All right, good afternoon. Why don't we get started? My name is Jeff Johnson. I'm the Senior Medical Technology Analyst at Baird, and our next presentation this afternoon is from Dexcom, a leader in developing and commercializing continuous glucose monitoring systems for people with diabetes, and I'm sure in the future beyond diabetes. With us today from Dexcom, we're happy to have Vice President of Finance and Investor Relations, Sean Christensen. Sean, I'll turn it over to you if you have any remarks you want to make to start off, but then go straight into Q&A. Yeah, I don't have too many remarks. I'm just happy to be here. Thanks for hosting us, Jeff. Yeah, looking forward to the presentation and good to see everyone. Yeah, sure. Thanks for being here. I know it's a busy week for you guys as a company, and I think, what, board meetings this week? Mm-hmm. Yeah, board meetings this week. 2Q was another, second quarter was another strong quarter of new patient starts for you. Sounds like new starts were kind of right in line with 1Q levels, and we've had a couple prior quarters, 4Q and 1Q, of record new starts. It seems like the business is on good footing. I mean, what are you just seeing from an end market demand perspective for CGM right now? Yeah, I think you stated it well, Jeff. I think what we see is a healthy end market. I think certainly as we start off the year, you've heard us talk a lot about the focus in 2025 on executing to our plans, and that's what we've done. We were pleased in the second quarter to be able to be in a position to raise the guidance at that point and certainly feel good about the trajectory and the momentum that we're carrying forward. Yeah, any distinction you'd make between U.S. and international markets at this point from a demand perspective, pull-through side? I wouldn't say so from a demand perspective. I think the nuances and what you see between the markets are really more based on coverage and the status. U.S. certainly leading the way. We've talked a lot this year about the emergence of type 2 non-insulin coverage, and you hear us talking very forthrightly about the pathway for coverage there moving forward. International markets are very similar in terms of growing awareness, growing adoption, and acceptance in the clinical community, a little bit behind the U.S. in terms of the pace of access and the growth, particularly on the type 2 side. That's a great opportunity for us as we move forward. Okay. I think you talked about raising 2025 guidance on the last quarter's call. I think to be fair, that guidance wasn't raised as much as maybe you had beaten by in the couple quarters in the first half of the year, a bit less than buy side was anticipating. Is that meant to signal any type of market concern for the second half of this year or to your point, just really trying to execute to plan this year given maybe some challenges last year? Yeah, I think that's a fair question. I think as we've talked about our approach to guidance throughout this year and to your question, Jeff, anchoring it back to last year, dating back to mid-summer last year, we kind of put a stake in the ground and said we have a pathway forward to kind of the lower end of our LRP at the time of that $4.6 billion in revenue and have been executing to that plan ever since. Keeping that stake in the ground and making sure that we are aligned on our messaging is also why we started this year with a point estimate as our guide. That was a little bit different as well. We wanted to make sure that we were communicating the trajectory of re-acceleration, of building momentum throughout the business, and that has continued certainly in the first quarter and in the second quarter. Like I said, in the second quarter then in a position to raise that guidance. I think from our perspective, not signaling anything by any means, really just looking to see 2025 as a year of execution, continuing that commitment that we've made, and therefore hopefully in the second half if we're able to be in a position to continue to execute against that. All right, fair enough. Over the next few months, maybe by the end of this year, we're expecting Abbott to launch its Instinct sensor, which would be used with Medtronic's 780G system. As we've done back of the envelope math, we could convince ourselves there might be 100,000 U.S. Dexcom users who are using kind of an open-loop 780G, just not using a CGM to power that, but using your CGM obviously for monitoring reasons. Maybe there's even 200,000 Dexcom users across the globe who are using a Medtronic pump. Anything we need to think about there as Abbott and Medtronic get closer together on that sensor integration side? Yeah, I would just say that personally speaking, I haven't seen anything that would substantiate numbers quite that large. Speaking anecdotally, I could say I've really only met one person over the years utilizing our sensor with that particular competitor's pump, and that person actually converted over to an AID system. I think the reason why we don't see too many of those left in the field at this point is because most people would have had the opportunity to switch over to a system that is integrated rather than relying on kind of our sensor with a pump that's out of the auto