There is not so much of a mismatch between policy and funding as there is a mismatch between policy for personalized care and actual personalized care. Funding is needed for the latter, and if the former doesn't understand how money is spent by the latter, that's where the mismatch resides. The only way to solve is to create a detailed Information and Process view (done within EIP AHA A2) where policy makers, carers and seniors are identified with everything else in between. This is the only way to identify the common language, not just the common innovation language in the Blueprint.

We are aiming to evolve to a sustainable health and care system and I'd guess that in the current climate that means we do not want to see spending exceed current proportions of GDP. In this context we need to see EIP on AHA develop: - arguments for transitionary funding that will enable transition to a more sustainable system where the transitionary funding is not expected to continue indefinitely. - enablers that look at how funding can be reallocated incrementally as old services are decommissioned and new services are introduced

Here Smart Specialisation is a key driver. Look to Vanguard Initiative.

Thanks very much, Patrick and Eklund. Very good comments. Christina, I will look at your comment how to integrate it with a bit more explanation. We know Vanguard very well.