Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. We appreciate your support and interest in McKesson. We're excited to share a little bit about our strategy and recent performance. It's great to be on the stage for the first time with Kenny, who will share a little bit about our financial discipline and the way we think about growth and investment in the company. Appreciate your time this morning. Okay, great. Maybe we can get started with the M&A announcement. You recently announced the acquisition of Precision Medicine Group for $2.25 billion. This is going to be part of your oncology and multi-specialty segment going forward. Maybe first talk a little bit about the strategic rationale for the deal and then a couple of follow-ups- Yeah. ...related. Sure. Look, we're really excited about this. About seven years ago, we stepped back and rethought the enterprise strategy for McKesson. We oriented that strategy around a few pillars. People, culture, and talent would be in the first one, reinvigorating the growth in the core North American supply chain businesses. Then thinking about the portfolio, then focusing our growth and our capital allocation around two areas that we think both represent long-term, good growth, organic growth opportunities for the company, and places where we had differentiated capabilities. Those two markets were oncology and biopharma services. When we look at Precision for Medicine, it has two primary businesses. One aligned very well to our oncology growth strategy, and one aligned really tightly to our biopharma commercialization business. Yeah. This acquisition for us is very close adjacencies to both of our growth strategies, which we're really, really excited about. It brings us new capabilities,- Yeah. ...in clinical trials, particularly leading clinical trials oriented around biomarkers, and that complements our existing Sarah Cannon assets, Ontada assets, and our U.S. Oncology Network very well. We just view this as a natural next extension of the assets that we've already built. On the commercialization side, takes us into some new markets like payer strategies and helping think about market access for the biopharma companies. So it's a really great fit supporting both of our growth strategies. I think one of the things that we're extremely proud of at McKesson is when we think about building platforms, it's really important that these platforms create assets with our portfolio that are complementary. Think about distribution before practice management, data and insights.- Yeah. ...clinical trial services, as Brian just mentioned. With PMG, this really fits that mold perfectly. Being able to- Yeah. ...have a one plus one equals three equation where we can tack on to Sarah Cannon, to your point, to Ontada, and really provide incremental value for our biopharma partners around drug innovation, clinical services, commercialization, as Brian mentioned, and at the end, access to patients as well, in particular, the community setting. Great. Yeah, and I think that all makes perfect sense. I do think one of the things that you mentioned that stuck out in the deal announcement and some of the diligence that we did on the asset, was just that CRO offering feels a little bit new for the company. I know that the services offered by PMG are maybe a little bit niche and distinct versus some of the larger full service CROs, but maybe just expand a little bit about the CRO component and maybe what your aspirations could be longer term in the CRO space. Sure. Yeah, look, I would be happy to. In McKesson today and through our Sarah Cannon joint venture, we have got site management operations. But really, and some maybe a little bit of CRO-light capabilities and assets, but PMG brings a true CRO capability, which we think complements that site management operation very, very well. What we really liked about it, though, is that it is really focused on oncology, which is obviously a real strength for us, and we have a lot of unique assets in the oncology space. And then, rare disease, immunology, cell and gene therapy. These are areas that we have made bets in McKesson as well. We have a cell and gene operation that we call InspiroGene. So it is not broad, but it is global. It does give us capabilities in what we view as the most exciting, highest growth areas in the CRO segment. But if it was not for that focus on an area of strength we already have- Yeah. ...we probably would not have been interested. But it is a really great complement to the assets we have and the markets that we have identified as growth markets going forward for the enterprise. Okay. That's great. Just thinking about the financial profile of the asset, I don't think that there was really a lot disclosed on that front. I guess, how should we be thinking about the accretion profile and how you guys are thinking about how that contributes to the model over the next few years? Yeah. We just signed a definitive agreement to acquire the asset, and right now we are in the approval phase, including regulatory review and approval. As we march towards closing on the asset, we'll provide more around financial accretion in terms of EPS and the likes. With that said, though, maybe taking a step back, as I said earlier, this is a one plus one equals three equation. We do view this as accretive to our overall company from a strategy standpoint, as B.T. just mentioned, as well as a financial standpoint as well. For us, every time we look at any deal, there has to be right rigor. Hurdling the cost of capital- Yeah. ...nice spread between that. ROIC, being able to embed any risk involved as well, balancing that with near term and long-term value for our customers and our shareholders as well. The third leg of the stool is making sure that we