Thank you for the three areas of questions. If I deal first with the financial point, then—you're right that the new treatment fund is not there to pay for all of the costs of medicines. It simply would not. If I can sort of point out, in the last three years, expenditure on new recommended medicines increased by a third, from £186 million to £247 million annually. So, the new treatment fund could not possibly fill that gap. This is about making sure there is, as I say, more consistent access, geographically and in timescales. We've actually managed to squeeze down the timescale in which the new recommended medicines will be available by introducing the fund. That's the express purpose and point of it. We recognise that there were some potential variations that, on an equitable basis, you couldn't and you should not try to live with. So, the fund is delivering against that point and purpose at this point in time, but, again, as you and others in the room do, I look for further improvement to ensure we have full compliance.

On your point about older drugs, there are two points—older drugs that are still appropriate as treatment options, and older drugs where new purposes are found. On the one, there’s a point about the licensing and availability and the evidence base for the use of those in a different way, but, where it’s still an appropriate clinical treatment, then, again, that goes into clinicians still being charged to use their judgment to actually provide the most clinically appropriate treatment.

A good example has been with a debate we previously had on hepatitis C. Actually, clinicians together, by forming an effective network, supported and challenged by peers, haven’t just agreed different ways to make use of new medications, but also the particular brandings within those about the drugs they use altogether. Actually, they’ve driven down the drugs bill and, at the same time, raised the effectiveness of the treatment they are providing. So, it doesn’t mean that every single indication we have means that older drugs are simply passed over. Those drugs that are appropriate remain on the formulary and it is for clinicians to actually then properly and appropriately prescribe.

On your broader point on the new treatment fund for those issues that are not medicine related, well, we’ve thought about the new treatment fund, and I made clear this is actually about the provision of medicines. So, other forms of treatment are about the rest of the funding within the national health service, whether that is, for example, new forms of radiotherapy or chemotherapy, whether that is, for example, other new surgical techniques, or whether it is forms of physiotherapy and others, as you’ve indicated. But, in many of these fields, it’s actually about how we consistently apply what we already know, and that is much of our challenge about quality improvement in experience terms but also in outcome terms as well.

If you look at the significant progress we’ve made in the area of cardiac rehabilitation, for example, it wasn’t learning something new that saw that significant improvement that was welcomed by the British Heart Foundation so that they then branded us as world leaders in this field, it was actually about the more consistent application, using a multi-disciplinary team, to better meet the needs of patients that had already been understood.

So, this new treatment fund is about medicines—faster, rapid access, on a more consistent basis, to effective medication. Those other issues are different quality improvement challenges for our service, which I’m sure you and I and others will return to on many occasions in the future.