Republican congressman and orthopedic surgeon Tom Price, President-elect Trump’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, spent as much time this morning defending his character as he did defending his vision of healthcare for all Americans. Nothing he said precluded the Senate committee conducting his hearing from recommending that he get the job, although several key questions remain—and must be raised before the Senate confirms him.

Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee were particularly interested in Price’s desire to privatize Medicare and replace the Affordable Care Act with something less comprehensive, and they harshly criticized him for drafting legislation that favored companies he’d invested in.

Such questions are of paramount importance, because, if confirmed, the six-term Georgia Republican will oversee vast social programs and lead the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services, with a budget of $1 trillion, is the world’s largest source of funding for medical research, and it sets the course for how the national healthcare system navigates the increasingly digitized world of personal health data.

Price would have broad oversight over FDA policies regulating drugs, medical devices, and diagnostic tests. That made lawmakers particularly interested in allegations, reported by CNN, TheNew York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, that Price traded more than $300,000 worth of stocks in companies that stood to benefit from legislation he supported or drafted. Three Democratic senators tried unsuccessfully to postpone Price’s hearing pending an inquiry into whether he violated House ethics rules; when that effort failed, they questioned the candidate directly.

An important question to be sure, but here are equally important questions to consider when Price faces his formal confirmation hearing on Jan. 24.

How should the federal government ensure that every American has access to affordable health insurance?

The biggest question facing Republicans eager to repeal the Affordable Care Act is how to cover the roughly 20 million people now insured under the law. So far, no one’s offered a detailed plan.

Price has some ideas. He has introduced the Empowering Patients First Act each year since the ACA took effect in 2010. It would replace current income-based subsidies with age-based tax credits, which helps those who are young and healthy but not the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions. His legislation, which never gained traction, would have rolled back the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid, a program that covers more than 12 million low-income Americans.

Asked today where he stands on the government’s role in providing access to affordable healthcare, Price said it is imperative that all Americans “have the opportunity to gain access” to insurance coverage. He did not say exactly how that might happen. Pressed on Trump’s promise to provide “insurance for everybody,”Price said, “I am committed to making sure every single American has the coverage they want.” Again, he offered no specifics.

What Americans want is to pay less for the coverage they already have. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released last month found 67 percent of Americans consider reducing healthcare costs the top priority. Just 20 percent want to see Obamacare end immediately. If Republicans intend to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they’re going to need something to replace it. Failing to provide an immediate alternative could result in as many as 32 million people losing coverage by 2026, according to a report the Congressional Budget Office released yesterday.

Price said the Trump administration could provide details on its plan as early as March. Congress must press him to explain how a replacement would make insurance more affordable without drastically increasing government spending. During the hearing, several senators mentioned a 2015 Congressional Budget Office report that found repealing the ACA could raise the federal deficit by $353 billion. Senators must press Price on these figures, as it may be the public’s best chance to understand the financial repercussions of the GOP’s plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

How do you plan to alter the national Medicare programs, which can be changed without an ACA repeal, while protecting the low-income elderly?

Medicare, which covers more than 55 million Americans, has for 50 years guaranteed healthcare to seniors. Polls consistently show people rank it second only to Social Security in importance. President-elect Trump has promised not to touch it, but Price—who has long favored privatizing the program—said last month that a Republican-controlled Congress could privatize Medicare this year.

The tools are certainly in place. Even with the threat of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, Republican leaders could use a parliamentary maneuver (that budget reconciliation loophole again) to radically remake Medicare with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress. Trump has stated his opposition to such a plan, but anything is possible in this political climate.

Price recently drafted a budget that would have cut spending on Medicare by $449 billion over the next ten years. When Senator Elizabeth Warren asked him how that squared with Trump’s pledge to not to touch Medicare or Medicaid, Price said money was the wrong metric. “I believe the metric ought to be the care to the patients.”

While that non-answer is cause enough to believe that cuts to the program are in store, Congress should determine whether Price plans to tailor his proposals to align with Trump’s promises.

How will your anti-abortion views impact your oversight of the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health?

Trump's views on abortion and reproductive rights are fluid, but his vice president, Mike Pence, and others in his administration staunchly oppose abortion. Price has a long record opposing a woman's right to choose and enjoys a “100 percent” rating from the National Right to Life. In 2005, he co-sponsored a bill that would have defined human life as beginning at conception, which would have banned most abortions.

Price has also supported a nationwide ban on abortions after 20 weeks, so-called “conscience clauses,” that let doctors dictate the reproductive health care they provide based on their personal and religious beliefs, and the right of insurance companies to deny coverage for birth control on those moral grounds. He also fully supports defunding Planned Parenthood.

As the nation’s top health official, Price also will make and enforce policy regarding fetal tissue and embryonic stem cell research.

Researchers use tissue from aborted fetuses and embryonic stem cells to study early disease development and explore experimental therapies for a wide range of ailments. President Obama advanced such work by easing restrictions enacted by President Bush, and last year the National Institutes of Health provided about $260 million to work in that area. The future of such research faces an uncertain future under the Trump administration.

Although some lawmakers asked Price to explain how his proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act might impact women, no one asked him about abortion or stem cell research. That’s another question that must be asked—and answered—before Price can be confirmed.