Good. All righty. Thank you for joining us. Sorry for running a few minutes late here. Very pleased to have CEO and CFO from Aveanna Healthcare. For anyone that does not know about this company, I just want to point out this thing is up 1,700% since you took ownership in end of 2022. Started off as a sub one distressed equity, not making payroll. Here we are, 14x with leverage. I will get into arguably too low. This big move at 1,700%, that is not so bad. This move has been basically been primarily moving into preferred networks, which is structurally involved your entire company. Can you just talk about the preferred network strategy in each of the segments, and where are we in terms of innings for each segment as we think about this over a one, two, three, five-year window, and when it can start fully penetrate and start growing typically at more "market growth?" Sounds great. I want to take the compliment because you were one of the people who pointed out how bad we sucked on the way down from $10 back to $1. I just want to say thank you, Pito, for giving us some kudos on the other side of it, as you certainly brought out some of the realities to us back in 2021, 2022. As you said, Pito, we have been on a multi-year journey. Matt and I, and Debbie Stewart, our Chief Financial Officer, all took our roles in early 2023. Coming out of COVID, we absolutely needed a strategy that dealt with the lack of caregiver capacity in our businesses. Obviously, with the hyper wages that all happened through the COVID period. We are in year four now of our preferred payer strategy, government payer strategy. Both are continuing to work incredibly well. As you talked about in each one of our businesses, we underpin our growth and where our clinicians. Our focus every day is to know where every one of our clinicians is going, why they are going there, not just the patients they are seeing, but who is the payer of the patient they are seeing, and is that payer in our preferred network? It is really the allocation of our clinical capacity. Start with our largest division, our Private Duty Services division. 80% of our revenue is in Private Duty Services. It is our most mature preferred payer market or segment. At the end of Q2, we had 37 preferred payer arrangements. Roughly 64% of our total volumes are in one of those arrangements. That is up from 57% at the end of the year. So nice movement year to date. And really, seven preferred payer wins in 2026 to date and a couple more that we plan to announce the second half of the year. We're going to end You can answer right now if you want. Oh, thank you. Yeah, this is being webcast. Oh, this is live. Sorry, we're live here. I'll give out the winning lottery ticket here in a few minutes. But really going to end up being a great year for PDS. I'm sure we're going to get to California. We're going to talk about some of the government affairs wins as well. But really continued to be a great momentum with our PDS preferred payers. They want more. Even our very first preferred payer is still with us today. Matter of fact, I think the CEO was here this morning. You guys were talking to her. So they've been a great preferred payer for us. They're still with us. They still want more capacity from us. So our very first preferred payer, we're about 55% of their census in the specific state. We signed that first contract four years ago, and they still want us to take more. They want more nurses, they want more of our capacity because it truly is bending the total cost of care for them. So excited about where PDS goes. Flipping over quickly to Home Health and Hospice. Also really excited about where our Home Health and Hospice teams are. We have 50 preferred payer agreements. Think of those as episodic agreements, both Medicare and Medicare Advantage, but all episodic in nature. 81% of our business is aligned with an episodic contract in Home Health. That is, we believe it's industry-leading, certainly to the higher end of the industry, and we're growing 15.5% year over year organically in the Home Health business. Really, really proud of that. Lastly, but not least, we've just finished the Medical Solutions modernization in 2025, coming in early 2026, and we've got our first 20 preferred payers identified. We're really working that preferred payer progress process in the Medical Solutions. It's still, Matt and I would tell you, it's in its infancy stages, but proud to be bringing the preferred payer strategy to Medical Solutions as well. Yeah. One of my biggest pushbacks on you the last couple of years has been your conservatism, which is, he should be whipped over there. Absolutely. If anyone is bored, I would tell you to look at Bloomberg Surprise in terms of street numbers versus active numbers, and you are beating by 80% or 50%. It is maybe guiding the street to be too low. I guess, if I think about growth in 2026 and growth in 2027, you gave sort of put out sort of long-term growth rates here. Yep. If I think about this, how much a percent of those long-term growth rates are coming from just overall market growth? How much are coming from sort of market share or preferred networks? How much is even coming from just simplistically these sort of very sick kids that are stuck in hospitals that do not actually have way of getting home? Let me start with why we got to the long term, and Matt will jump in with the actual growth rates by segment. You were kind enough at the end of Q1 to remind us how much we beat consensus by and the fact that that was too much from your professional experience. So, we spent effectively May through the end of July with our board looking at re-underpinning all of our business units, and really the key drivers was we were eight, 15 or 16 months into the One Big Beautiful Bill, and we had enough experience now with 32 states, with 