mode. I think it's not something we are too concerned about. I think as we look at our AID competitivity more broadly, that's an area certainly where we have flourished, where we've been a leader in working with a diverse set of pump partners over the years to give a great patient experience. I think at this point, we're at over 2.6 million cumulative years of patient experience on AID systems driven by Dexcom sensors. We have very much a leadership position that is known clinically, that is relied upon by our customers, and those tend to be our highest loyalty customers. All right, fair enough. I think most of your new start growth in the U.S. this year has come from the non-insulin type 2 side. Obviously, that's a growing part of the market. What's happening with the type 1 and intensive type 2? Basal is still a big growth. Are you bringing in, do you think, fewer new type 1 patients this year than last year and fewer new type 1s last year than the year prior? Are we in that point where the type 1 and maybe even the intensive type 2, mainly from a U.S. perspective, but probably in some of your developed markets as well, is that a fair way to set up our models and think about backfilling with other indications? I wouldn't go quite that far to say that the type 2 non-insulin would represent a majority by any means at this point. What we see on the intensive insulin side actually this year relative to last year and years prior, actually pretty consistent growth. On an absolute basis, you're talking relatively consistent across the type 1 and type 2 intensive groupings. Obviously, as we've expanded access so much on the type 2 non-insulin side and the basal side in recent years, you're talking about larger patient pools to go after. Those are certainly growing contributors to the business. I don't think you want to necessarily write off the intensive side yet as a growth contributor, even as the contribution on the non-intensive side of things continues to ramp for us. When you say similar to last year, is that in an absolute number of new patients coming in? Absolute number. Absolute number. Obviously, we're talking higher levels of total new patient adds for our communications, and that's because of the growth in access in the basal and the type 2 non-insulin side. Would you still peg type 1 penetration in the U.S. at 60%, 65%? Yeah, I think that's what we're seeing. Okay. Seems a little lower than I get to, but that's fine. I'm basal only. You've kind of been, and we try to track this through Script Trends. It's hard to do, obviously. We don't see indications necessarily there. 30%- 35% win rate, is that about where you've been trending? Any change in that win rate versus your biggest competitor yet? Yeah, I would actually tie this one back to what we've experienced last year as we broadened our sales force. You've heard us communicate, particularly as we got toward the end of the third quarter of last year into the fourth quarter, really our sales force hitting their stride, continuing to ramp in productivity, then that aligning to some of our record new patient disclosures. I would say aligned to that timeline, we saw a nice uptake on the basal side too. Our new patient capture rate would be higher than those levels, I think certainly above the 40% level, tying back to that point. By no means do we view that as a ceiling on what we can do in that category too. As we look forward, continue to broaden our presence in the primary care settings that are more aligned to the basal population. There are things we can do within the product itself to personalize the experience for our customers there. I think we feel very confident about the opportunity ahead to really capitalize on that growth market for us. Okay. That north of 40% number, was I wrong in my baseline on the 30%, 35%, or is that what it was about this time last year, and now it's improved north of 40%? Yeah, I wouldn't say it's an area we've typically talked too much about. I think some of those could be from some of our competitor comments or things of that nature. We break this down pretty significantly within all channels, especially having the granularity on the pharmacy side, and we've seen a nice uptick there. Do you feel like your share win rate on new patients in basal has increased in the U.S. over the last few quarters? Correct. Okay. All right. Outside the U.S., you brought it up. I think it's a fair comment that international markets tend to be behind the U.S. on CGM adoption. Obviously, in some parts of Europe, as I mentioned, I think type 1 penetration is almost as high, if not as high as it is in the U.S. On the type 2 side, we're starting to see some early moves towards basal- only coverage, Japan, Germany, a couple others. We've seen some new studies out just in the last month or two in Italy and Spain. Those tend to be studies run by your competitor, but it's just like they used to benefit when you would get studies out there and get coverage, you could benefit from the same. How should we think about basal -only coverage developing in Europe, maybe in 2026, 2027? Are there some bigger new markets that could come on board? Yeah, I think you should view it as a great opportunity for us. I would even tie it not just to the Europe markets or Japan that you