balance against the asset at play versus the overall capital allocation structure as well. Obviously, we looked at traditional return back to shareholders. As we said on the Q1 earnings call, this year we are committed to deploy roughly $5 billion back to shareholders, where $2.5 billion was achieved through share repo in Q1, and then our dividend increased to 15%, which is commensurate with our long-term growth. Overall, given the fact that our strong balance sheet, with the luxury to invest in our business organically through M&A as well and also rewarding our shareholders. Overall, we feel very good about the robustness of our balance sheet. Got it. Just to pivot now, going back to Q1 results, obviously- Yeah. ...strong results. I think the number one KPI that probably jumped out to people was the earnings growth in the North America pharma segment at 19%. I think that was a lot higher than what we were looking for, and I think most investors were looking for, and above recent trends. How should we think about what the key drivers were of that result in the quarter, and how you guys are thinking about the phasing of results for the North America business and the balance of the year? Yeah, I can start. We are extremely pleased with our overall enterprise performance in Q1. We saw double-digit growth across our NAPD business, as you pointed out, our oncology and multi-specialty business, and our RxTS business as well. Particular around your question around what drove the 19% growth for Q1. So Q1, just to recap, for NAPD, our top line grew roughly 5%, and our bottom line, AOP, grew roughly 19%. On the revenue side, we saw broad-based growth across the board, across products, channels, brand generics, and the likes. So broad-based growth, which is not just one single item. For example, we saw really meaningful growth within our health system products, given the fact that we're seeing strong utilization trends. We saw nice growth on the revenue side, and then that worked our way down to AOP because we saw nice GP tailwind as well, given some of the product launches that we saw within the quarter. On the supply chain side, we saw really healthy metrics too. Productivity is robust, and we're seeing really nice automation as well, that are driving the leverage from revenue down to GP, down to AOP. One of the things that we talked about on the earnings call was product launches, new product launches. Yeah. And what I mean by that is, within the quarter, we saw new brands and also Bx, the Gx, brand to generics. Just to kind of provide some color there, every launch is unique and different, right? Depending on various variables, different channel mix, customer mix, when it comes to generic, number of entrants, for example, the molecule itself. We did see some favorability in Q1 from that. The good news is our team tracks this on a granular level, and right now that is embedded within our full-year forecast. But in the last questions about the phasing for NAPD- Yeah. ...I think your question behind the question is that if your first quarter's 19% and your full year's 9.5%, why is there a quote unquote "slowdown" in the back half of the year? I think that's the question behind the question. Yeah. For me, my point, just two points I would say here. The momentum is real. We're seeing underlying strong fundamentals within our NAPD business. Right now, we are forecasting the back half to embed investments in our business for business growth, automation, and technology. It is the right thing to do for our business. Here at McKesson, we're all about delivering at the spot moment and building for tomorrow as well. Even this year, we've done that. We invested in our business. I'll give you a couple examples. We invested in supply chain with AI, really orchestrating between demand, supply, operations, and that's yielding working capital benefits, right? That's just one example. So we have many, many more. As B.T. and I think about capital allocation, we have the luxury right now, given our liquidity profile, to invest in our business while also delivering for our shareholders for the year as well. Okay, great. Thanks for that. Another, I guess, elephant in the room for kind of all the companies in your space is just that there are a number of large customer renewals that are in focus at the moment. I guess, how should we think about renewals broadly and kind of the opportunities and trade-offs that come with a large renewal, kind of where you are in the renewal process, and maybe when investors might start to hear more news kind of on this front? Yeah. So look, we generally think about a third of our business every year is- Yeah. ...up for renewal, and it has been that way forever. Yeah. Renewals are a great chance for us to be very engaged with the customer, opportunity to talk about market dynamics, how we think things are evolving, how we can evolve our service or provide more services to them to help them as they navigate their priorities as a business. So that is just a pretty normal occurrence of the business. Yeah. Now obviously, there are some customers that are bigger than others. We're very, very engaged with customers day to day. So renewals are in some ways not an event. I mean, you start thinking about a renewal the day you ink the original contract and start- Yeah. ...thinking about how you keep that intimacy up, how you evolve your services to support their evolving businesses and their unique needs. That's what we do with all of our customers. We try to be a value-based partner, not a transactional partner. We have a lot of capabilities beyond just core distribution that we can bring to help our customers solve problems, and that creates really tight, ongoing relationships. So we're very pleased. A lot of our larger