32 Medicaid states, and with the rate wins from 2025, we knew what the rate wins for 2026 were shaping up to be. We had just gotten the California news that we had gotten in the California budget for 2027. That was a big deal for us, 32nd state. Then we hired Capstone to underwrite all 50 states, the impact OBBBA, and specifically, in their best estimation, what would the output be to the pediatric Private Duty Services population? We had strong feelings because we are in it every day, but we really needed a market validation. All of that came together in the summer with the One Big Beautiful Bill is real and it does impact Medicaid. We know that. It does not primarily target pediatric PDN, and if anything, our pediatric PDN population is incredibly well-insulated. States are going to continue to invest generally into pediatric PDN care because it is a winning solution for them. The other thing that was helpful was we're big bettors on Home Health, adult geriatric Home Health, and we saw in the 2025 final rule what we thought was a turn in the policy of this administration. When we saw the proposed rule come out in July, it validated. We think Home Health has turned. We think the trough has happened, and we're starting the way back up in Home Health. That was a nice validation for us to re-underwrite the growth algorithm, as Matt will talk about, really gave us confidence. Probably the best word I could give you is clarity. We felt like we had enough clarity at this point to readdress our long-term growth algorithms. Yeah, Pito, I think there was a compliment in there somewhere with 14 consecutive quarters of beating and raising guidance. By huge amounts. You know, baby steps here. Take it back. What, average of 40%-50%? That's been impressive. We've done a pretty nice job as an organization. To echo Jeff here a little bit with our long LRP updates that we had, there was a lot of noise that came out within the OBBBA, and there was quite a bit of noise of just, what is this going to mean to us? Is there going to be friendly fire? Are we going to get clipped by this? Is it just going to be across-the-board cuts that happen in Medicaid? What we have felt since then is absolutely nothing. We have had no interruptions to our authorizations, no interruptions to our start of care, no interruptions to our payment cycles. Everything has just been business as usual in the best possible way out there. As we were even a little bit more conservative at the beginning of the year, just as we wanted to see things, how they settled with the OBBBA. Year to date, seven state rate wins, right on plan with our expectations. Seven additional preferred payers, getting that up to 64% of our MCO volumes from preferred payer contracts themselves. All that's just been more underpinning of just, "Hey, guys, this is the lowest cost setting that anybody can be in. People are going to continue in the PDS services." They're not impacted by the OBBBA. Taking our PDS growth range, LRPs from, 3%-5%, from 2%, 5%, 6%, as well as updating our Home Health and Hospice from that 5%-7% to the 8%, 10%. Even on that one, looking at a positive rate environment for the first time in six years. It was nice to see a proposed rule come out and not have parentheses around it for the first time in five years. Seeing that be 2.4%, 2.5%, that's our expectation going forward as well. That gave us confidence to move that up another 2 percentage on our growth rate. Even on the Medical Solutions side, we kept that at that 8%-10% range. Last quarter, we were right around 9%. We expect that to get back to its single digits or high single digits, low double digits here in the next quarter or two, just as we finish off that modernization effort and put our preferred payer work on that division as well. A lot of great work that the teams have done thoughtfully over the last few years. You can't do it all at once. Focus on one, focus on the next, focus on the next. We've been able to accomplish a lot and get the company to where it is right now. I know we'll get into M&A later, but also all of the execution the last three and a half years has led to, you'd mentioned it, but a significantly improved capital structure, massive deleveraging the balance sheet, producing very nice free cash flow. The other thing that we updated in the LRP was really the M&A update of we were effectively in the 0%-2%, and we updated that to 2%-4%. We've been above that the last two years with Thrive and Family First. My assumption is we'll play on the higher end of that scale, if not above that for the next few years. But we were able to also, with an improved capital structure, lean back into M&A in a more material way. If I have to write an earnings note for Q4 of 2027, so a year from now, and you guys have another big beat, basically it's a different way of asking where could these levels be conservatism? Would it be you keep on driving new preferred contracts? Is it you're driving depth within those contracts? Is it because more states like California reprice their offerings? Or is it just from the SG&A leverage because I don't think you're getting to a whole lot of margin expansion despite SG&A come down 140 basis points a year the past couple of years. Yeah. I would tell you it's growth. Growth is going to be the main driver of that one, and we've done a great job, and I imagine we'll get into California here in a little bit. But California was the last state to move 32 for 32, and we can now just compete in every single state that we're in, Pito. There was the black sheep over there that we just couldn't do anything with. We couldn't hire caregivers; we couldn't provide good clinical outcomes. Families are upset. Kids are stuck in the hospital. With the 1-1 go live of that one, that'll help California. And now in every single state, we're in 39 