 My name is Rika Spence, I'm executive director of Impact Capital Managers, and I wanted to just take the moderator's prerogative to just a minute of your time to describe a little bit about who ICM is, who we are, and who our amazing panelists are today, discussion leaders. So Impact Capital Managers, we are a membership association of a nonprofit membership association of for-profit private capital impact funds, all investing through superior returns and for meaningful impact. We currently have over 70 members that collectively represent over $15 billion in impact focused capital at work across the United States and beyond. That's over 1,100 portfolio companies, a lot of co-investing activity that's happening here, and that's who we are. What we do, we connect our members to each other, like most membership organizations do. We connect them to investment opportunities, and to stakeholders like LPs in the broader ecosystem. We also identify and share best practices, trying to figure out what that looks like, elevate examples that are really fantastic that we can all learn from. We advocate for our members through education, research and policy initiatives. We are very happy to work with Confluence Philanthropy, IEN, the impact, and so many others who are also part of this OCAP community. And finally, last but not least, we do cultivate a skilled, diverse impact investor workforce. This is just a snapshot of some of the logos you'll see here, some of the members in our community. I think probably a lot of them are quite familiar to many of you on the call today. And I have to put in this, I swear this will be more sharing and swelling, I just wanted to put in a plug because our Mosaic Fellowship happens to be open now. This will be the third year of our program. This program is a paid, a competitively paid fellowship for top performing but traditionally underrepresented grad students who are interested in learning the ropes of impact investing. And here are some of our fellows from last summer. If you're interested, if you know somebody, perhaps it's OCAP or elsewhere in your various lives and networks who might be really keen on applying, please make them aware, ping me with any questions after our session. Our Impact Footprint at ICM, we like to think of also organize our impact investing activity according to four different buckets and obviously when we're focused on today for the next few minutes here is healthcare and wellness. And these numbers here is hard to read I know on your screen. They represent a smaller but growing rapidly growing right allocation in terms of our memberships portfolio companies and their capital being deployed. And I think that this is especially the last year and a half we've seen this explode in other companies as well, impact investors. So we are joined by some fantastic panelists today. And I want to give them a shout out here before we launch in Jenny Yip. She's a managing partner at Agile Capital, worked in finance for more than 18 years beginning as an investment banker and in addition to managing the firm's operations and growth, Jenny oversees the firm's investments in 54G, I think is also a co-investment with some ICM members, I'm not mistaken, ChromaCode and Avofam Bias Sciences. She's a fierce advocate for women's health and serves on the investment advisory committee at Reaventures and has had a really long and fantastic split as well at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, figuring out how private foundations can achieve their charitable objectives through equity debt, structured finance and guarantee investments in companies and investment funds. James Olson, skipped to the last part here, founder and managing partner at Concord Health. James has over 24 years of experience in healthcare investment banking and investment advisory services. Prior to founding Concord in 2017, he was managing director and head of not-for-profit healthcare investment banking at Jeffries. And prior to Jeffries, empty and head of not-for-profit healthcare M&A at Merrill Lynch where he was for 17 years. He served as a trusted advisor to leading healthcare organizations, executed several billion dollars in transactions across M&A and capital markets and has knowledge and experience spanning healthcare services, healthcare information technology, medical devices and medical technology. So welcome, James. And then Roger, who's a partner at Impact Engine. Impact Engine is a venture capital firm. And as of the beginning of this month, I believe Impact Engine helped 22% of its investments in health-focused companies. I also like to point out that of all the companies in its web portfolio, I think 60% are led by women's CEOs or CEOs of color. Roger has a long history leading technical teams of multiple started companies based in Chicago, most recently serving as CTO at Shoprunner. Prior to Shoprunner, he was a senior VP and CTO of four orbits. Roger is also, I would like to say, a board member of ICM and a member of our impact management and measurement working group. So with that, I actually would like to open it up to our audience and kind of crowdsource some questions for our panelists this way before we even launch in and really pose that question to you, so to throw it out to you. What makes you hopeful about impact investing in health and wellness today or conversely, maybe what could you pause or what are you worried about? So I want to just give that, let that sit for a minute and sort of see if we can get some ideas and functions in our chat. I know folks have some good questions, so feel free to use the chat if you've got a question or a comment. Just curious about what people are excited about