 So I would like to say a few thank yous myself before we start so first of all a thanks to Dean Minow for being here when I was in law school here I had the great privilege of having Dean Minow as the supervisor of my third year paper and what a tremendous scholar and what a compassionate person and it was a real honor to be able to work with her. I also want to extend my thanks to the folks who organized this event in Christine Azaro and Genev Campbell who's not here today Molly McDonough and Eba Mark and also Sherry Ramirez have put a lot of work into this and I really appreciate that. I also want to acknowledge that this this conference comes about as a partnership between two university-wide initiatives here at Harvard the Berkman Center for Internet and Society which is the home for the Global Access and Action Project that we'll talk about a little bit here today and also the Harvard Global Health Institute and that partnership has been an extremely rich and valuable one for us and one that that I think will bear a lot of fruit for us here today. I want to thank two other partners before we get into the substance here. As many of you know we wrote a discussion paper in connection with this conference here today and hopefully we can spend a little time talking about some of those ideas and the research budget for that was made possible by the National Foreign Trade Council Foundation and so we want to thank them. We have another partner who has also contributed significantly to our effort in a probelo capacity which is the law firm of Wilmer Health so thank you to all of those partners. I want to sort of start where she started which is that there are enormous challenges that we face here in the global health landscape and I'll mention just a few of them. You know one of them is just the startling disparities that exist by virtue of mere accidents of birth and you know one of the things we cite in the paper is the stunning fact that if you're born in Cambodia you are 18 times more likely to die before the age of five than if you're born in Iceland. It's shocking, it's intolerable and one of the things that inspires us here today is to try to figure out some things that we can do about that. Two other challenges that are maybe a little bit closer to the topic of the conference today. One is just that there are millions of people around the world who die because they don't have access to solutions we already have for diseases we have already cured and then another side of this challenge is that there are insufficient resources devoted to research and development to solve problems that primarily affect the world's poor. So when we look at an outbreak like Ebola or like Zika and think why why hasn't this problem been solved in some ways that's actually a policy problem there aren't sufficient commercial incentives to incentivize the research and development that would go into curing that set of problems if it were a disease that affected richer people and the ways in which our incentives are set up for research and development simply don't fit very well with those categories of diseases. So these are big challenges and it's it's easy as it is with the tragic events over the weekend in Orlando it's easy to despair and to get frustrated and angry. It's also easy to feel that we need to solve everything before we can solve anything and it's easy to get angry I'm I'm angry about this and it's easy to get angry about the unfairness that confronts us when in the accident of somebody's birth has such a stunning relationship to whether they have access to to health care that should be a right. But I think that we can be I think that we can be angry and we can also have differences of opinion in the solutions to these problems but also do so in a way where we can disagree about particular approaches without being disagreeable and one of the things that I'm excited about is this is this is a wonderful group of people coming together to look at these challenges and I think that we can roll up our sleeves and be productive in the ways that we talk about concrete solutions. So these are big challenges but fortunately great work is already being done in this space and I'm so excited to have such a wonderful mix of people here today from industry from the nonprofit sector from foundations from academia from government and to learn from you about what you're doing in these spaces. And so our approach here was essentially let's bring together the smartest people we can find put ourselves in a room and challenge ourselves to come up with solutions. And so Ashish gave a little bit of an overview of the day but let me let me give you my own take on it because I'd like to challenge us to do three things. I'd like to challenge us to think of these as a set of urgent problems for which we want to come up with solutions that we can implement without delay. I want us to think about bold solutions game changing innovations that can have a transformative impact because if you have such a huge problem you need huge solutions. And then I also want to challenge us to be concrete and to think about actual next steps that we can do with other people in the room that will help us to move the ball forward to solve these problems. And so that structure thinking about how to be urgent how to be bold and how to be concrete is going to form the way that we spend our time here together. The morning we're going to focus on the urgent part and we're going to have a very distinguished panel here. The first panel highlights some best practices or some things that we think we should study a little bit more to think about could these be scaled up? Could this be done more? Could this be replicated? Could others do some of these things? What can we learn from these experiments? And we'll do that in two parts. We'll first have a panel discussion and then we'll have a discussion session. And maybe I ought to mention sort of a slight quirk of formatting because it's a little different from how we've done things in the past. Those of you have come to our conferences before. We're going to have some public sessions. As you can see there's a video camera here and we're live streaming the event in part today. But we're only live streaming part of it. We're live streaming the panel and with these remarks and the introductory panel and then we're going to live stream the second panel as well. The other parts of the day are going to be Chatham House Rules and we're going to roll up our sleeves and we're going to have discussions and see what we can do to solve problems. But those parts of the day will not be videotaped. So we encourage you to tweet or to discuss in public the things that are dealt within the public parts of the session. We've got a hashtag for today's event. We'll see if that works. Which is A2MHarvard. So we'd love for public discussion on the public parts of this