states, 32 in the PDS division, we can compete. It's never easy. It's never going to be easy. Caregivers are in high demand. There's a lack of caregivers out there. It is also the reason why the preferred payer strategy also works in there. I think if there is a beat that comes out there, it will continue to be on the volume side of things, less on the rate side, just because there continues to be that pent-up demand for our services. I would also say just more of the same. A year from now, with the exception of a little bit more meaningful M&A, I would tell you more of the same, that we are going to continue doing the things that have been incredibly successful for the last three and a half years. Being very effective and efficient in the back office. To your point, getting SG&A leverage, removing some of our AI and automation from the back office, but then collections to the front-facing and scheduling and some other dictation type exercises that are actually in the branch, in the homes, that will bring some efficiencies to us in the future out years in the branches. Continue to drive the preferred payer strategy. I agree with Matt. We have solved the 32 states. We will be back to the table with eight or 10 additional states next year looking for COLA level adjustments, meaning anywhere from 2% to, I would call it, 10%. We have about a third of our states every year that we are winning some form of rate. I think at this point that those are going to be smaller rate enhancements, and we are okay with that. That works in our growth algorithm. I just think doubling down on Home Health. We are living so far above what the industry is living today from a growth standpoint and margin and clinical outcomes. We need to double down on that business with our team. Okay, so California, obviously pretty big sort of shift there, and frankly, I am a little amazed that it came through even though the economic savings of the state is so high. You guys have talked about sort of $10 million. We modeled sort of low $20 million. As you think about the timing of sort of how California comes in, the size of California, and then also, I think you talked about sort of giving rates ahead of time, and I think about it is Q4 2026 versus Q4 2027. Let me start with just the work that was done, then Matt will talk about the wage pass-through side of it. To your point, we are five years into advocating and lobbying for this rate increase. We have had a 40%. There is one PDN rate in the entire state, which is simplistic, does not necessarily make sense for the wage metrics for the state. But one PDN rate of $44.12. We have asked for a 40%. We, the industry, has been asking for a 40% PDN rate increase now for almost five years. I think part of the story is just how if you stay at the table, you keep talking, you keep advocating. We do not leave states when we do not get rate increases. We stay at the table. We fight for our families. I think there is a story here of just staying at it, being committed to the outcome to these families. Ultimately, the last four and a half years, our California business was just slowly dying on a vine with no rate lift. Very few MCO opportunities in the state. Most of our children are still on the Medi-Cal program. The business went from relevant five years ago, last rate increase was eight and a half years ago, to irrelevant or unrelevant for our business model in 2025 and 2026. As the company has been accelerating and growing, California is slowly dying behind the scenes. Clearly, that is about to change in a material way. We are excited to be able to put California back on the map, be relevant. We are one of the two largest providers in the state. We cover the entire state, which is great. The infrastructure is there to be able to go execute. Matt would tell us more about our Q4 plans and how we grow in 2027. Yeah. Really excited for our patients and our families, most importantly. It has been eight and a half years since our last rate increase there, and in that time period, COVID happened, hyperinflation, nurse caregiver inflation. It has been a tough environment for the last five years out there. In Q4, we are actually going to front-run this wage pass-through a little bit, so we are going to invest a couple million dollars in Q4 to continue the ramp-up period. Think about it in kind of three stages, Pito. The first stage is our current caregivers who are working for us at this time and maybe we are their second job because they had to go work a different position that was paying more in an assisted living facility or a skilled nursing facility. When we are able to move their wages $5 an hour, $6 an hour, $7 an hour, they are going to want to pick up more shifts for us, and that will focus on our patients themselves and getting their fill rates up from their authorized hours. Next step is going to be the caregivers who used to work for us. They love home care. They love the one-on-one patient experience. They love the patients, the families. They love also it being 2.5 mi down the road from them instead of driving 25 mi into the city to provide care. Those are going to be the next ones that we pull over. They are already up on compliance. They probably have open shifts on the families that they previously worked, and they also, once again, love that home care. We can get them reengaged relatively quickly. Those are probably your two first big jumps that happen on a volume standpoint itself. The next one is- We will do that with our cash flow- Yeah our expense, our risk. It is the right thing to do. It's a good investment. Think of, I think we've talked publicly, think of what should be between an 80% and 85% ideal fill rate. In California, it's somewhere closer to 50% or sub 50% over the last four years. To Matt's point, our goal is to reconnect that with the first