in terms of healthcare investing, maybe what you'd like to learn from this session or what questions you might have for our panelists that we can weave through the conversation today. All right, so people are being a little shy and that's fine or they're multitasking. I'm not going to ask which it is, but please feel free to, as we move through, we really want to try to make this an interactive session. So please just climb in, ask to unmute yourself if you have a question. You really want to make this as interactive as possible. So with that in mind, keep that in your back pocket and then we're going to pose that question a little bit to our own panelists here. So what makes a healthcare investment an impact investment? And I know with the three of you, we had talked about some of these things before and more, but I kind of wanted to boil it down to these sort of three things, right? What's that SNF test that we can all perhaps apply to a potential investment or potential fund that's coming our way when we're thinking about healthcare impact investing? James, I'd love for you to maybe take a crack at number one and talk about intentionality. Sure, I'd be happy to. Thank you, Marika. Very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with everybody today. Really excited about the topic. I'd say with respect to intentionality, very, very important to really understand and view the investment opportunity through the lens of impact and think about at the end of the day, who is being impacted by the technology, the services, the solutions really has to be mission oriented. And in line with what I would say is sort of the future of healthcare. Where is healthcare going? Where do we need to take it? And there really are some imperatives today that I think everybody's aware of. We need to improve quality and outcomes. We need to expand access to high quality care. But we at the same time need to control costs as best as possible. And I think if you're looking through the impact lens and you believe that the technology, the service, the solution of the portfolio company is addressing healthcare broadly in a fair and equitable way, improving quality and outcomes, managing costs effectively, I think there's a good indication that it could be qualified as an impact investment. But again, it's quality outcomes, access to high quality care, costs and affordability, and in line with where healthcare needs to go. And evenly impacting vulnerable populations as well as everyone else. So that's the way we think about it. And that's really very early up front as we're evaluating opportunities. That's one of our key evaluation criteria. Thanks so much, James. Roger, how do you think about both intentionality but also impact management? And I think part of the reason why, I'll just really quickly say before I actually throw that to you, part of the reason why I've put this third point here in blue is because I think the first two points here are really kind of inherent to any impact investment the way most people would define it, right? And so we want to go at a level even sort of deeper or beyond to talk about what is, what we're thinking about specifically healthcare investment, right? The unique opportunities and challenges of that sector. But maybe you can talk a little bit about impact management along with other aspects of your approach. Yeah, happy to. And thanks again for inviting me to join today. Yeah, I think a lot of the stuff that on impact management, it can get complicated. But at the end of the day, to me, a lot of the things that James mentioned around the intentionality are the things that we want to quantify. Outcomes at the end of the day are what matter to us. And what's interesting though is a lot of our investments start early stage. And so maybe we don't know the outcomes, but we have a theory for how that will positively impact patients. And so I think at the beginning, it's a lot more proxy measures. And as well as we kind of break it down into three dimensions of scale, efficacy and access. And we would like to have at least one quantifiable metric that our companies can report on so that we can see that directionally they're headed towards that ultimate outcome of a positive patient outcome. Great. And Jenny, maybe you could take number three and feel free to address the other two as well and beneficiaries. Yeah, absolutely. So at Adjuvant Capital, we're a life sciences investment fund focused on tackling global health challenges. And so what we mean by that is we invest in mid to late clinical stage companies doing R&D on drugs, vaccines, medical devices and diagnostics. And I think what really differentiates Adjuvant is actually this question on end beneficiaries. Because while most of our portfolio is still domiciled in the US and Europe, because that's where the clinical innovations are, our target population, our target patients have to include those living in lower middle income countries. So we think oftentimes about increasing health care access, health care equity, not just for patients in the US or Europe, but really for patients that are living in low resource settings and low income people in low resource settings. So talk about intentionality, right? Because when we're developing our bespoke investment thesis, our intention and hopefully our outcomes will be that we're increasing patient outcomes for those who need it most. Great, thanks so much. And I've noticed that there's some really interesting comments and questions coming through in the chat as well. And I want to make sure that we kind of address those throughout and don't let them get stale. So I'm just kind of curious, I mean, Hal, you've got a good