Thank you for the questions and comments. Again, I’m pleased for the constructive manner in which you have engaged in the conversation, and your welcome for the review. The IPFR review is exactly that: it is a review. I’m not asking people to sign up to what comes from it. The report will have recommendations. I’m just going to deal first with your point about the practical delivery. I would expect the report will come up with options and recommendations, and we then have to decide what to do. So, the practical delivery will be a matter for the Government to make choices over, but also the health boards then to practically implement as well. We will need to be up front about how that happens and the consequences that has. Equally, on your final point, it’s the recognition, when you have finished, of all the difficult choices that are made and what different patients want from their treatment. Different people make different choices, and there are ethical dilemmas in each of the choices that a patient would wish to make, together with the practical but very difficult principled decisions that people with these responsibilities have about how to allocate resources and priorities. This review will not be a silver bullet that will make everything easy for us. But it should provide a properly objective way to reassure ourselves about the manner in which the system is being run—that it is fair, that it is rational, and that people can understand the reason by which these prioritisation decisions are made.

If I can just deal with the point around the funding—no, sorry, the annual report on IPFRs. You asked about that, and I want to be clear that that report was previously published by Public Health Wales. There will now be an annual report published by the AWMSG. It should be published by the autumn at the latest—by September at the latest—so you should have all those data available. Those will be available for the review panel to see as well, which I hope will be helpful. Again, to be fair, you’ve mentioned the point about a patient advocate to ensure that the patient voice is heard, and that is simply a way of getting active consideration to ensure that the patient voice is there, and is real, and is properly taken account of, whether it is by a stakeholder reference group, and how that view is fed in—and, indeed, making sure that members of the panel properly take that into account. You can see that visibly in the way that the report is done. So, that is a fair point that has been taken on board.

On your broader points about the new treatment fund, I can confirm the £80 million is additional to the health budget. That’s £80 million over the course of the Government. I can also confirm that, in terms of how the new treatment fund will actually deliver new treatments, these will be approved treatments, so NICE- and AWMSG-approved treatments are what the new treatment fund will deliver, to ensure they deliver practically and quickly. So, I was concerned to hear what you had to say about the hepatitis C medication that we funded centrally. If you have practical examples of where that has not been delivered to constituents then I’ll be very interested to hear from you, and I would encourage you to write to me with those examples so I can take them up.

But in terms of the broader point you make about the condition, and the difference between treating a condition and preventing a future condition, well, this is part of the difficulty in the approval process for approved medications and treatments. It’s why we have a proper, objective appraisal process that doesn’t involve politicians, so it’s about that difficult choice of the patient benefit versus the cost of the treatment, and there are lots of ethical considerations in it, and lots of practical difficulties in terms of how we value that treatment as well. That’s why we have the two bodies that we rely on to give us that authoritative and evidence-based advice. Even that still produces difficult choices for decision makers at health board level, at clinician level and of course for politicians too. So, as I say, the reviews that we’re undertaking for the IPFR and the new treatment fund that we’re going to introduce won’t resolve all of our difficult issues, but I do think they’ll help to ensure there is greater and more equitable access to treatments across the piece, and that also we have some reassurance about a properly rational basis for us to make those decisions now and in the future.