two groups that you just talked about over the next three to six months. As soon as the rate table's published by the Medi-Cal department, we'll start that pass-through with the intention to start to reconnect quickly 50%, 55%- 60%, and eventually back to 80%, 85%, and that's at all with our current patients. Yeah. The next step will be just new hires, new patients. Obviously, NICU, PICUs are full in California. There's 10 children's hospital in the state itself. How do we get those beds empty? How do we get those patients home that have been sitting there for six months post-discharge date, eight months post-discharge date, who just don't have nursing care? That's the reason that the state made the investment, because those are the hard dollars that they can recognize very quickly, and the hard savings they can recognize very quickly. We also don't want to take them home until we take care of our current patient base that have stuck with us the entire time, too. So there'll be new caregivers, new hires, new start of cares, new admissions. That'll take time. So the first one will be quicker, the next one will be pretty quick. The next one will take 12, 18, 24 months before you see that actual impact of what this rate is for us, and it's a little bit of the upfront investment that California has to make to get to the savings they desire as well. We saw this in Georgia three years ago. There is one children's hospital in Georgia, so it was easier, but it took us about 120 days to pull 50 or so families out of the hospital and get them home for good. California, will be that times 10. I agree with Matt, this is going to take us and our peers probably close to a year to fully bake in getting an efficient stream of patients out of the hospital. If you think about 2- 4 nurses for every patient we take home from the hospital, you think about how many patients you got to hire to basically empty the chronic medically fragile children out of 10 children's hospitals in the state of California. It is a great growth algorithm for 2027, but it is also a growth algorithm all the way through 2028. I mean, just the talk about collaborating to talk about all those 10 children's hospitals in California, and there are other hospitals where kids are being kept outside those 10 children's hospitals. Obviously with no rate increases for five years, can you quantify the number of, in California, of kids obviously use this for asking the government for money because you are going to quantify how many kids are currently in California stuck? As I think about your other states that you exist in, how big is that number? I think about the states you are not in today, sort of how big is that number? This is not about market share. Yeah. This is just about how many kids sort of in those three buckets are still stuck in a hospital setting. Think about your highest acuity patient. Yeah. In that way, there's no perfect answer because there's no perfect report. Of course. The best we can tell in California, this is information we've shared with the governor's office and the head of the Department of Health Care Services over the last four years, is roughly 4,000 children in California should be receiving at-home Private Duty Nursing daily. In California, they only qualify if they have a vent or trach or both. So it's pretty high level compared to most other states. The best we can tell, the number of kids being serviced is somewhere below 3,000. It's hard to tell at this point, but somewhere sub 3,000. Aveanna and one of our national peers are the two largest only providers that cover the entire state. Right. Think of the opportunity being somewhere around 1,000 or 1,400 kids whose either parents are providing the care daily or are stuck in a hospital somewhere or have been in some kind of long-term institutional care waiting to get home. That is a lot of children. That would take us normally 5, 6, 7, 8 years to admit that many. Thankfully, we have peers in the market, but it just shows you the unlock in California is that significant. The idea for us to take a couple of hundred of new patients home in the state is a big deal in the course of a year. I think we see the growth algorithm in California being a 2- 3 year growth algorithm. Eventually, the new rate will run its course over probably a three year period. But for the next year to two years, we see a clear path to being able to eat into that unlock. Matt said it, but I am going to go back to, if you are a parent of a child who has got to be seen 24 hours a day and you only have 50 hours of nursing care a week, that is the only time you can sleep. That is the only time you can actually eat or go out of the house. The idea that you could get, and your authorization might be up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, or 168 hours a week. The idea that you get nursing up to that and be a human being again is so monumental for these families. I say that to say it is a huge deal for the families in California. It is a big deal for Aveanna. As you know, we have been talking about it for. I was just done talking to you about them. At some point, I was hiding from you about California. Like you, I am glad to have it now be fact and we will be more excited as we get into 2027 where it is in print and we are actually out executing. Outside of that, we have talked about seven states that we are not in, that we want to be in Medicaid. Think of, and I am not picking on the big 10 here, but think of Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, kind of the seven states we are not in PDS that we feel like we need to round out. Our large payer peers are asking us to go to some of these states, specifically Tennessee and Ohio. That is a nice fill in for us. These are large Medicaid systems, large mature Medicaid systems. Not the highest PDN rates, but