question to hear around sort of thinking about profit and perhaps sort of a potential tradeoff between impact and return when health care is involved. So I wonder if you all, if the panelists can see that in the chat on the right, perhaps addressing that question, if there is that kind of tradeoff or not, what you see from your perspective. Yeah, I'm happy to take that. Look, I think it depends on the profits that you're seeking, right? So you can either make a lot of profit and a lot of margin on a small volume, or you can make a very, very small margin on a large volume. And I think the way that we think about global health investing is if you're trying to impact the most number of people, you may only be making 50 cents or a dollar on a unit of vaccines that gets administered in routine immunizations around the world. But those cohorts of births or children who are getting these regular vaccines are in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of units. So I think, yes, there's going to be certain aspects of health care where you are absolutely trading off profits for impact. But I also think that there are certain niches in health care where you don't have to make that tradeoff and you can kind of have your cake you need it to. Yeah, I would agree with that, Jenny. I think that's a great point. I think at the end of the day, it boils down to it's important to have a viable business plan at the end of the day, right? So if you can generate maybe a smaller profit across a large population, that could be very viable. In other situations, you've got to balance it a little bit differently. But in order for them to be successful businesses, they do have to generate a profit and reinvest in the business and expand so they can have a broader, deeper impact on the populations that they're trying to treat and care for. Yeah, and James, actually, while you're on that, I wanted to ask you two things. Somebody had a question here around penetrating an established market and it made me think of one of the things we've all talked about in the past, too, around sort of the elephant in the room, which is sometimes government, right? And so the role of government in policy vis-a-vis health companies and all that regulation and so on, and that shifting landscape. So what do you see is the kind of the unique opportunities and challenges of working in that type of highly regulated market? Sure, it is complex. So first and foremost, it's a complex industry and environment. The government is obviously heavily involved in the biggest payer in the industry, right? So you really have to understand that policy and the dynamics and different administrations obviously have different thoughts on how best to develop policy and the regulatory environment and so forth. But it is a balance and you really need to understand what the nuances are and the expectations for the future in terms of reimbursement. And you need to be ahead of changes in policy so that you can help the company's position for success. That requires a pretty deep understanding of the broader macro issues such as policy and the regulatory environment. And so health care is difficult in the sense that you need to have sort of a deep knowledge and to the extent that there are people who have health care expertise, I think that's going to be very beneficial operating in this particular environment with the changes that are sometimes outside of the control of the company and the entrepreneurs. Roger, any thoughts on that? In terms of government and yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think James laid it out as like they're the largest player. So you can't ignore it. I think we have companies that directly go after opportunities that are created because of Medicaid programs. We have other players that strangely enough, you don't have a lot more traction with commercial payers and then over time they grow their business to address like a Medicare market. And so we kind of see it in every direction. You're always aware of what call policy will dictate. I think COVID has brought up opportunities that people didn't expect because of relaxation of policy. You know, telehealth as an obvious example of just the explosion there because relaxation of rules requiring in person visits. And that kind of disruption, you know, as seldom happens immediately with government. But I do think it's interesting. You know, it's a little bit like once the, you know, we've kind of opened that box and I don't think you're going to put it completely back to the way it was. I do actually want to address the whole profit thing. I mean, you have to remember, you know, a lot of the health care providers in this country are not for-profit providers. But, you know, what's your definition of profit in those cases? We still have hospital system CEOs that make $5 million. Is that, you know, these are not for-profit organizations. And so I think when I think about our companies and their profits, you know, their early stage investments, they reinvest those profits to grow. You know, they ask for investors who, you know, want to return. But those profits help us grow, help these companies grow. And if we did our jobs right, as they grow, there's more positive impact being produced by these companies. And they can grow at a faster rate because, you know, people see the opportunity for these companies to gain value. And so I don't see that inherent conflict that a lot of people do. But maybe this is a juicy conversation for every so cap. Yeah. And maybe I could just add one more thing on the role of government. I think we think of oftentimes the government as a payer, as a customer that you're ultimately selling