relationships are 20+ year relationships. The businesses are really tightly aligned and integrated. We don't often, as a point of policy, talk about specific- Yeah. ...customers for kind of obvious reasons why we don't do that. But we're very aligned. We appreciate the deep partnerships we have, and our goal is to always extend and renew and continue to provide additional value to the customers- Yeah. ...through every year of a contract cycle. Yeah, and maybe is there a way to expand a little bit on, as you have these conversations, like the type of services that could be of interest? Obviously, you guys are getting more capabilities yourself every day. What do you hear from clients about what they might need? We've got capabilities in CoverMyMeds. We've got a network. We interface with 50,000 different pharmacies. Yeah. We think about supply chain. We think about the AI tools and how they're evolving, and how do we get better insights, provide better insights, better connect downstream and upstream to make the entire supply chain more efficient. There's a range of those kinds of conversations that we can have and we prefer to have, because the more we have those conversations, we know we're great at the day-to-day transactional. We'll get the product where it needs to be, when it needs to be there for the patient that needs to consume it. But there's a lot more we can do as an industry to help think about the value creation from manufacturer to end provider. Okay. If we think a little bit more, I guess, outside of the renewal dynamics, just kind of about the base fundamentals. Obviously generics have been a very solid contributor to you over the past few years and much more stable than prior periods, really across the industry. I guess, how do you think about the sustainability of trends in the generic component of the business and how do you think about the key opportunities with upcoming LOEs, which seem like they're more meaningful than maybe they have been in a little while now? Yeah. I'll let Kenny elaborate on this, but generally, the generic environment is competitive. It's always been competitive, but it's been stable for many years now. The episode you were referring to, I think was 2015 or 2016. Yeah. Long memories in the room, but it's a long way in the rearview mirror. We think about our job in generics as having a scaled, efficient sourcing engine. We have a joint venture called ClarusONE that does our sourcing that we think is as good as any out there. We have got to source for stability of supply, obviously for price to be competitive. Then we need to be partnered with our customers downstream and make sure we have availability of supply. We do not make margin on anything you cannot supply. Stability of supply, competitive price, and then growing the channels. Then, of course, we have LOE events. You can talk about the dynamic there. I would remind everyone, though, before Kenny makes remarks, that given the growth of our North American pharmaceutical distribution business, generics are not as material as they may have been in past decades, just because the growth has been so significant. Well, exactly. Think about generics with ClarusONE, really good economics and value that drives provide for our customers. At the same time, shortage supplies as well. As you think about the LOE cliff, we do factor all of that in within our guidance as well. Yeah. Just like the product launches as well. That is something we look at. It is accretive to our business from a margin standpoint, but probably to Brian's point he just made, not as accretive as it was before, call it 10 years ago or so. Yeah. Okay. A big watch area has been all the dynamics going on in the Part B and D side of the business around IRA. Obviously it was good to see that the industry as a whole seems to have been able to maintain economics on the 2026 cohort of drugs that we're in for IRA. Have you started to have those same conversations for 2027? If so, how are those going, and how are you guys thinking about IRA dynamics over the next couple of years? Yeah. Look, our conversations with manufacturers are continuous, just like they are with our end customers. Those are around specific products, portfolios. How we can help support their commercial launches, how we can make their products be more successful. So we are continually in those dialogues. For the IRA drugs that have come out, we think that manufacturers understand the value that we deliver in getting their products to their end patients, and that they pay a fair value for that service. While the IRA has been some revenue headwind, generally it has not been a headwind on the bottom line. We are currently in those discussions. Obviously, we don't know exactly the prices and the parameters, but we would expect we'd navigate the next wave much like we've navigated the first wave and the waves that have come before that. This is not an entirely new phenomena. There have been WAC decreases in the past. We've got a model, we've got ongoing engagement, we've got deep dialogue with our partners, and we think they understand the unique value that we bring. From my standpoint, it's a muscle we flex and know how to flex in terms of just the building blocks, given the fact, excuse me, that we have continuous discussion with the manufacturers. I think one proof point that's important to press upon is the fact that the past couple of quarters we did see WAC pressure, right? On the pricing side, roughly a few hundred basis points on the top line. Even with that, as B.T. mentioned, you get the revenue headwind, if you will, given the fact that our selling price dictates more the revenue side. But because of the fixed fee for service that we get, the fee for service that we get, roughly 95% of our contracts