We'll go ahead and get started here. Thanks everyone for joining us. I'm Mason Carrico, I'm the Diagnostics and Genomics Analyst at Stephens. Today, we have Bryan Riggsbee, CFO of Myriad Genetics, with us. Thanks for joining us. If at any point anyone wants to jump in with questions, feel free to ask away. So to kick it off here, Myriad's undergone quite the transformation over the past few years. So to start us off, could you kind of just walk us through the evolution of Myriad? What issues and hurdles was the company facing? What have you guys addressed? And, you know, where do things stand today? Great. Well, thanks, first of all, Mason, thank you for having us at the conference. Really excited to be here and participate. You know, if you look back, I would say, you know, three or four years ago, when Paul Diaz, our current CEO, joined us, you know, we obviously were in the midst of the pandemic, but we had a number of challenges from a portfolio standpoint. We had a, I would say, you know, lack of focus in some ways. And so one of the first things that we did was determine, you know, what areas we wanted to really concentrate in. So we chose oncology, women's health, and mental health, and, you know, divested assets, which really gave us the capital to then reinvest into areas that had probably been underinvested in over time. And so we were, we were behind the curve in terms of, you know, technology investments. These would be things like, you know, our ease-of-use tools, portals, EMR integration, those kinds of things. Even some of the tools that our sales force used, and even our laboratories. And so we focused over the last few years on, you know, upgrading in those areas. We've, we've talked about the movement into our new lab in Salt Lake City, which is out near the airport. A purpose-built space that is, you know, perfect for a high-volume laboratory, and then our innovation center in South San Francisco, where we held our investor day back in September, and then our space in Mason, Ohio, where we run GeneSight. So really a lot of investment and I think, you know, as we look at the marketplace today, you know, one of the reasons that we've been able to be successful, especially here in the last year or so, and grow volumes the way that we have is really been the fact that we were in a position to be able to take advantage of a market opportunity that existed. And I don't know that I could have said that a few years ago. I think that puts us in a great position as we think about moving into 2024. And we've talked a little bit about our perspective on that. But I really think that, you know, the best days lie ahead of us now that we've really gotten a lot of the heavy lifting as it relates to the transformation largely behind us. That's helpful. So maybe moving to the hereditary cancer business, which has been an area of strength for you guys recently. So maybe you guys have talked about maybe a few years ago, perception of Myriad, maybe in the market, wasn't as great as it could be, and there may have been some friction in terms of how easy it was to maybe work with you guys. So what have you guys done to kind of turn that around more recently? How much has that played a part in the growth reacceleration that we've really seen? Yeah. So I think there's a couple of things that I would point to that really, I think, support the growth. I think one of them are things that we've done internally. I mean, you know, Paul, we talked a lot about our focus on Net Promoter Scores and really having, you know, customers advocating and being net promoters of our company, and using that as a measure of, you know, how successful we've been in terms of changing that perspective. And again, this is through doing things like, you know, investing in EMR integrations, portals, you know, contributing data to ClinVar, and being a better partner when it comes to research and that sort of thing. And then there's some external things I think that have also been helpers relative to that volume trajectory. And that's things... You know, you had a market that, you know, where there was, you know, less cost of capital, and so, providers were able to, you know, give away their tests for free, and, and that has an impact in the marketplace. And, you know, I think one of the things that had hurt us is that we, you know, we, we, you know, we have a view that we should get paid for the testing that we perform, and so, sometimes that causes friction in the market. And I think that that, difference, between us and, and, and our competitors in the marketplace today is a lot different than it was, you know, a year and a half or, or two years ago. I think that's been something else that's been a helper as we think about, you know, fueling the volume growth, especially that we've seen in the last few quarters. Got it. And on some of the competitor exits and disruptions in the space, I'm sure smaller privates are probably facing issues as well. So are you seeing, you know, an increased share of your customer volumes being directed to Myriad? And as we look ahead, how much incremental opportunity is, like, there to continue growing wallet share from your current customers? Yeah. So I think two things. One is for the reasons that I talked about earlier in terms of making Myriad an easier company to do business with, you know. I think that puts us in a position to grow at the market, you know, grow consistent with the market. I think there was a period of time, if you look back a couple of years ago, especially in the hereditary cancer space, you know, where, you know, we were flattish, and the market's obviously growing, you know, more than flat. And so I think, you know, by doing all the things we talked about earlier, it