into or providing services. But, you know, from my perspective, because we are our Life Sciences Investment Fund, there are a lot of push and pull incentives to get these clinical innovations out into the market as well. And so, you know, we oftentimes work with, you know, BARDA, DARPA, NIH, all the alphabet soup organizations of the US government to actually de-risk some of the technical and clinical aspects of our investment. Not only is that a huge stamp of approval because they're world-renowned scientists at these organizations helping guide these companies forward, but it's also, you know, non-dilutive funding that can then de-risk certain projects. So that's kind of the push of, you know, role of government. The pull incentives is also just the government acting as a customer exactly to what Roger and James was saying. So I want to recognize that, you know, governments broadly speaking can play multiple roles within the healthcare ecosystem. Yeah, absolutely. And I wanted to ask, too, and I think this is a question that has come up. I feel like it's not the alphabet in the room, but it's definitely top of mind for a lot of folks right now is Theranos, for example. I just want to put that example out there. It's a very flashy, well-covered example. Right? And Roger, we talked about this earlier around sort of what that had been considered an impact investment. Obviously, it's a bad apple, right? It kind of, it went quite horribly pear-shaped. I want to use more fruit metaphors, but so how would you, would you think about that and like are there lessons to be learned there as an impact investor? And have we, I guess the larger question is, you know, is there a concern that we've all woken up and said, oh, all healthcare investing is impact investing? Of course we're saving lives, as Erin mentioned here in the chat, like kind of how are we, really what is that differentiation for you? I know we've touched on it before, but. I mean, the idea and the concept is certainly compelling of being able to provide diagnostics, you know, it's a pretty revolutionary idea. And so I think the fault of the investors, I would assume is, and probably the company, was that, well, it actually didn't work. And so, you know, having read Bad Blood, it's like I would expect that any of us would do more diligence than just sort of trust us it works. Right. And I think that goes back to that continuous engagement of like, you know, I think we refine our impact measures over time as the company has more data and more support for the efficacy. And I would expect the buyers would need the same thing. That was our assumption going in that the buyers wanted to have proof that the thing works. And clearly that did not happen. So it's a cautionary reminder, but I wouldn't say that I don't see it as necessarily inherently something that ruined the industry in any way. Yeah, I totally agree. Theranos was just playing fraud. So, and there's fraud in almost any industry. And so, yeah, the idea was great, but it just like, there was no science behind it and no data behind it. And that was the issue. Yeah, I also think, I mean, I think we're actually, to some extent we are opening our eyes to healthcare in a different way. One of the things that we think about though, is we're looking for those opportunities that are not just incremental benefits and changes. This company has something that is meaningful or significant in terms of the opportunity to impact. And so there is that gradation, if you will, of what is the impact relative to the status quo today for that particular technology, your solution. But I think healthcare, it's opening up in terms of the opportunities around impact. And I'm excited about that. I also think the industry is, at least from my perspective and I see what I've seen is greater engagement and support for innovation. There seems to be more of a culture of innovation in the industry, more adoption. And that's really a phenomenal thing to see. For many years, it was really kind of protecting the status quo and it feels like things are opening up and we're seeing the emergence of some wonderful new technologies that can make a difference. And so I'm excited about where we are right now, but I do think there's gonna be a lot of opportunities in healthcare. I'm kind of curious, you've talked about that future healthcare system, right? And that being a litmus test a little bit for you, James, around sort of what is this investment gonna move us closer to our goal of a modern and equitable and improved healthcare system? Or is it gonna maybe keep us in a status quo or maybe even take us back? And we've talked about like the healthcare system maybe being so far behind for the United States in any case in the first world or country. I'm curious why you think we are so, we have been so antiquated and we haven't had the right, what have been the roadblocks, right? For those sort of innovations that we're seeing now? Well, and again, I'm more focused on healthcare services, tech-enabled services and healthcare technology. So not necessarily speaking to life sciences and biotech and pharma, that's a little bit different, but within healthcare services and technology, I think one of the most significant changes is electronic medical records. I think that has been the basic plumbing, if you will, in the infrastructure that is required for all these new ancillary technologies that are emerging, whether it's, you know, frankly, you know, virtual care, data analytics and all kinds of new innovations, it couldn't happen without that basic plumbing in place, which is electronic medical records. Great, and Roger and Jenny, we're going to weigh in on sort of what