are fee for service. That's the reason why our GP and operating income is more intact, and that's the reason why you're seeing still GP growth, AOP growth with positive leverage within our P&L for the past couple of quarters, despite WAC pressure. Okay. There's some really exciting potential down the road for Part B biosimilars and some uncertainty around interaction with IRA and how that might impact the opportunity for the company down the road. I guess philosophically, how are you thinking about some of the Part B opportunities that might still be two, three, four years in front of the company? Yeah. Well, look, we're excited about the biosimilar space in general. We have been for a little bit of time. I think the ramp-up has probably been a little bit slower than some people thought. Today, I think there's roughly 95 approved biosimilars- Yeah. ..74 or 75-ish that are actually in the market today. In general, we like biosimilars. We think it is good for patient cost, it is good for healthcare costs, it is good for choice, it is good for our physicians to have clinical flexibility and finding the right product for the right patient. We think biosimilars are good for McKesson, good for the healthcare system. Good for patients. We support biosimilars, we also support innovators. It is really about the clinical choice that a clinician or a physician is going to make, and our job is to make sure we have the product they want available where they want it at a price point that is competitive. In general, biosimilars should be better for the McKesson model than the innovator drug. Typically, they are- Yeah. ...they would fall somewhere between generic and brand in terms of the value to McKesson. We continue to be optimistic in value and focused on that. The channel matters, and Part B tends to be better for us than- Yeah. ...Part D. We view it as opportunity for the business. Okay. Within the oncology and multi-specialty business, you have a lot of different businesses and assets inside of this segment. Great to see the separately reported segments still, by the way. When you think about the long-term guidance and what needs to happen for that to be achievable, how should we think about what the key building blocks to hitting that 13%-16% earnings growth are going to be for that segment over the next couple of years? Yeah. As I mentioned, good double digit for Q1. Yeah. We are very pleased with that business performance. Just to kind of unpack that a little bit, for Q1, revenue grew roughly 33%, and AOP grew roughly 41%. That includes core ventures, right? The lapping. I think, if you want a proxy, if you will, for organic, back that out, and the AOP roughly grew 15% year-on-year. As we think about the building blocks and what are the drivers of that business, there's a few folds- Yeah. ...one is we're seeing very healthy volume and growth within existing practice and networks right now. As you think about utilization trends for specialty drugs, we're seeing really nice, robust growth on same store visits with patients as well. That's one side of the drivers. Driver number two is, beyond the MSO side, as you probably know, most of the business is GPO and distribution. So we're winning new business there as well. Yeah. That's the gift that keeps on giving, too. Then third, but not least, because we are good, disciplined buyers, we know the value of assets, and ROIC and NPV and IRR will be the rubric in which we use to evaluate deals. We're seeing nice return on the M&A front as well. As you think about going forward, we'll continue to obviously drive volume. The physician will drive volume through their channels. We'll provide the right supports. Again, we offer choice, we don't choose. The second piece is winning new business on the provider solution side. Then last but not least, you have the M&A, being able to find the right deals that's accretive, to my first point, to our overall platform and portfolio. Okay, great. Then, maybe we should spend a minute on Prescription Technology Solutions. I would love to hear a little bit more about recent growth trends for this business, perhaps excluding the contribution from GLP-1s, given some uncertainty about what the trajectory of GLP-1s and GLP-1 oriented prior authorizations are over the next couple of years. How should we think about where growth has been more recently, and what's going to need to happen for you to be able to be confident in the long term outlook there? Yeah. I can start. Sure. As you think about the long-term growth target of PTS- Yeah. ...is roughly 10%-13% on AOP growth. For Q1, we were square, right in that range. Top line was 9% and AOP was 13%. So on the high end, if you will, on the spectrum of targets. In terms of thinking through the drivers of the business, GLP-1 gets a lot of attention right now, and rightly so. A couple of things I'd say on that front. Yes, it is a driver of the business right now. It's particularly around the BRIDGE program, for example. We're seeing nice tailwind from that. It's going really well. It's still early innings by the way. This started in July. But the good news is the program's performing well. We're performing well, as well. Fun fact, when a PA gets submitted, 95% of the time, we reach a determination within 30 minutes or less. So for us, that program's going really well. GLP-1s, you have the orals coming in as well. From what we see so far, again, a bit early innings as well. Yeah. It's accretive versus the injectables. Mostly accretive versus the injectables. So we're seeing that nice tailwind as well. But I think one thing, again, to impress upon is while GLP-1 is important, it's roughly 11% of our total revenue for PTS. We didn't break this out, but both GLP-1s across affordability, access, and adherence within