mentioned, Jeff, but we talked on our second quarter call about getting access to the Ontario drug benefit in Canada. The largest province in Canada is covering Dexcom CGM now down through basal insulin. I think that's a huge win for us and a nice indicator of the direction that we're seeing. To your point, in terms of running the studies and who benefits whom, I think for us, we have a market access team that operates globally and is assessing the most likely places for coverage to unlock. I think for us, it's a matter of having an access and advocacy pathway to ensure that we are there and then having the right product once that access emerges to be able to take advantage of it. As we look certainly to some of the Western markets you mentioned, Germany's at certain pockets of coverage right now on the private payer side. I think there are other places that will continue to emerge on the basal side, and we'll be there to participate in the growth of that category right from the start. Even basal, there are places to take advantage of from a market access standpoint on the type 2 intensive side as well, where there's real opportunity there. Yeah. Are those mostly in Eastern Europe and what other markets on the intense type 2 where we've had maybe less coverage recently? I think there's certainly, as you mentioned, the Eastern European side, even in Western Europe, Australia, certain tender opportunities emerging in the Middle East. I think those are all places that will be sources of growth for us. Would most of those be D1+ markets? Are any of them G-series markets? It's a little bit of both. It depends on the nuances of how they choose to split the market and whether they're kind of nuancing between different types of acuity. We've seen markets like Japan and Germany historically served kind of by the G-series entirely. Canada is like that as well at this point. You have markets that kind of nuance the cover. The key for us is having the portfolio that allows us to take advantage of the access however they choose to open that up. All right. A couple other questions here on the non-insulin type 2. You've had 6 million- 7 million lives under coverage since the start of this year. You know, how has your win rate been going there? I think legacy-wise, because Abbott has always had the copay buy-downs and the patient assistance programs on that non-insulin type 2 market, docs have just gotten accustomed to, if that's the patient in my chair, that's who I write the script for an Abbott product. It's been kind of inherently necessary for your sales reps to go out and really kind of change that thought process from docs. What have you been seeing in the first eight or nine months of this year in win rate in those covered lives of non-insulin? Is there opportunity to take that win rate higher as you kind of go in and re-educate those docs? Yeah, I'll start with your latter question and say that, yes, definitely an opportunity there and one that we look forward to executing against. I think the way you frame the question is right as well. There's been a historical experience where doctors have typically leaned toward our competitor in certain scenarios there for the type 2 non-insulin side. The question you have to ask is why. As you mentioned, sometimes related to access and copay buy-downs. Our team is doing a great job of making sure that doctors are aware of the emerging coverage that has come and coverage that we have a leading position in with the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the customer. You tie into that if you take our sales reps, they're able to present not only the new coverage, but Stelo in conjunction with the coverage. For a doctor whose desire is to have all people with diabetes on the device, the sales rep is able to go in and present the new coverage opportunities, but also have an OTC device that is accessible on a cash-pay basis for that doctor to have the full range of diabetes covered. Stelo has also been a really nice opportunity for us to get our foot in the door and to present really a broad-based opportunity for CGM use in the type 2 non-insulin setting. All right. On that basal market and even the non-insulin market, you've put, I think, since the start of this year, some compliance rates out in various slide decks. I think it was just at the start of this year you started quantifying those, right? Correct. Frankly, we're higher than we thought, which was a good thing. I think we've all been assuming that as you move into broader parts of the population and not just the early adopters, the early adopters are going to be more compliant than the mass adopters. Have we started to see those compliance rates shift, or is that still, as you look at your data, kind of where we can build our compliance rates, at least for the short term? Yeah, I would say those rates are holding firm very nicely. I think part of that is when we gave those, we understood the question would emerge. We want to provide a reassurance on really the quality from a lifetime value perspective of those customers and really just what we were seeing in the real world in terms of the benefits and desire to wear the product that we were seeing. The baseline for when we gave that data, even in the type 2 non-insulin space at the