the some of the reasons are that we've been sort of slower to innovate perhaps in some of the economies in this space. Yeah, so I guess from my perspective, because I am, you know, more in the life sciences and research and research and development, I actually take a little bit of the opposite approach because like, look at our mRNA vaccines that hopefully most of us have by now, that took 11 months from when the sequence was, was, you know, kind of announced to the world to actually an FDA, EUA, like that is phenomenal. And if you compare that to kind of prior vaccines that were developed that took years, if not a decade or more, I become very, very optimistic and hopeful that some of these paradigm shifts that you need in kind of clinical innovation will continue. But I also recognize that I'm in a segment of healthcare that actually depends on clinical innovation to work. And I might have a different perspective than James and Roger. I think I feel similar to Jenny and that obviously we're capable of remarkable innovation when the needs demand, but I'm also, you know, not as optimistic on the public health side, our ability to kind of roll out effective treatments and, you know, innovations that work and are cost-effective and the barriers to getting those to market is as much of the picture that gives the perception of things being slow. And, you know, I did it a day, I think maybe there's an element of people the way we communicate, like, you know, our roles in the system. And I think actually I see that a lot of our companies, like the communication of what they're actually selling and how it's better than other options or for particular populations, I think that continues to be a challenge with healthcare is like just a communication with patients who could benefit. So Roger, that's one of the areas that I was thinking about as I was talking about technology and healthcare services and tech-enabled services. I think life sciences to Jenny's point is very different within healthcare technology, digital health, for example, it really couldn't happen prior to having electronic medical records and all the basic technology in place, but now we're seeing incredible innovation around digital health and digital patient engagement. For some reason healthcare services has been, right, 15, 20 years behind, whether it's the auto industry or luxury travel, you go down the list, right? You've been able to do things very easily through your phone or a laptop. Healthcare has been a laggard in that respect. And I think now it's opening up and we're starting to see some great, great progress in that respect. So I'm a little more hopeful in how we will in the future engage with patients and truly impact their healthcare and health wellness and preventative care as well. Virtual care is, I think, a big step forward. And with COVID, as you mentioned earlier, the genies kind of out of the bottle with telemedicine and virtual care and digital engagement possible at home is a very effective way to provide higher quality care in a better setting at a lower cost. And that leveraging technology to engage with the patient in new ways that has never been done before, I think we're gonna be able to really make a difference in the quality of care. And if I could add on to that, one of the things that there's like structural inefficiencies in the way our healthcare system works in that the payers don't know what you're being treated for until months later. And their awareness and their visibility into the actual what the providers are doing and then the incentive structures around like affordability and cost savings, there are things that will save money, but then it's like, well, who's gonna pay for that? Are the providers going to pay for that? And that could result in a short-term hit to their revenues. And we like to think that at the end of the day that we're all kind of motivated for patient outcomes, but I think there's this near-term, hospitals have to make these decisions or providers have to make these decisions about like, okay, so am I going to cut off my access to revenue so I can do this, make this system change? So I think that's part of why you see this drag. And unfortunately, you know, a lot of times as investors, we end up like, I think Jenny gets to do some of the cool stuff but here we're in like the bowels of like the payment, you know. Yeah. Well, Roger, to that point though, I'd say that the Affordable Care Act actually was an impetus for collaboration between payers and providers. And in fact, we have seen risk sharing and new payment models and value-based care and where the incentives are aligned. And I think that's also a key component to creating change and improving quality and outcomes. If you're taking risk and it's based upon quality and outcomes, you know, that's a differentiator. So I think that also is going to be, it is very helpful to where we're taking this over the next, you know, five, 10 years. And I've got a question. I know we've got some great things popping up in the chat as well. And I do want to address those but just wanted to kind of think a little bit about to the whole impact management project, sort of ABC categorization. And I hopefully some of the call who joined us are familiar with that, but sort of, A, is avoiding harm. We as benefiting stakeholders, C is contributing to solutions, right? And I think a lot of times us as the impact investors, we talk who are kind of, think they fit squarely in that C category. And then sometimes impact can be squeezed out, right? By maybe taking an A company and moving it closer to a C, right? And so I wanted to know kind of, what is that bag of carrots and sticks that