allows us to get our fair share of the market growth rate. Then, you know, above that, the dislocation that we've seen in the market allows us to accrue a little bit of additional benefit from some of the share shift. You know, I think we're, I think we're kind of early days. I think that I would attribute more of the, of the growth to things that we're doing right versus shift in the market, but there's definitely been some dislocation that has benefited us. But I think we're, you know, relatively early days, for that. I mean, providers and physicians, they don't read balance sheets and other thing for competitors in the market. So it's, they're, they're somewhat insulated from that dynamic, and so it's only at the point where they start to experience turnaround time delays- Mm-hmm. and service disruption, that it really becomes a contributor. But it's definitely something that, you know, we wanna be in a position when we have the opportunity to take advantage of it. Yep, that makes sense. And then moving to GeneSight. Volume growth, adoption rates, they continue to be really strong. You've talked about winning some, some Medicaid plans, as well as some small commercial plans. So maybe starting with the Medicaid market, where are you in terms of securing, you know, maybe additional coverage near term? And what has really been the hurdle there, I guess, that you need to cross to continue making those wins? Yeah. So I think, first of all, we've really doubled down and rededicated efforts to invest in these areas. So we have folks on our government relations team that are focused in this area. We have folks in our legal team that are focused in this area. Because even when you see things like, you know, state biomarker laws that have been passed, you still have to be in a position to make sure that, you know, people adhere to what the law is and do what they should be doing. And so, I think first and foremost, is we've just realized that, you know, in many cases, if you wanna get paid, that's gonna be what you have to do in order to really drive that. We are early days, and we've talked about it on our last couple of calls, that we've had some wins with some state Medicaid plans, some managed Medicaid plans, and we've started to see cash actually coming into the door, which is important. But we still have opportunities there. You know, one state in particular, you know, there's four or five state managed significant managed Medicaid plans. You know, three of them are paying as they should, two are not. So we, you know, have to get a little more aggressive with some of the ones that are not paying you. So, it's still—there's still an effort involved, even when you see, you know, a state that might move to cover GeneSight or a state biomarker law that would indicate that it should cover it. But we're happy with the progress that we've made, and we think that over time, you know, these dollars will add up and it'll be you know, meaningful, especially in a business like GeneSight. Yep. And on the state biomarker bills themselves, I mean, how much of an opportunity is that for GeneSight specifically? And, you know, I know there are a bunch of different timelines and criteria within each, but how do you think about when you can start to actually see the benefits of those start to run through? Yeah. So I think that it's definitely an opportunity. We talked about it at our Investor Day. I think at the time there were 12 states that had passed laws, it might be 13 at this point. And I think of those 12 at the time, 10, you know, would indicate, seemed to cover GeneSight. And so we believe that there's a significant opportunity there. But as I said earlier, you know, having the laws passed and, you know, creating adherence to the laws, is important. One thing I would call out, though, is that it doesn't just impact, you know, state Medicaid plans, it also impacts commercial payers that do businesses in those states. So it is a significant opportunity, and I think it'll play out over time. It's definitely something that we've got a team of people that's focused on, because we do believe it's a, it's a fairly meaningful opportunity. Mm-hmm. And then from a commercial standpoint, could you kind of talk about the commercial transformation of, of the GeneSight team? I know that had been a focus. How was it structured a few years ago? What changes have you made and the improvements that you've really seen there? Yeah. So I think like a lot of teams in the diagnostic space, historically, you had a very field sales rep intensive model, and that's the way the GeneSight model was, you know, probably three or four years ago. You know, I think Mark Verratti, who's our Chief Commercial Officer, has, who previously ran the GeneSight business, really did a great job of using more digital tools to focus sales efforts. Using more inside sales reps, you know, as opposed to fully loaded, more expensive, you know, field sales reps in order to drive volume. Because in some cases, it's not just about driving volume and demand. A lot of what the field sales team does is ultimately kind of administrative in nature, in terms of facilitating, you know, "Hey, did the sample show up at the lab?" You know, "Where are my results delayed or it's not here yet?" And so having, you know, a more cost-effective model where you have inside sales people that can help with some of that, I think has been really helpful. And so what he's done then is really sort of taken that model and sort of, you know, replicated that to some extent in the women's health segment. And so, I think when you look at the volume growth that we've seen here over the last several quarters, and Mark really moved into that role, probably in Q4 of last year, I think