start of the year, was built off a really strong base. It wasn't, call it 10s or 20s, but you're talking several hundred thousand or a couple hundred thousand at that point. A good baseline, and we have seen that continue. I think as we look at the feature set of how you personalize the experience for people with type 2 non-insulin or people with basal insulin use only, I think there's opportunities even to drive that higher over time with a better product experience. All right. If we stick on the non-insulin side, you've got the 6 million- 7 million lives under coverage right now. There's probably, what, 25 million, 26 million of those patients in the U.S. in total. A big chunk of those, is it 50% or so probably, are in the Medicare Medicaid population. I found it interesting. Jake is going to move from the Chief Operating Officer role to CEO early next year. He was at a conference last week. He made a comment that the RCT data, which I want to come back to, but your randomized controlled trial that you're running on non-insulin type 2 CGM use right now should read out by later this year. We should start to see those results either later this year or early next year. He made a comment at a conference last week that historically, you have seen some Medicare coverage even before RCT big pivotal trial data rolls out. It just struck me as, for an incoming CEO, why get investors over their skis unless he really thinks we might get a positive CMS decision sooner than even seeing that RCT data? Yeah, I think what you were hearing reflected in the commentary last week is a lot of optimism and frankly momentum that we're seeing in type 2 non-insulin. I think you have to break it down into several areas in which we see that momentum playing out. First of all, relative to kind of the prior expansions of coverage with CMS in CGM, we start from a baseline of significantly more real-world evidence at this point and study evidence on type 2 non-insulin. Obviously, we have the RCT that we are running that will read out, and we talked about that being early next year. There have been RCTs already. There was one at ADA run with Dexcom CGM this year that had pretty strong outcomes on top of the decision from ADA last year to already classify real-time CGM as B-level evidence at the time for type 2 non-insulin use. I think when we look in aggregate at the positioning of the advocacy organizations of the scientific evidence that has already been presented, and you look at the clinical momentum, and then you have this commercial piece that is unlocked this year where now you have people already adopting CGM who will start to age into Medicare coverage and potentially run into a coverage gap. You combine those things with an overall perspective from CMS and the administration that seems favorable toward wearables. I think we just see growing confidence there as to that expansion. All right, fair enough. Your win rate in non-insulin type 2, I might have already asked that question. Just generally speaking, forget about your win rate even, I guess. If Medicare coverage comes along and we enter 2026 with 12 million more lives under coverage, what does that do to your growth rate? It just seems like it could be a sizable catalyst. Would it be slower than that? No, look, it's a great catalyst for the company. I think, again, without commenting on specific timing or the immediate kind of quantification of what that growth looks like, I think what we have to say is do we have the pieces in place to capitalize on that expansion of coverage if it comes and when it comes. I think that's one of the things we feel confident that we do. I think we feel like we have a great product in place that continues to get better, and we feel like we're giving a customer experience for the type 2 non-insulin side, particularly as we expand to a 15-day product, particularly as we continue to build on the software profile and some of the personalization features that are unique to that patient population. I just think we feel very good about our ability to capitalize on that growth when it comes after CMS makes the determination. Not necessarily a comment on the exact timing or the direct quantification of the growth, but I think we feel great about our positioning once it comes. All right, fair enough. The other stub of that we haven't talked about really is the other 6 million- 7 million that would be on maybe some of the employer-sponsored side of the commercial plans that aren't yet covered. You've got 6 million- 7 million that are covered in commercial, 6 million- 7 million in commercial not covered, and then another 12 million or so Medicare and Medicaid. That 6 million- 7 million, what has to happen, I guess, to move from some of these healthcare plans on the pharmacy side covering in some plans in the national plans, but not necessarily in some of the specialty plans? Yeah, maybe I'll just give a background for the audience in case we're not in the weeds of the details here. We've announced this year the largest three PBMs have expanded coverage in the pharmacy for all people with diabetes. As of July, we had the third PBM go live. Those are on their national formularies, and that's representing the 6 million- 7 million lives that Jeff referenced. There are another, call