might be able to be applied with a company that would kind of enhance the impact that might not otherwise be there. And then I think also speaks to the additionality or the fund manager contribution to impact in this case. And you all have some experience with that, but maybe Jenny, you can talk a little bit about how you approach that at Agibent. Yeah, sure. And I like to say this, but I see I know the shoulders of giants and this playbook that Agibent uses to increase its global health impact comes from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation where I came from. But we essentially for every single one of our portfolio companies ask them to assign a legally binding global access agreement. And this global health agreement essentially uses a carrot and a stick approach. The stick is that, you know, they're pricing, quantity, manufacturing, fulfillment, physical access, registration licensures, all those commitments that a company will make to us. And so that's the stick because these are legally binding commitments and there are consequences if those things don't happen. And then the carrot approach is we get our hands dirty and to one of the comments I just saw in chat about, you know, more intentional matchmaking within global health partners, that's exactly what Agibent does. So if for an example, we are working with a women's health or contraceptive company and they mostly have a commercialization engine in the US, we may want to pair them with DKT and PSI and all the stakeholders in the family planning space to be the commercial partner in lower and middle income countries. And we are very deliberate in these things and we form what we call them joint steering committees and global access committees, but we roll up our sleeves and do all the match banking that needs to happen on the ground level. And we totally recognize that it's extraordinarily challenging. And, you know, but I also think to myself, like if I think about all the challenges, like I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning. And so we're just trying to tackle it at one challenge at a time, you know, get some low hanging fruit, quick wins so that we can demonstrate to the broader global health community that some of these things can work. Right, Roger or James, anything you'd like to add in terms of that bag of care and sticks that you apply or how you think about, you know, and even like, I know for example, in your case, Roger actually, you know, the impact engine portfolio is, you know, maybe about a quarter or approaching a quarter of healthcare investments, but you also invest in other sectors as well. And I'm just kind of curious also over the last year and a half, you know, are there lessons learned from COVID or are there things that have been happening? Like how do you, you know, that you've applied, we've got health lens looking at your other portfolio companies, for example. Squeezing that extra impact out from a healthcare perspective, whether it's a health investment or perhaps not a health investment, if that makes sense. Yeah, I mean, I like to think of, you know, we partner with our companies as I don't think we wield too much of a stick other than I guess the threat of no funding. But when we develop our investment thesis, you know, one of the things we really is super important to us is the impact metrics that we report on are aligned with their KPIs or ideally are the KPIs of the company, for that it's not like something bespoke that they have to calculate or has ambiguity in it. That was a concern because like I said, they're early stage companies and sometimes, you know, numbers can sound good, but they might not be grounded in reality. And so we actually don't have huge amounts of specific measures. We like them to be this a small number, a handful that they pay attention to all the time. And then, you know, in terms of our support is re-strategized to help them kind of grow those. I mean, that's the goal. You know, I was thinking about the impact to COVID. You know, it was obviously such a huge disruption. And what was surprising, I guess, and this is maybe something that's kind of challenging for the maybe the startup community in general is it felt like through it all, most of the companies with actually governmental support like PPP loans or other resources were able to kind of come out of it stronger. And I don't know if we've actually done a full post-mortem on exactly why companies have come out of it strong because we're not done yet, unfortunately. But I do think a certain level of resilience was required to make it through and I think that's what we've seen. James, how about from your perspective, you're a later stage investor and kind of thinking about COVID and like what is sticky, if you will, to use a common term right around like some of the phenomena that we're seeing and what the big changes and what's what kind of, as you looked like the next five years, let's say, kind of what are the things from your vantage point as a later stage investor that make you particularly hopeful or big fundamentals, ground ships that you might be seeing? Well, we are later stages, you know, where we invest in growth stage companies, so they're not early, but at the same time, they're not yet scaled and so we wanna be careful not to burden the companies with too much extra effort. And to Roger's point, I think we really try to work within their KPIs as best as possible as it relates to kind of tracking and measuring and reporting. But we also engage very early and up front, we talk about, you know, the opportunity and the benefits and the culture that they can help to create when they're thinking about impact and