really the traction that you've seen is a result of, partially a result of, you know, applying some of those same approaches to other parts of the business and ultimately, you know, his leadership of that effort. That's helpful. And then, yeah, well, on the women's health business and the commercial strategy, you know, to some degree, leveraging SneakPeek sales to drive awareness of your, your women's health portfolio, prenatal portfolio. Can you talk about, yeah, some of the early success, what you're seeing there, if there's anything you can point to? And how much of a tailwind could that be to the broader women's health portfolio, you know, in 2024? Yeah. So I think as we look back, I think one of the biggest, at least from my perspective, portion of the rationale for the acquisition, was the ability to, you know, create some brand awareness in the marketplace of Myriad Genetics. So when you know, we've talked about our having the SneakPeek test on the shelf in Walgreens now, Myriad Genetics labeling on the box, people become aware of the brand, and can go in and actively promote their providers, "Hey, I'd like to learn more about genetic testing." Maybe that's not something that they're aware of. So I think that's definitely part of the rationale. As we've started to integrate our CRM platform and Salesforce platform with the Gateway team and with our women's health business, I think, you know, that there's even more opportunity. But I think we're early days, I don't and I don't know that I would necessarily call out, you know, what the incremental benefit might be, but I think that there's—it's definitely a focus area for the team at Gateway as well as the women's health team. Got it. And then on NIPT in the California screening program, I think you guys had previously said that maybe it was like 8% of your volume in that state, something like that. Now, the program's overturned, have you been successful in winning back any business there? Yeah, and I think the 8% sounds right to me. And we've definitely been successful in winning some of the business back. It's not 100% of what we lost. And I also wouldn't attribute the growth rate that we've seen in the prenatal business for the last several quarters, you know, to winning back share, you know, in the California market. I think we have won some customers back there, but there are some customers that, you know, once they switch, it's difficult to get them to return. Mm-hmm. And on Foresight, you guys have talked about plans to expand that panel. So maybe more broadly, have you just seen an increased demand in the market in general for these larger, broad screening panels versus, you know, the more narrow panels? And then maybe any color you can give, if you'd like, on how to think about, you know, Foresight volumes in terms of broader panel versus maybe more narrow. Yeah. So I would say that, you know, in general, I think there's been market demand and appetite for larger panels, you know, not just recently, but, you know, it seems like providers, in a lot of cases, want more information, and so they want the broader panel. So I think even without ACOG guideline expansion, there's demand- Mm-hmm ... for a broad, expanded carrier screening panel. And as you highlight, we, you know, talked about expanding our panel in order to make sure that we, you know, to the extent that ACOG moves and expands to add more genes, have the content available that'll be included within guidelines. But, you know, it's hard to predict when that might be, but, I think of it as- Mm-hmm ... probably more about, you know, there's potential tailwind there in terms of getting paid more often for the expanded carrier screening panel. And that's probably the bigger opportunity, as opposed to a, you know, a volume plan, because I believe there's already a lot of demand and appetite out in the market for an expanded panel. Getting paid for the testing that we run today, I think would be pretty, pretty significant. Okay. And when it comes to ACOG guidelines, let's say without ACOG guidelines, just from, you know, market demand, maybe physician pressures, you know, work in the industry, other guideline committees putting out positive statements. I mean, are commercial payers being more receptive to paying for expanded carrier panels, or do we have to have ACOG to start seeing them pay? Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, obviously ACMG moved to an ECS policy, but it really hasn't been impactful from a payer standpoint. And I really wouldn't expect that until, you know, ACOG moves, you'll see a lot of movement in that area. And even once they do, you know, it'll still take some period of time for payers to update their internal medical policy to include it, in guidelines, in their medical policy guidelines. It'll certainly be a means for appeal if you have a denied claim, given the guideline inclusion. But I think it's gonna take a while- Okay. ... even post ACOG movement. Any estimates of what that timeline could be in general? I wish I knew. Yeah. I mean, I've heard all kinds of probably similar things to you have. I mean, it seems like at every passing meeting, there's anticipation that it could be, you know, at, following the most recent meeting. But, you know, who's to say? I do believe it'll happen, but I'm not sure I could tell you when. Okay. On microdeletions, how do you feel about the potential for microdeletions, in terms of upcoming guidelines? Yeah. So I'm not as clear on microdeletions in terms of the upcoming guidelines. You know, we highlighted at our Investor Day in September, you know, the product that we have that we believe is really responsive to the need in the marketplace as it relates to microdeletions and 22q specifically, and is