it double that, of commercial lives out there. Some of those are just on smaller plans, different companies, those are ones that we'll continue to advocate for. Having the momentum and having the three largest covering it does provide some advantages to continue to push that momentum. A good portion of that, to Jeff's point, are these specialty plans or regional plans. I think some of that, the biggest factor is simply going to be time. They'll have time to opt in and start to kind of build momentum off of the national formularies. In terms of what needs to be done, we do have a market access team that is very focused on all those nuances, but I do think some of that is just a rolling time dynamic here that we'll continue to build off of. All right, fair enough. A couple questions maybe on 2026. I know you haven't guided yet. You're not going to guide here, obviously. Jake did discuss last week, though, that he foresees strong double-digit growth, and I think he even said that's not teetering on 8% or 9%. He qualified it more as strong double digits. How do you quantify strong double digits? Per his words, not teetering on 9% or 10%. Does it teeter on 12% or 13%? Great question. I want to decouple a little bit the angle of the question because 2026 and what we were talking about specifically with that comment are a little bit different. I think what we've said very consistently with regard to our 2026 numbers and that performance is that as we talk about a year of execution here in 2025, the single best thing we can do to ensure and maximize our 2026 growth is to execute a great 2025. That is the reality of the business that we serve, is that we need to continue to grow our new patients. These are recurring patients for us and build that momentum that way, then lay the foundation through access expansions and commercial execution so that we are positioned for next year. That has been consistent commentary for us. Relative to Jake's strong double-digits comment, I think when we look at the market opportunity and you see a long-term vision of the number of people with diabetes, the number of people who have yet to adopt CGM in the categories that are already covered, and the growing confidence in the potential expansion of coverage into the type 2 non-insulin space, I think what you heard was a lot of excitement and confidence not only in a market that has the potential to grow for a long duration, but the ability of this company to participate in that growth. That was really the nuance of Jake's answer at that point. It was in the context of a broader question around even kind of five to 10-year visions for the company. I think you heard an incoming CEO who's very excited and very confident in that pathway. All right, fair enough. There has been some chatter the last few weeks around G7 quality, reliability issues, things like that. Anything you want to address on that? I mean, we try to watch the chat boards pretty closely. I would, I don't even want to bias you, but I would argue that, yeah, when G7 first came out, we saw a lot of chatter back and forth about reliability and maybe losing signal, things like that. It feels like anecdotally less to me over the last couple months, just what do you see? I'm sure you can track it a lot more strictly than we can just through chat boards. Let me answer this question in two ways, and I think they're equally important. We are constantly monitoring the performance of our sensor platforms in the field. With G7, we launched a great product that we feel is certainly best in class. We have teams that right after launch, they work and are constantly working to improve the experience for our customers, address issues. Even with G7 in the spirit of continuous improvement, post-launch, we have strengthened the adhesive. We've broadened the Bluetooth range by more than 50%. We've enhanced connectivity. We've updated the app and added features throughout this experience. I think we feel good about the overall improvements to the platform that continue to be made on behalf of our users. We do see overall system complaint rates flat to down, certainly since launch. You see those improvements playing out. Every once in a while, you have pockets of issues that emerge, and you have to work through those. The other perspective I would say, Jeff, I was at my daughter's birthday party for my six-year-old's friend this past weekend, and there was a young boy there, type 1 diabetes, and a mom there with type 1 diabetes. In a small group, we had two people, and I was just listening to their lives, and you get a sense for just how complex it is to manage diabetes, the amount of decisions that they are balancing, and how reliant they are on their CGM. They're both Dexcom users. We're incredibly happy. Just listening to their experience of the amount of decisions being made, you get that perspective, and you realize that when there is an issue in the rare circumstances with a sensor, it's why we invest so much in our customer experience. It's why you hear us innovating even there with things like our nationwide pharmacy replacement rollout recently. These are things because we want to make sure that the customers are cared for and taken care of appropriately. I think it's both of those things, the spirit of