good mature Medicaid systems. Good Medicaid systems, good population, I'd say. They have good labor force. Good labor. That you can actually hire as well. I think I'm going to echo one thing you said, Jeff. Our preferred payers are asking us to be there. They're asking us to go to Tennessee. They're asking us to go to Ohio. They've got problems, so that's an area that we want to focus on getting there sooner than later. To your point, all new geography, all new preferred payer opportunities. For us, a diversification of a Medicaid portfolio makes a ton of sense. We've seen it with the 32 states. We've really benefited from being in that and taking 37, sorry, 32 closer to 40 long term, to us makes a ton of sense. I guess the same California question is the thing about Tennessee and Ohio, what percent of those orders are getting filled? Not by you guys, but like- Much more robust. I would tell you to the best of our knowledge in those seven states, six of the seven or seven of seven have appropriate rate structures where the rate's not broken. So it's not a California like. For us, to Matt's point, it's the payer saying, "We want you to go there and we have a preferred rate already in place for you, and we want you to help solve some of our problems." Michigan and Ohio are probably the two biggest Medicaid states in those seven states we listed. Those are very large Medicaid states. But they're just important for us. As we round out our portfolio, you talked about 2027, but as we think about 2028, 2029, 2030, us being around a 40 state, 40, 41 state Medicaid provider is probably the ideal. I know you'd like us to be in Montana for personal reasons and maybe Idaho and places like that where the fishing's good and the hunting's good. Eventually we'll get there. But right now we're going to have some more focus where our partners are asking us to be, really. Yeah. Fill in the core states and then we can start thinking about hunting. Matt, just to bring you onto this. We've seen AR reserve tailwinds for the last two consecutive years. Can you keep this going? How much more is there for you to do here? And more in all seriousness, there's been a lot of besides rates and preferred networks and EBITDA growth with the cash flows and a lot of these things happening, like crank it down reserves, can you sort of talk about the other benefits that you've seen in terms of this new operational structure in the last couple of years? That's exactly what it's been, Pito. And this is a surprise we didn't necessarily expect when we rolled out the preferred payer agreements, the preferred payer contracts. They cause us to meet with our preferred payers monthly, quarterly, and you're sitting across the table with them at any given time. And in those conversations, you're working on hospitalization rates, and you're talking about HBR scores and your cohort of patient base and where we're currently sitting at. And you're asking them, "Hey, what problems do you have?" And like, "Hey, these five patients are really difficult for us. There's been rehospitalizations three times. Can you lean into this one?" And in that conversation, they also return the favor and say, "What issues are you having?" It's like, "Well, I've got this AR that's locked up from 2023. It's fully reserved. It's gone through a waterfall process. It's all accounted for, but it missed XYZ paperwork. Can we get that taken care of?" And they're like, "Yeah, sure. Of course. You provided the care, you did what you asked, no problem." That never happened prior to this one, probably because we didn't have somebody to call. Relationships. Previously, we were calling a 1-800 number or a hotline to try to get somebody and I'd get, "No, thanks." It was really the relationships that we built out there with the preferred payer network, that we're getting paid faster, we're resolving issues quicker, and it's just working together as a partner is really the easiest, simplest way to put it. To your point, we've had some tailwinds here with some of that aged AR pickups out there. Those won't last. We've picked up $5 million here or $6 million there, but our reserve rates have never been lower in all three of our divisions in Aveanna history, in the history of it. So between all three of them, our reserve that we're actually booking is the lowest it has ever been. A lot of that is through some automation we've put into place. We've acquired two companies over the last two years. We added Zero to our RCM. We've been able to snap backfills in positions as we've had some turnover occur. We put some automation and some AI technology in there that's really helped us just leverage that piece. You alluded to our SG&A leverage our entire SG&A platform as well. We're going to start pulling that across in 2027 to more of being forward-facing, but we've done a really nice job on the SG&A front with it, too. As a good CFO, he's told me every quarter, there's no more reserve left. Right. He's telling me the same thing whenever I push him on these post earnings calls, and to the point, I just don't buy it anymore. I will validate. Prices are good sometimes. It is such a nice partnership when your payer partner wants to help you solve a claims issue. Many times it is just adjudication of claims that is tough. Matt said it, the fact that our payer partners are wanting to help us solve these issues, it goes against everything that people hear. It is anecdotal, but sometimes people ask me, "What do you do?" I say, "I am in healthcare." They are like, "Oh, you know UnitedHealthcare?" I am like, "Yeah, I know United. They suck." I am like, "They actually don't suck. They are actually good human beings. They actually try really hard to work with their partners and take care of their beneficiaries." I always ask people, "Do you have United as a coverage?" "No, I