 I think when part of it is, we need to think a different way about scale. So what does scale actually mean? So I like to define scale as institutionalization, the point in time at which you stop thinking about how many people you've done it to, but this is just a routine part of your daily life. So I like to break this down into five piece. So first we need adequate information system products, but quite frankly we have a lot of those already and I don't think we necessarily need many, many more. The second is that we need to focus on designing those products for people and then work with them specifically around the policies and practices for them to use it. Particularly in digital health, truth telling, particularly if you're a facility health worker and telling that to a district supervisor might reflect in you not getting adequate funding. So you want to think about how the policies and practices that are in place are adjusted to then address the products. The last P I like to think about is the packaging of it. So far too often we have one-off cases that can actually be replicated. So I think you want to think about how the packaging of all of these things can be then done in step-by-step guides that's very practical for a country to sort of say, okay, I can see how to do it. They often get the guidance, but they aren't like, okay, now what do I do with that to make it happen? So those are the things that I think are sort of the core elements to institutionalize digital health and digital technology overall. Particularly for digital health, I really think the focus is as the WHO has placed it in the World Health Assembly, I'm sure we'll reaffirm this week, is actually around the embedding of universal health coverage actually within country policies. Universal health coverage is the point in time at which a government says, I own this, I'm suddenly responsible for the funding of my health and if it doesn't go well, it's going to be on the front page of a paper. That's the point in time in which a politician tends to really care and support the ministry of health specifically about how to roll out health services. So I think it's really important that we ensure that the government is buying in by literally putting money specifically on the table. When that happens, and many of them are, that's not quite fair, but when you have some governments where there's 30 to 40% of a health budget that's covered by an outside donor, that's where you have strange dynamic success. And then being really clear that the government is actually the owner. Long term, they need to own the information systems that are rolled out. That means they design it, they're responsible for running it, they have to deal with the maintenance of it while it's being rolled out and while the donor funding is still there. And so that should be driving it. And what that means for donors is that they really need to change how they're actually funding programs. They can't pick the technology before they've figured out what problem the country is trying to fix is and how it's going to work with the technology that's already embedded in the country. I would say the key takeaways are it's nice to see this shift where the countries are completely in the driver's seat and I think that's far more clear than ever before. I am very excited about the fact that people are recognizing that the technology is about a lot more than the use case of health or NCDs or immunization and that they're lifting it out and actually cutting it across because fundamentally information technology is just a tool. There's no conference that has the microscope featured so why do we have a conference that's featuring the digital technology?