a really high-quality test if that's what the provider wants to order. So we would certainly be able to be responsive if there was movement and there was more ordering activity there. But I'm not sure if we'll see that in the upcoming guidelines or not. But we'll be ready if it does happen. Got it. And it may have been last Investor Day, it may have been the recent one, I can't remember, to be completely honest, but you talked about prenatal volumes and microdeletion volumes. I think you guys called out like a 15% rate. Does that sound about right? Yeah. I think what we said was that about we run the microdeletions about 22% of the... Excuse me, 15% of the time. Okay. And we have an opt-in, you know, checkbox on our TRF. So if the physician wants to order it, that's about the percentage of the time that they order it. Got it. Okay. And then lastly, here on FirstGene, could you just kind of touch on, run through the value drivers of this new offering, and how the test could ramp and potentially could it impact, cannibalize some of your other prenatal products? Yeah. So I think of it as you know, first of all, you know, it's responsive to you know, need in the market for you know, a test that is of high quality and ease of use in the marketplace. So being able to have access to a non-invasive prenatal screening at the same time as you have access to the carrier screening, not having to have the father participate in the testing. So there's all kinds of things, I think, today, that are barriers relative to you know, getting that testing performed. And so you know, I think the biggest thing from my perspective is just making it you know, easier and more accessible for more people, and so that's really the focus. I think in terms of the cannibalization aspect, I think of it more as incremental, you know, in a pie grower, as opposed to... There There will obviously be some people that would have ordered one or both of the other products that will now order a FirstGene. But I think, you know, in total, we view that as a growing business over time. And so, you know, to the extent there is cannibalization, the overall total should be larger in terms of volume. Got it. Okay. And then Prolaris has been a tailwind for the tumor profiling portfolio. It's a competitive market. What differentiates that test from, like, Decipher or, yeah, an Oncotype DX? Yeah. I think today, I mean, for most of the tests, I mean, unlike some of the other areas of testing, you know, these tests are fairly unique in some cases, in terms of how they were validated, the type of information that they provide, and even the place where they are appropriate, you know, along the sort of the continuum. So, you know, some people would probably say, you know, we're more focused on the biopsy space, Decipher may be on the post-RP space. That might be a general characterization. But it's obviously a... So, I don't know that there's as much direct head-to-head comparison as, or competitiveness as, there is, you know, competitiveness against, you know, no testing or- Mm-hmm ... or, and that's the case in many of these markets. As you introduce testing capabilities in spaces where historically there have been none, you know, getting people to understand why, you know, I should care about this or why I should want this information, I think is probably the first step. And look, if we're all out there creating awareness and helping to grow the space, I think it's a net positive. We're obviously focused on developing incremental data that'll help, you know, increase the level of evidence for our tests, that will, you know, expand into other, you know, parts of that continuum. But, you know, it's a, you know... I think no testing is probably the biggest competitor that we face in a lot of the spaces. Got it. Could you just update us on where Prolaris stands in terms of coverage today? I mean, how much of a growth opportunity does expanding commercial coverage represent, you know, over the next 12-24 months? Yeah, I mean, I think it's because of the percentage of the overall market that is Medicare, you know, just based on the population of people that mostly get these tests, there's probably less of an impact from commercial payer coverage. But it is important. You probably saw the recent guideline expansion from UnitedHealthcare that now includes, you know, Prolaris. You know, that's important, but you know, I think of this as you know, 60% or sort of two-thirds kind of Medicare, you know, base market. So, you know, commercial payers probably have less of an impact here than they do in some other places. Okay, um- But it's not zero, so- Right ... it's, you know, we're happy to have. Right. So on Precise MRD, I think you guys have talked about, you know, a pharma opportunity in the back half of next year. I mean, how are early discussions going? Does it seem like there's a lot of excitement about that as you roll that out next year? Yeah. So, I mean, you know, Dale, I think, did a great job at the Investor Day in sort of highlighting, you know, where we stand with the assay. Some of the study partnerships that we've developed for Precise MRD, and, you know, we'll launch that as RUO next year, and then, you know, continue to develop data along the path to commercialization. But, you know, we believe that that's we're in the early days of that, you know, market. Not the, you know, seventh or eighth inning, but the early part of the game. And so, you know, we believe there's still a lot of opportunity there, and that given our broader oncology portfolio, that, you know, we'll be, we'll, we'll be able to, to have a really compelling offering there. Got it. Then maybe moving to the balance sheet here. You guys did a recent offering. Mm-hmm. I think it