drug. The concept of a therapeutic odyssey, however, just has not gained traction because it's probably not a great term, and if anybody out there can think of a better term than therapeutic odyssey, please tell me about it so we can start promoting it, because indeed, avoiding all that empiric treatment can be very effective, and it probably leads to much better clinical outcomes in the patient. I'm sure the epileptic patient who doesn't waste six months on ineffective any convulsions, but actually has one that works in the beginning, has a better outcome, and that could actually be proven. The other thing is going forward, keeping track of all the kinds of outcomes that you can in the patients you're seeing will be very important, and I'm curious, are you actually tracking cascade testing of relatives after your pro-band makes the diagnosis, and are you then able from that to generate what kind of benefit there is to these family members who are doing the further testing? I think that'd be very useful. And then in terms of treatment for these diagnoses, I think it was appropriate. People are starting to broaden the concept of being management, not just treatment, but management of the patient and the impact that changes in management can have on the patient as well as family function. I think it would be very important. I think that practice guidelines would be wonderful. Meredith and I had a brief discussion for ACMG to come up with a practice guideline of the best practices for evaluating undiagnosed patients. It would be a great idea, but I'm not sure how we can really focus that really well here at this point in time, but certainly if someone has an idea of how we can do that, I'd be happy to approach that. And with that, I'll stop. Thank you. Thank you. And now we'll move on to Irene Mamoni.