PTS grew meaningfully. At the same time, non-GLP-1s- Yeah. ...therapy also grew as well- Yeah. ...what I am proud about the business is we continue to bring new brands onto the new programs, and it is a versatile business where, depending on the cycle of the product launch, we can tailor our offering to meet the needs of our buyer pharma partners. Overall, there is momentum in the business, and with technology, we continue to innovate from that space as well. Okay. Maybe just to expand a little bit on the BRIDGE program, just remind us, I guess, first on the timeline. It is a little gray here, but was it included in the initial guidance? I guess what have you kind of factored in for that into your thinking now, kind of out of the first quarter? I guess any general framing on how should we think about the economics of what you are doing for the BRIDGE program versus similar services you have provided outside of the BRIDGE program historically? Yeah, I can start off with the first question. Every year when we build our plan, we do build in new programs or extension of programs, et c, and the BRIDGE program was one component of that. We continue to bring new business, new brands into our platform. Overall, as I mentioned, it is in really good shape, and from us serving, just remember our goal, we are the central processor for PAs, claims adjudication, as well as the payment to the pharmacy. We kind of sit right in that ecosystem. But overall, again, early innings, and as we learn more, as we see more, we will update the guidance appropriately. But right now, our last guide in Q1 did contemplate the BRIDGE program. But right now, we are seeing positive momentum. Yeah. There was no effect in our Q1. Yeah. The program started in July, so you will see the first impact when we report in Q2. We did know though, we were going to- Sure. ...have play this role in the BRIDGE program, so we did build it into the guidance that we provided. I would say the program is probably out to a little bit stronger start than- Okay. ...we had thought, but it is also a bit of a unique program, and so forecasting the dynamic of a program, how it is going to grow when it has a terminal date, is a little bit of art and science. Sure. We will provide guidance in our Q2 call. Okay, great. To pivot to Med-Surg, the first quarter, kind of a bit noisy. I think there's a kind of a large-ish one-time impact in there that you guys discussed a little bit that muddled some of the underlying trends. How should we think about what the underlying trends were in the first quarter? Any kind of color you can add on what was driving that one-time item? I guess the last impact would be a couple of your Med-Surg peers flagged positive impacts from tariff refunds in this equivalent financial quarter. I'm not sure if you guys discussed that or not, but maybe just let us know if that impacted results in the quarter as well. Yeah, I can start with the first part of the question. Yeah. Just to recap from Med-Surg, for Q1 revenue, we were up roughly 4%, one of the highest ones we've seen in recent periods. On the bottom line, we're down roughly 20%. As you rightly called out, we did have one-time administrative costs that impacted the year-on-year comp. The reason why I say year-on-year, because some of the year-on-year impact was within this fiscal year, a lot of it was actually last year. If you think about year-on-year, that's the reason why we were confident a lot of this doesn't repeat, this one-time admin cost doesn't repeat. That's more in the base of the prior year. Let me pivot towards how we think about the go forward. As we guided on the last earnings call, expecting AOP to be roughly 0%-4% growth on a year-on-year standpoint- Yeah. ...which implies that the business will improve throughout the year, right? Yeah. There's no one magic bullet here. Stanton and his team has done a good job looking across the P&L, if you will. I'll give you a couple of examples on the path, if you will- Yeah. ...to get there. On the revenue side, the team has a robust pipeline right now. We're winning new deals at a profitable clip, and that will continue throughout the rest of the year. Pipeline's robust. On the GP side, the team has nice GP initiatives, including continuing to expand and grow the private label side of the house, which carries higher margin calories, right? But the team isn't stopping there. We also have cost initiatives, supply chain initiatives on the base cost SG&A side of the house. Therefore, you can see from revenue pipeline to GP initiatives to the costs to the SG&A supply chain, all these four pieces work in concert for us to achieve, call it the 0%-4% growth for the year. With that said, though, I think it's important to note that right now we are about to enter the illness season, right? Yeah. It's a big variability for our business and for Med-Surg in particular. Let me give a bit more color on that. That doesn't really get hot and heavy and pervasive until probably to the end of the calendar year. But right now we're ramping up. Based on what we're seeing, we're seeing a little bit softer than expected. But again, it's early innings right now. We're not really in the season quite yet. But based on indications that we track on a daily basis, it's a little bit softer as we speak. There's a lot of variability with illness season, the duration, the time, the severity, right? There's obviously ancillary revenue that ties along with it, right? Yeah. Wearing gloves, for example. For us, we'll track that very closely. We'll be able to give a formal update on the next earnings call. Okay. You mentioned tariffs as well- Tariffs. Yeah. ...but you didn't really address that. Yeah. I'd just first remind people that in our Medical business, we don't manufacture