was $110 million. Mm-hmm. It seems like this has probably eliminated any of the concerns around the balance sheet and- Mm-hmm ... and near-term litigation payments. Mm-hmm. Could you talk about the use of those funds, you know, capital allocation going forward, and, and ultimately now the appetite for incremental M&A? Yeah. So, I mean, I think we, you know, as part of the offering, we said that we would plan to use $57.5 million of the proceeds in order to settle the final payment on the shareholder lawsuit litigation process, and $40 million to pay off the ABL. So, you know, we'll be in a position where we have more cash on the balance sheet, an undrawn line of credit, and really, I think, you know, a focus as we get into Q4, we've said we would be adjusted operating profit in Q4, adjusted operating cash flow positive in Q4. And so as we move into next year, not only will be, you know, in a good position and have lots of financial flexibility-... You know, but also the underlying operations of the business will be supportive of, you know, sort of continued balance sheet strength. From an M&A standpoint, you know, we've been pretty disciplined as it relates to, you know, deploying capital. We've, you know, we've divested assets and returned capital, as I mentioned earlier. And so, you know, at this point, there's really, you know, not anything that I'd point to from an M&A standpoint. We feel really good about the internal capability that we have and are really focused on FirstGene launch, Precise MRD. We believe that, you know, the best returning capital, return on capital that we have, is by continuing to invest in these internal capabilities. Got it. And then moving to your 2026 targets, from a revenue growth standpoint, I think 10% CAGR. Could you provide some color on the mix or, or the growth drivers there? I think last year at your Analyst Day, you talked about 4-5- percentage points of that growth coming from mental health, 3-4 coming from women's health, 2-3 from oncology. Is that still the expectation? Has anything changed? Yeah, I mean, you know, we haven't provided an update since that time in terms of what the mix would be and of that overall growth rate. What I would say is that we're probably feeling a little more incrementally positive relative to hereditary cancer. Mm-hmm. I think we had talked about it, you know, around that time as being sort of a solid foundation on which we would sort of grow these other, you know, parts of the portfolio. I think given what we've seen from a volume standpoint, you know, in terms of the growth of that business here in the last several quarters and the opportunity there, probably more incrementally positive, you know, when it comes to hereditary. That'd be the only thing I would really call out that would be probably different than the way we characterized it before. Okay. You typically haven't guided the following year on Q3, why now? Yeah. So, I think that, you know, the way we would look at it is that, you know, we, we've said a number of times that, you know, 10%+ is our targeted growth rate. That's what we've seen the last several quarters, and really, we just view it as, you know, really just a reaffirmation of what we've consistently said, which is we believe will be a 10% grower. And the $750 midpoint for the current year and the $825 midpoint for next year is the math on that 10% number. So it's not like the recent strength you've seen in hereditary specifically gives you better visibility, therefore, we're putting out 2024 guidance? I wouldn't say that. I mean, you know, if there was any incremental thing from our Investor Day, you know, getting past the United contract renewal in October was, you know, it's nice to have that behind us. That was one thing that a lot of investors had asked about. That contract ran through the end of the year, so getting that behind us was an important hurdle to clear. Then talking about some costs. Just help me understand the rolling off or you're addressing some costs, just magnitude in 2024? I'm sorry, I don't recall. You talked about- I would- In 2024, there's some infrastructure costs or you're cutting some costs. There was some cost commentary, specifically 2024 is going to be greater than 2023. I don't recall specifically. I'm sorry. But so in 2024, we did invest in the back half of 2023 in terms of some additional sales and marketing costs, that if you annualize that... Excuse me, that was 2022, moving into 2023. And then the only other data point that we've said is that our OpEx should grow 5%-6%, you know, going forward. We did talk about, you know, costs in terms of like our CapEx spend, throttling down pretty significantly from 2023 as we've completed the Lab of the Future build-out, but. And then on the outlook for hereditary cancer itself, I think you guys had previously talked about pricing compression across the portfolio as, like, 3%-5%. Hereditary cancer pricing compression, I think you said is likely above that range. Mm-hmm. Is that still the expectation going forward? Is that what's baked into the 2026 targets? Yeah, I mean, I think that we haven't. We didn't provide an update from what we had said previously relative to the mix of volume and price. But I think the characterization around, you know, I think we still feel comfortable with the 3%-5% range. And we've said, you know, that we would expect hereditary, probably to be at the top end- Mm-hmm ... you know, kind of of that range and probably, you know, GeneSight or, or some other products, you know, maybe more at the low end. I think one of the things I always call out when it relates to ASP is that a lot of this is not driven necessarily by contracted rates, but more by rev cycle processes and the ability to get, you