don't. They just suck." I am like, "Okay. We work with them every day. They are actually great people, and they do a great job. They hold you to a high level of accountability as a provider. They expect high things from you. All of our preferred payers expect high quality from us. But when you treat them as a business partner, they will treat you as a business partner." We have found that to be, to your point on accounts receivable and collections, just a win-win. If I want to put a negative hat on here, this is one of the big debates always happens. We roll into recession. States are required to balance their budget by law. Which means all of a sudden, tax revenues go down and typically costs go up, and therefore the question around Medicaid rates is always there. What happens in your states, whether it's Medicare fee-for-service or managed Medicaid, if we roll into recession, tax revenues collapse, they're looking for savings. Do they really realize enough how much your area is savings, or do you guys just get caught up in just the mass cuts that seem to happen every recession? Let's give you two examples of it, because I think both is the answer. Many of our states are managed Medicaid now. Take Texas as an example. We don't care for any, and I say any, it may be less than 1% of our business is actually Medicaid reimbursed in Texas because 99% of our business is paid through the MCOs, which means the MCOs are at risk, right? They are the capitated risk in that scenario. I would tell you in that scenario, they absolutely understand the cost savings, and they would push us harder for even more savings. Now, they may not give us rate increases, but they would push us harder and harder for lower the HBR percentage in our contract, save us more money. We like that. We like where the answer is the MCO is the person who's responsible for, not balancing the budget, but ultimately is the outsourced Medicaid product. Most Medicaid systems like Georgia, now like California, they understand the value proposition, so we've seen it play through in material rate increases. We have one example of, and it's Colorado, of a state that has a global Medicaid issue, and they've come across with a 2% temporary rate decrease, right? We're part of that. That's been in place now, it's two last fiscal year and this fiscal year. In Colorado, they kind of ran off the tracks in Medicaid, unfortunately. They kind of covered everything, not just PDN, but everything under the sun, and eventually just disconnected rate reimbursement and expenses disconnected. We are actually I hate to say pleased. We understand what Colorado has to go through. We are one of the largest providers of PDN in Colorado, and we are going to be there on the other side of Colorado's fixing their Medicaid product. I would use that as an example of 32 states, well-diversified. Colorado is a big state for us, and we are proud to be there. We are fighting through a 2% temporary rate cut there. But it is one of 32 states that has implemented that. When it is all said and done, our growth algorithm doesn't change because Colorado put a 2% rate decrease. We don't like it, but we will be one of the companies that survives while some of the mom-and-pops and even some of our competitors ultimately cannot be efficient enough to make it through that. Yeah, Colorado also had 10 years in a row. That's fair. of adjusted rate increases every single year, too. So with a pop in there of a 20% one time as well. Right. They have been a great state to operate in and will continue to be a great state to operate in. I think the diversity of our 39 states that we are in is the real big winner there. I would also say, Pito, totally shifting away from the reimbursement structure. If that situation that occurred, which nobody likes to whisper out loud, we are an area that the workforce can come back to. That is well said. Our demand for services is always going to be there. If an LPN or an RN needs to get back in the workforce, maybe they left for a period of time, maybe went to go take care of their own children as they aged and grew up, we are an opportunity for them to reengage into the workforce quickly and to get a paycheck very quickly as well. There is actually a positive on the labor front for us as well because of the demand for the services. I understand where you are getting at on the reimbursement side. We also think just being the lowest cost setting is always going to win out at the end of the day. The moment you are a 10x saving as opposed to an acute care setting, people are going to pay attention to you. That is where we finally got this summer with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was all of the noise about Minnesota, all the noise about California, both states implemented a PDN rate increase over the last 18 months, both states north of 30% PDN rate increase. They did not do it to be wasteful. They did not do it to be despiteful to CMS. By the way, CMS will have had to approve both of those rates, and they approved them in Minnesota. We expect them to approve the California with no drama. Even CMS is saying, "Yes, this is a good place to invest in rate to save total cost of care." Almost all of it, not all of our value-based contracts and our PD, we have 15 value-based contracts. I think this is true to say almost all of them are underpinned by a total cost of care. The only way we earn a bonus is if we are lowering the total cost of care, which I think is a great. We love that because now we have the higher rate, we are paying the higher wage. Now quarter by quarter, we are looking at our cohort of patients and think of that cohort being between 100 patients and maybe 500 patients for the specific payer. If we do not beat the HBR percentage in that cohort, we do not get paid a bonus. Shifting to Home Health a little