 Without further ado, I hand over to Jacques for Context Setting. Thank you, Patrick, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, many thanks to Thierry de Montréal for organizing this beautiful conference. I'm learning a lot with my numerous hats, and so thanks much for that, and congratulations. Actually, I spent 30 years of my life working on market access issues in the health care system and trying to cover the value of therapeutic innovations both for society and in economic terms to make them solvent. My talk today will address the difficulty of reconciling supply and demand in this ever-burgeoning field of health care services and products, and to suggest potential ways to introduce some strategic drive to maximize the benefit for society, because actually the field is not driven by any invisible hand, and this is why governments find it very difficult to regulate health care. So we'll give a quick look to what is demand and what is supply in this field. On the demand side, demand side is innumerable in real terms. The international classification of diseases, which is established by W, lists a total of 55,000 different codes for as many disease definitions, of which about 7,000 to 8,000 often diseases and each and every patient expects that a cure will be brought for his or her disease. In economic terms, this concrete demand is made solvent in most cases by payers or insurers, whether public or private, whether monopolistic or commercial and competing, who account for a major chunk of the expense, so actually the patient often doesn't pay much. And overall, the public contribution to health expenditures reaches 60%. It varies from 24% in low-income countries to 71% in OECD countries, but it's growing one person faster than GDP almost everywhere. And those expenses are almost systematically considered as a constraint, as something which governments don't like, regardless of their positive impact on the economy, both because they contribute to reducing the burden of disease, which otherwise would have a cost in terms of illness, and also because there is the value added of providers and suppliers, which has to be taken into account in terms of jobs, to progress in technology and manufacturing, which leads us to look more in detail to the supply side. And we've seen that the demand side is extremely scattered. The demand side is just as scattered, as much scattered. You have a few leading players in the provision of care, like the national health system in the UK, but in most cases providers are still very small, very fragmented organizations. In the US, the top 10 US providers of care were responsible for only 18% of all inpatient days in the country. And this provider universe, which is highly job-intensive still, and we may talk later on what can be done to improve the productivity, has very low profitability, mostly in the low one-figure percentage, although some outliers can, I would say, provide much higher returns. And productivity is decreasing globally. I mean, this has been pointed out by a number of studies. In the pharma industry, fragmentation is very high as well. The leader earns about 5% of the total prescription market. In the medical technology industry, top 10 companies earn about 40% of global market share. So this comes in strong contrast to other technology-driven industries, such as aerospace or information communication technology or the GAFAMs. And this is something on which we could think, I would say, I mean, I have some ideas on the reasons, but we don't have time to elaborate about that. Contrary to care provision, the pharma and medtech industry do enjoy lofty returns on capital, but again, the profitability is decreasing for some number of reasons, one of which being the fact that they enjoyed those lofty returns because they carried a high level of risk and the evolution of the field today, leads to put the risk on the shoulders of mostly VC-funded companies, startup companies. Today, more than 50% of innovations are brought forward by recent companies, young companies which have been very innovative. So again, a big change in the structure of the industry. Now, what does the supply side provide the demand side with? Mostly innovation. Keep in mind today, at this time, there are about 350,000 clinical trials ongoing in the world, of which almost 300,000 are interventional, i.e. aimed to measure the effect of a given intervention. So in summary, thousands of diseases, hundreds of millions of patients, thousands of care providers and hundreds of suppliers offering myriad of solutions and who is regulating this in economic terms. And my answer is at this stage, there is very little strategic insight and this is why expenses are looming and people still are unhappy with that. Now, you can only regulate what you measure and this brings us to ask which metrics are available, so I'm not going into a course in health economics, but keep in mind that epidemiologists, health economists, clinicians have tried to find a way to compare diseases between each other. So they've defined what are called disability-adjusted life years, quality-adjusted life years, but this doesn't provide you with the view of whether you should rather treat disease A rather than disease B and it's the same for clinical trials, so I'm not going to go into this, but let's keep in mind that there is really a plenty of thought to be given to how to measure the impact, the effect of care on society and this brings us very often to ethical issues that will be discussed by Daniel. So when it comes to curbing healthcare expenses, payers are left without much clue as to how to do this in a strategic way and most of them oscillate between a variety of cost-control schemes. Again, I don't go into the details, but most of them are just cost-control schemes and they don't consider expenses as an investment and they don't say which preference society would have. So this is the reason why more and more voices in the academic community call for a more rational, data-based, socially acceptable strategy to be concerted amongst healthcare stakeholders, including patients because, as mentioned, the patient is central. He often doesn't have much say as to how he's treated, but he's asking for more say in this field. As a patient, he feels that remedies should bring to his ill whatever he's suffering from. But as a taxpayer, as an insured person, he doesn't want to pay for everybody else and so he's really kind of in a schizophrenic situation and at the macro level, no institution. I mean, there was a talk earlier on about the role of WHO but there is no real institution vested with the role to define and the power to enforce the strategic distribution of resources to the innumerable health interventions that patients request individually. So my plea, and I will finish with that, Patrick, is that the time has come to reinforce research and education in epidemiology, in health economics, that the fast improvement of data collection and the management of data using high-performance communication and augmented intelligence gear should allow for a more informed consensus seeking definition of public preferences in terms of health policy and this could serve as a basis for the allocation of public resources to all healthcare players. And I would like to pay a specific tribute to my African friends in the room because there are a few exceptions. I mean, there are exceptions to everything that I said, but there are a few exceptions to what I said about the lack of management. I'm a great admirer of what Randa has done after the war to rebuild an efficient and intelligent healthcare system. I heard yesterday that Senegal is going into that direction and I think Africa again in this field, like in others, may pave the way and I would welcome this effort. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jacques. We'll not summarize, but just for the Q&A session later on, so you raise a question mark on matching supply and demand, visibility of profit over time, regulating the unknown and patient versus client, some of the points that you raise in your presentation. Thank you very much.