know, to get paid for the testing that you do. So that's just something else to consider as we think about 3%-5%. There's probably some contract changes that go into that, as well as some potential opportunity. We talked at our Investor Day about... This is not factored into, you know, any of the long-term guide, but that we felt like we had a $40 million, you know, opportunity when it comes to rev cycle over the next few years. We just believe that there's more opportunity there to continue to get paid for the testing that we do. Do you feel good about the infrastructure and team you have in place to continue to go after that? Yeah, I mean, I think that we've got the... I mean, I'm biased, but I think we have the best team in the industry. You know, we've got a tremendous payer markets team that's, you know, lots of long-tenured people here that have been through many cycles. We've got a top-notch billing and prior authorization team. And I think that, you know, the evidence sort of speaks for itself. If you look back, especially at the last couple of years, in terms of the amount of cash that they've been able to collect, I think we've got the right team. You know, I think we just, you know, there I think there's still some opportunities that are out there. Perfect. And then GeneSight, in terms of the outlook there- Mm-hmm. Was there... You know, are there any large payer wins that are baked into this, you know, 10% CAGR? Or is it really volume? I know you won't break it down- Yeah, sure. but I guess trying to think about national payer Yeah things like that. Yeah, what I would say is, you know, we for GeneSight specifically have probably thought about it in terms of, you know, status quo as it relates to more volume- Mm-hmm ...oriented, you know, growth. You know, not, you know, in count, you know, baking in that, you know, you're gonna get a large national payer. I think we do have some expectation that, you know, over the coming years, you know, that we'll continue to make great progress with, you know, Medicaid. You know, that's a, you know, that's a 25% or so of that, you know, business. You know, Medicare is 15% or, or in that range. So lots of opportunity as it relates to getting paid for more of your testing, which overall supports more ASP, even if you don't get a- Mm-hmm ... a large national payer. Got it. We have two more here. Sure. So generated positive adjusted cash, I think in Q2. You're targeting Q4 going forward. So, you know, that's a big differentiator for names in our space and diagnostics specifically. What do you view as... You know, first off, getting to where you guys are, that's very impressive. But what do you view as, like, the biggest risk to being able to achieve that and maintain it going forward? Yeah, I think, obviously, as you said, I think being able to get to that point and maintain it, certainly, I think is, you know, unique in the space when you look at, you know, a lot of the competition that is far from it. You know, I think that the biggest thing that we have to focus on is to continue to stay disciplined as it relates, you know, to our operating expense and the investments that we make. You know, we're investing in MRD, as an example. We're doing that through our current, you know, OpEx commitments. When we talk, when we talk about our growth and operating expense, some things are gonna get completed, some things are gonna roll off, and you'll reallocate the operating expense to another area. I think just continuing to stay disciplined, even once we reach that point, is gonna be, you know, something that we just really need to focus on. I think, you know, the operating leverage in this business is tremendous. So when you grow rev top line 10% and a 70%-ish kind of gross margin, there's a lot of dollars that sort of drop down. And if you can stay disciplined on the OpEx side, I think you've got a great opportunity, not only to stay profitable in generating cash flow, but also to expand that. Yep. And then to wrap up, and you may have answered this a little bit in your last question- Mm-hmm. ... but obviously, you guys have come a long way over the past couple years. You know, what, what are you the most proud of? What investments or improvements do you still think you guys need, need to make near term? And what do you really think remains the most underappreciated about Myriad at this point? Yeah, I mean, I would say that you know, when I look back at, especially at the last few years, I think that sort of the transformation around you know, the laboratory, the sales team, the investments in technology, and ease of use, and really the impact that we've had on our you know, NPS scores. I mean, so that's sort of the report card that we get from customers and others outside the company on how well we're doing. I think that's probably one of the things I'm most proud of, and I think it really positions us, as I said earlier, to be in you know, a position to take advantage when there is market dislocation. I think one of the things that's probably underappreciated is just the, you know, the durability and the strength of sort of a broad portfolio. So when you look at, you know, and how you can leverage that, as opposed to being sort of a product company that's focused solely on MRD, as an example. You know, having the infrastructure already in place with high-volume hereditary cancer panels, with tumor profiling, you know, with all these other things, you know, allows us significantly more leverage as we think about investing in those areas. And I think maybe that's one of the things that, you know, is maybe a little underappreciated. Got it. Last chance for any questions. All right, Bryan, thank you. Great. Thank you, Mason. Appreciate it. I appreciate it.