bit here. It has been a challenging sector the last five years. Several public health companies have gone poof. How do you see the M&A markets today? What do you look for? How good are the assets? Where are the multiples? Almost more importantly, what do you see the competition throughout the country now that these large public company acquirers are gone? Yeah. How much white space has been created? I would say it is a lot. First of all, we are robust on Home Health. By the way, we love Hospice too. We are just not buyers at 13, 15 times, so in that base space, excuse me. But we love Home Health and Hospice. We have been doing it, as you know, for almost 30 years. The space looks different. I tell Matt, "You have been doing this for 27 years. One day you are young, and the next day you wake up and you realize, where did everybody go?" Most of them retired or have moved on. But you look around and the large players, the Amedisys, the LHC Group, the Gentivas, the Enhabits, the Encompass Health, the companies we all knew in this space are effectively all gone somewhere. Most of them to payers, right? Or private. I do think it has created this opportunity for the next up, the next groups that are building up the regional Home Health and Hospice providers, as well as building national networks. We want to be one of those. We want to be the next, whether it is Gentiva or Amedisys, we want to be one of the next semi national and eventually national Home Health and Hospice providers. We are about 70, three-fourths Home Health, one-fourth Hospice in our Home Health and Hospice segment. So $300 million, we are three-fourths Home Health. So we will be more of a Home Health acquirer. Matt loves doting on our team. We just got an amazing team. We have known this team for almost three decades. They are growing organically 15.5% year over year, 53%, 54% gross margin, 4.5 stars on this funnel. TPS scores. Come on, keep going. Value-based TPS score winners. 80% episodic admission. It just is a win-win for us. We need to give them more geography. They are hungry for more. They have fixed everything we've given them. They've owned everything we've given them. We need to give them more geography, both in a tuck-in format, a small regional platform, and eventually something larger in nature. If I think about your preferred payer deals and Home Health, historically Home Health has been known as an area where providers really optimize visits in order to optimize revenues and EBITDA. Yep. Do you guys show up with all of a sudden different models here? How much does this structurally shift the entire market as payers look for a segment that historically was, we'll say politely, highly optimized? Yeah. We think managing utilization is not the way to go. Like trying to manage somebody's care, like provide the right amount of care and the perfect amount of care. We have 50 preferred payers in that division, and that's up from 45 beginning this year. We've really seen that flip. One of those was Medicare, the other 49 are MA payers out there. We've been able to flip those MA payers from pay-per-visit models to episodic models because they're getting the savings at the end of the day here, Pito. We talk about the great financial results we're seeing out there, but the reason we're getting it is the clinical results and the savings at the end of the day. Our Star Rating, our TPS scores are going up. We're getting rate increases from TPS scores every single year. That's where we're seeing it, and people are realizing paying $3,000 over a 60-day period to prevent a hospitalization is really, really worth it. It saves on the administrative side as well. Our caregivers in our back office isn't having to run down another authorization after they did four PT visits when they needed to do 16, a combination of visits that go in there as well. We're seeing it all kind of relates down to an access to care issue and payers trying to get to that lowest cost settings that I talked about previously. We're not seeing that slow down at all. At 81% episodic admissions, it could be a little hot. We would tell you that a really good company does 70%, a great company does 75%, and us at 81%, all right, that could be a little bit hot out there. If it slowly kind of trailed back down, but we still grew at 15%, 16% organically, we'd be more than happy with that as well. I agree with Matt, this is the model. This is the model. We're not bending from it. Our peers are coming around. We're not the only one doing this model at this point, the 80% episodic. The payers are getting more and more comfortable with adjudicating claims on an episodic arrangement. They tried for 10, 15 years to beat down the pay-per-visit, fee-for-service, and just drive down utilization. I just don't think it worked. I think at the end of the day, it just created this huge fight between providers and payers. We just said no so many times that people eventually needed us back in their network, and they signed. I think we can grow this. I think we can grow this. We would like significant more geography over time, but I think these trends can continue in Home Health and Hospice. So, offensive question here is, SG&A leverage. Again, you guys didn't answer this, so I'm going to come back to this one again. Yeah. You sort of guiding long-term margins 14, 15, EBITDA in the last bunch of years, 100+, 140 basis points of SG&A leverage. You were talking earlier about using AI for billing. All these create financial leverage. I'm not talking about margins within the three segments. Yeah. Mm-hmm but simply as you guys keep on scaling here, why should you guys not be sort of 30- 50 basis points margin expansion annually? I think there's a combination there. Right now, if you actually look at our LRPs for our gross margin, we're on the higher end of every single one