continuous improvement, making a best-in-class experience even better, and taking care of our customers well. Okay. When you talk about those pockets of issues that can come up at times, is there anything that would be big enough to rise to the level of something we need to worry about from the next couple quarters? No, by no means. I think you heard one reflected upon Jake last week. Earlier in the year, you had kind of a deployment dynamic related to one element of the supply chain. The team did a good job isolating it, recognizing it, and putting in place mitigations toward that. Minor dynamics like that. Okay. Just on the fifth, moving to G7 15-day, remind us the timeline there and how you expect that to phase in. You're in the Dexcom Warriors rollout right now, but how do we think about the phase in of the 15-day? Yeah, so we're starting that imminently with this Dexcom Warriors launch, so kind of a limited basis there, and then extending it more broadly into the DME and pharmacy channels here as we work into the end of the year. I think as we move forward, relative to kind of the prior conversions of our base, we just went G6 to G7. Here with the 10-day to 15-day platform, there's good elements such as the pump integrations. I think because it's a very similar hardware profile to the 10-day platform, we expect those to move relatively quickly. We'll expect obviously to put many of our new users directly on the 15-day platform. It's really just about the pace of conversion, and the gating factor there becomes the script necessity. You can think of it on kind of a rolling cadence from there, and something that certainly will build momentum over the course of 2026. Probably the best base case scenario would be to look at kind of the pace of conversion from G6 to G7, and then obviously anything we can do to move that quickly, we will. Okay. Would it be crazy to think of the majority of U.S. G7 users on 15-day by the end of 2026? I don't know if we'll have to look at that, especially I don't know if we're at a point ready to call out that exact pace yet, but I think it's going to be dependent on ultimately how quickly we can get those scripts moving forward and the overall interest there relative to the new patient demand. It's kind of a growing element through your new patients versus that base cutover. On the U.S. side, I think the accessibility will be there. International is a little bit more of a gating factor, dependent on tender timing and things like that. Yeah, there's been some discussion, I'd say, among investors on how much of that move from 10-day to 15-day G7 you guys will capture financially versus do some of the payers keep a bigger chunk. I mean, how much of that flows through to you when you go to two sensors a month versus three sensors a month right now? Yeah, I would say obviously you guys have probably heard us talking about longer duration sensor wear. That vision started before I was at Dexcom in 2018. This is not new. This is something certainly that's been prefaced with the payers. The contracts that we have are largely structured on a per-member-per-month, per-member-per-year as the starting point of those discussions. That has positioned us well to make sure that as we innovate and as we bring forth to market a product that we think is even better, we're not being inhibited ourselves on the economics of that. I think we're certainly bringing that to the payers in what we feel is a compelling manner of saying, here's an innovative product. We're just looking for the same payment. That's, I think, something that we expect. Just to be direct on that, on your per-member-per-month contracts, if you're being paid $10 a month per patient and you're currently supplying them two sensors, three sensors a month, you go to two, you would still expect to get that $10 a month for the two sensors instead of the three. That's correct. Okay. All right, fair enough. We're at 10 seconds. I don't think there's necessarily a competitive bidding question you can answer in 10 seconds. Major risk, minor risk, 2027, 2028, how do you think about it? Yeah, I think you're right on timing. 2027, 2028, I think as we look at it, you're looking at obviously a lot to work out. The proposal itself is looking at a category that right now has more than 2,000 distributors and recommended going down to nine. We submitted our comments. We're primarily focused around ensuring that there's little customer disruption because that is a pretty significant possibility in that scenario. Our recommendation was to delay that process. I think as we think about our positioning, I think we feel very good about the value and the price we bring in that channel. I think obviously if there is vendor consolidation on the supplier side, certainly there's benefits that they would have from a growth perspective and volume perspective. I think overall we feel good about our positioning and the opportunity to grow there. All right, fair enough. I think we're going to have to wrap it there. Please join me in thanking Sean for a great overview here of Dexcom. Next presentation set to begin at 2:35 P.M. Eastern Time includes AMN Healthcare in the Empire Ballroom, New Valent in Empire, and Alumnis in the Morgan Suite. Oh, and a Novus, I think, in this room. Thank you.