the lens of impact. And it really does position them for success, we think, in the future, as well as they think about maybe transitioning into the public markets and having all of that kind of infrastructure and culture lined up around ESG, there are real tangible benefits today to those kinds of elements and access to capital should increase to the extent that, you know, you're positioning yourselves effectively. And, you know, it's also something helpful to share with the customers and clients the narrative around the good work that you're doing and the technology, the technological benefits and so forth. So, you know, we like to have those discussions and make it easy on them. I'm very hopeful about the next five years because there seems to be a broad based sort of tailwind for these kinds of activities across the capital markets and in the public markets as well as now in the private markets and so I'm excited about what lies ahead and I think people recognize that there is value to doing these things that we're talking about to position them for further success in the future. Great, Jenny, you wanted to sort of, as we're approaching the end of the session here, I wanted to also give you an opportunity to share kind of what that next five years might look like from your perspective and what gives you hope, what gives you pause and maybe even kind of go forward and say, like are there maybe, is there one big thing that you would advise everybody on this call? So, if you want it, if you're inspiring healthcare impact investor to kind of keep in your back pocket to use as that sniff test as you're approaching an opportunity. Yeah, I think for me this renowned focus on infectious disease and how global health is truly global meaning that you can't just solve a health issue in one neighborhood or in one country and not solve it elsewhere. I think COVID has really, really, really put that at the forefront of not just kind of the nation psyche but investors mindset, investors, investors mindset, et cetera, et cetera. So, I think when you have kind of this renewed attention and almost a cause driven attitude, great things will happen. And I'm seeing that a little bit right now, right? Because I was on another panel on just broadly antimicrobial resistance and how do you actually build up the pipeline in antibiotics? And this has nothing to do with this particular panel but there are now kind of push and pull mechanisms, new push and pull mechanisms that are coming from the US government and the UK government. And it's all trying to address some of these root cause issues of sustainability and who pays for what, who gets to benefit from profits and how much profit is reasonable. And to even have some of those discussions to have this notion that you need these whole mechanisms in place that was spurred by COVID, that was spurred by some of the other kind of major global health challenges that we're facing right now, that gives me hope. And I think as a still emerging manager and young investment fund, I think that then creates, that gives us a pipeline, that gives us a kind of a cause to recruit the best talent into the firm, et cetera, et cetera. So. And Roger, what about you? What does that five year outlook look like for you? And I mean, I know, like, you know, some of the trends from COVID, we see like an explosion of mental health startups and so on, right? There's all these sort of intersectional kind of epidemics and pandemics and things like that. I mean, you can get down to your point around climate, you know, around healthcare investing being, you know, affecting, it's borderless, right? And climate change is borderless and so many of these issues are. But, you know, Roger, what does that look like for you the next five years and what are the ground shifts that you see? I mean, that's a big question. I mean, one of the things I wanted to say is I'm really appreciative of the questions and comments in the chat room. It was sort of super high quality and super engaging. It was like very thought-provoking. I've been like reading these questions over and over and really thinking like, do I have an answer for that? I mean, I think more specifically, I feel like the timing is good for solutions that work to scale. I think there's an openness. We're excited about one of our portfolio companies called Work at Health. They have what we feel like is a pretty groundbreaking addiction treatment product that is very effective, very cost effective and is kind of unlocked because of new rules around telehealth. And we do feel like their ability to grow is super fast, which is kind of interesting that the pandemic has kind of set the stage for people to be open to be like, here's something innovative that works. Let's really accelerate the growth of that. And I think there's investor appetite to support companies to do that. And so I'm excited about being able to kind of just things that work, have an opportunity to grow fast. And I think that that's super exciting, especially because every day their reach expands is more of an opportunity to save lives. Yeah, sometimes small is beautiful and sometimes small is beautiful, but always still small, right? So those questions of scaling, right? I think that that is so essential when we think of, because we're investing, right? And I think we ultimately, right, we have a great solution you wanted to scale and you can create a lot of impact that way as well. I know we're out of time. I wanted to thank everybody in the chat, really fascinating conversation, great questions. Echo that Roger, James, Jenny, Roger. Thank you so much. We could talk for a lot longer on this. Really appreciate you joining us.