products. We can be the importer of record. Yeah. In fact, most of what we do under our private label, the largest country we source from is actually the United States. Yeah. Tariffs weren't as impactful in our business- Yeah. ...as some others. There were some incurred, and we are working through whether we will file for recovery of those and how we will handle that. But it is not as meaningful since we are not the manufacturer. Okay. Got it. Then, you have made a lot of progress on the separation with the rebrand, the minority investment, working on the balance sheet there. I guess, what are the remaining gating items, and just a broader update on kind of timing and how that is going? Yeah. We have made a lot of progress. TSAs are stood up. In fact, some of them are starting to wind down. Yeah. That is a great sign. We did get the capital structure in place. We got the investment from Apollo. We launched the brand Wellverse, so we are marching right on our timeline. Look, it is a lot of work. Sometimes-- Yeah, why don't you separate from that business? It sounds so easy. We're standing up- Right. ...an entity that will stand on its own. The progress, the team has done a phenomenal job balancing running the business day to day and all of the work it takes to do that. We will continue to transition systems out of- Yeah. ...McKesson environment into a standalone environment, and that's really a big focus of the team right now. For me, the most exciting thing is seeing all of that work get done on the timeline that we had forecast and then seeing growth come back into the business. So it's very encouraging right now. Okay. Yeah. As we said on the Q1 earnings call, we are targeting the back half, the calendar year of next year. Yeah. We will do the right thing as B.T. mentioned. We are seeing the runoff of TSAs as well, so that is standing up. In terms of the IPO, we plan to exit the remaining shares after a customary lockup period. Yeah, sure. Exit the remaining shares, either through a split off or a spin-off- Okay. ...or both. Great. This has come up in a couple of the other questions, but obviously AI, huge focus across the board for all of our companies at the moment. I guess, how should we think about the investments that you've made so far and the returns that you're seeing there? I guess if there's any way to characterize the investments you've made to date versus what you might do over the next couple of years. Yeah. Look, we're very optimistic. We're AI enthusiasts. Yeah. We think at a business of our scale with the transactional intensity that we have, that there's a real role for this to play. We started our, we called it Digital Mindset, about four and a half years ago, before ChatGPT was on the scene or any of these tools, but we could see the future coming. We've got a few areas that we're focused on. Kenny mentioned the end-to-end supply chain and working capital effects, but we think of it largely in three buckets. We think about our employee experience. How do we make more of their time available for high-value work as opposed to administrative work, and make McKesson the best place to work in healthcare? The second bucket we think about is our customers and their patients. How do we provide better data, information, tools, insights, communications that take the friction out of being a patient in, for example, a U.S. Oncology practice? We have rolled out something like scribing to over 80% of our providers, so that our docs are not head down looking at their keyboard. They are engaging with the patient. All the notes are being captured. That does not sound like much, but we get letters from doctors' wives who talk about, "Thank you for giving me my spouse back at night," because they do not have to do this documentation. The satisfaction grows from practicing in our network. We attract more to practice in The U.S. Oncology Network. The third area is just obviously productivity, efficiency, and then innovation. How do we compress the cycle times of innovation so we can deliver, if we have 30 great ideas on the whiteboard and we used to be able to deliver five a year, how do we now deliver 15 or 20 in a year? We are seeing value across all four of those buckets. That is great. Maybe the last question, we touched a little bit on capital deployment with the deal discussion today. I guess, how do you think, we have obviously seen the past few years, there has been a heavier dose of MSO-focused acquisitions, and then the deal you announced more recently is a little bit different. I guess, how do you think about the profile of the assets that might interest the company over the next couple of years? Look, first and foremost, it has got to be aligned to our strategy. I mean, that is the first gate. If you think about the last seven years, we went through an early period where we did not do a lot of strategic capital deployment. We did a lot more repurchasing shares, and that was because we could not find an asset for sale at a value that we liked that was aligned to the strategy. More recently, we have had success in finding very good assets, PRISM, Florida Cancer Specialists,- Wow. ...now Precision for Medicine, that are tightly aligned to our strategy, and our balance sheet gives us the flexibility to do that. But first and foremost, capital deployment is about alignment to strategy, clearing our financial return hurdles, and that means against alternatives like dividends or buying back stock. Our capital deployment philosophy has been very consistent for the last seven years, and you should expect to continue to see that going forward. Okay. I think that's where we'll leave it. Thanks so much for your time today. Thank you, Steve. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thanks, all. Appreciate it.