conversation and we'd also ask you to respect the more intimate nature of our intimate conversations. So in the afternoon we will release ourselves from the constraint of thinking of things that can be done in a very immediate sense and our speakers and our panel will think deep thoughts about big, bold solutions to a serious and large problem. We have three free-standing speakers, all of whom are very distinguished. Rebecca Weintraub will talk about the role that pharmaceuticals play in overall health system strengthening. We have Jamie Love from KEI who will talk about the possibility of delinkage and some of the bold thinking that he's done as an advocate in this space. And then we have Ruth O'Keditchie who will talk about her thoughts on access medicines and innovation and some of the thinking that went into the UN Secretary General's High Commission on Access to Medicines. Then we'll have a panel led by Suri Moon that will continue the theme of looking at new approaches to innovation and access followed by a discussion session led by Terry Fisher that will think about innovation and access in a forward-looking and out-of-the-box way. So that's the bold part. And then the last part, but I think should pervade the entire day and we won't spend that much time on at the end, but I hope we'll spend time out throughout the day, is thinking concretely about how we can work together. The Global Access in Action program itself is a shoestring. We have no permanent staff. We have very, very little resources, but we do have an aspiration to be actually impactful. And the way that we're going to do that is through partnerships with you and by spurring partnerships among you. So I ask us in the sort of next step sense to think concretely about things we can do. But I also want to, you know, sort of practice what we preach. And so as part of today's conference, we put on the table some initial thoughts that were developed out of Global Access in Action and draft paper that I think some of you have seen. And that paper centers around three ideas we'd like to start by putting on the table. The first is that maybe differential pricing, in particular intra-country differential pricing of the kind that Hans Reichfeld from Novartis will talk about, maybe offering drugs at different prices to different populations within the same jurisdictions offers some possibilities for dealing with a very difficult problem, which is that increasingly the poor of the world live in jurisdictions where they are surrounded by affluent populations. And it is very difficult to ask the pharmaceutical industry to adopt a policy that involves simply reducing price for the entire developing world. And yet the entire structure of innovation for investment in research and development depends upon some notion of recouping some of the investments that are made in research and development. And intra-country price discrimination allows for a possible mechanism that could allow the charging of different prices to different populations within the same jurisdiction that may allow us to simultaneously create a replicable profit structure for industry and also enable and facilitate public health programs targeted the poorest members of those populations. So that's one possibility we put on the table. Second possibility we put on the table relates to the possibility of non-exclusive generic licensing partnerships as a mechanism for increasing the reach of corporate social responsibility programs. And one example that we'd like to delve into a little bit is the work that Gilead has done in the context of HIV-AIDS in the world's poorest populations. One of the things that's attractive about this model is that it incorporates within it enough of a profit structure that it can potentially be scaled across many many jurisdictions. One of the shortcomings of traditional corporate social responsibility programs, many of which are deeply impactful, is that they often rely upon a mechanism that is net negative. And one of the attractive things about a non-exclusive generic licensing partnership scheme is that it contains within it the seed of a mechanism for scaling itself and for allowing industry participants to use it in a way that they may be able to scale across a vast number of jurisdictions and increase access to medicines in a corresponding way. So that's the second idea that we put on the table. The third idea that we put on the table relates more, a little less, to access structures and a little bit more to research and development. And this has to do with the notion that one of the greatest challenges for research and development into some of the areas that primarily affect the flick-the-poor is lack of knowledge about some great research that exists in other parts of the innovation ecosystem. When the R&D shops for large industries look into solving a particular problem, they're often false starts, very expensive, very productive false starts. And those false starts are in many cases proprietary and very difficult to access for those who are trying to solve other problems. So I think of the idea of the Post-it note. Post-it note was developed by 3M when they were looking actually for a pretty good adhesive. They were looking for how to develop a good glue. And somebody developed a very bad glue. And somebody had an idea that having a very bad glue might actually be a very good idea. And the same thing happens in the pharmaceutical context. So the researchers who were developing the drug that became Viagra were actually looking for some cardiovascular mechanisms of action. And they were able to develop something that had a totally different but unexpected use. The fact that innovation works in this quirky way actually opens up a very interesting possibility. And the interesting possibility is that if we can be a little bit more forward-leaning in sharing our false starts, in sharing the intellectual property that's developed on the corporate side with entities that are primarily doing research into the drugs that afflict the global poor, we may have opportunities to unlock that hidden treasure and to allow for greater progress on solving the problems where there aren't commercial incentives to solve those problems. So we can look into those mechanisms a little bit more as well. So in order to do this I'd love to call to the front our four distinguished panelists in the first panel. There's Greg and Hans and Prashant and Colleen if you could come up. Sure, that'd be great. So we have four distinguished panelists here today. Greg Alton is the executive vice president for commercial and access operations at Gilead Pharmaceuticals and he'll speak first. And then we have Hans Wright-Veldt from the Malaria Access Initiative within Novartis. We have Prashant Yadav from the University of Michigan and we have Colleen Chen from the Santa Clara Law School. But without further ado I'll turn it over to