of those. In Home Health and Hospice, we guide to 52%-ish, and in Medical Solutions from 42%- 44%, we're sitting at 44%, and PDS, we're at 26%, 28%, we're sitting at 29%. We're doing that because there's a little bit of wage pass-through that's still planned. It's still driving our volume. It's still driving our volume north of that 6% because of that. I think as that kind of matures and comes down a little bit, it just settles and normalizes out. Plus, some of those AR benefits you talked about, Pito, are beneficial to my gross margin as well, one time in nature. We'll still continue to leverage- Two times in nature. Yeah, I know. It's okay. We will continue to leverage that SG&A as size, scale, density, automation continue to play out. Our team does a really good job of looking for it every single day. As that just kind of settles a little bit, we'll see the expansion or the reduction in SG&A still and kind of end up at that same 14 and change number, and we feel really comfortable being a services company right there. I'll echo Matt's thoughts. The more we get into Home Health and Hospice, the more you have to get comfortable with the PICs, the UPICs, the ZPICs. That's just a part of that business that in Medicaid, it's very infrequent that you're getting audits at that pace. In Home Health and Hospice, you're getting those every day. There is a cost of that you've got to factor in. But I think to your point, being a Medicaid-driven company, we're still 80% plus Medicaid. Being a Medicaid-driven company at roughly north of 14% EBITDA feels very, very good to us, comfortable. You know we don't try to game the gross margin line. Our payers want to know that this is going to the caregivers. Driving volume. So we focus on driving gross margin almost down. Sounds crazy, but it's really passing the wage to the caregiver and then being as efficient as we possibly can. Could we hit 15% EBITDA? Of course. I'm sure it's going to happen. But I think we used to guide to kind of 12%- 14%. We're comfortably at 14% now. I think you'll see us between high thirteens and kind of mid to high fourteens for the foreseeable future. Yeah. One of the things to credit you guys have been very transparent about is as these rates come through, you hear somebody saying, "It's coming down. It's coming down. It's coming down," just to help drive, and then the crushed numbers again. It's a different conversation. Yeah. All right. We're running out of time here, so I'm going to ask a couple questions. Balance sheet. Again, one of the favorite parts about the balance sheet is that before it was terrible, and now it's great. Lots of things fixed that, and EBITDA- EBITDA helps doubling somehow does a good job on leverage ratios as just generating cash. What is the right leverage ratio to be running this business at in the long term? At some point, I know that there's M&A, and I know that things are going, but your EBITDA's big, and you keep on growing with these deals. At some point, do you just draw a line in the sand and say, "Hey, this is the right level-" Yep." giving me X and Y, but at X, we'll never go below X because we'll just do share repo," and that gives you enough scale that you need to buy the bigger deals. Having a one turn range in there, you can buy a lot of deals for- Yeah. -that. Yeah. With pro forma, you can buy a lot of big ones without- That's right. -breaking that band. I am really proud, and obviously, Pito, from what we've been able to do on the leverage profile. When Jeff and I took our positions, it was double digits at that point in time. We've done a lot of work since there. Going up. Yeah. Taking cost out all three of our divisions, and even on corporate, that drove our EBITDA up as well. The efficiencies we put in, the per-payer model, all the things that we listed here earlier. We've done a nice job getting it down to right around four times or sub four times leverage. There's still work to do, though. We know there's work to do, and we have really nice line of sight to get that to a sub 3x. That's our goal. We want to be a sub 3x leverage company. We think that's the right balance to be out there long term itself. I think Family First is a great example of don't be foolish, though, and don't have your blinders on just for anything at any given time. We closed Family First in Q2. We had one month of results in our financials itself. We spent, round up with fees, $180 million of cash on hand from free cash flow and cash generated. Awesome to be able to do so. And we went up 0.2x on that leverage. That means we still grew EBITDA organically. We still produced $75 million free cash flow in Q2. We did everything else to be able to go get that deal done, create density in four states that we really want to create density, kind of put a bow on those states at the same time. I think it is just the thoughtfulness of being conscious about your leverage and having a goal to get to sub three times. But don't put your blinders on too much. That inhibits your growth, whether it be an organic growth driver or an inorganic growth driver. I agree. So 2.75x, that is a point where if it goes below that, I am going to come yell at you and say, "Just start buying. Go do something. Certainly 2.5x. But I agree, Matt. We have had a clear goal of being sub three for now for two years, and we are on that march. We can see it in mid to late 2027. Exactly what Matt said, I agree with. We will absolutely do a deal slightly lever to de-lever right afterwards. And our answer would be, let us do both. At the end of the day, let us keep growing. Let us keep driving the company north of double digits year-over-year growth and be able to de-lever at the same time. Perfect. That's it. We're out of time. Guys, thank you so much. Thank you guys for being with us. Thanks so much. Appreciate it, guys. Thank you.