Hey, good morning, everyone. My name is Eric Caldwell, the analyst at Baird, and it's a pleasure to have Premier with us today. In the audience, Ben Krasinski, always helpful in the Investor Relations group. We have Glenn Coleman, the Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, and also Crystal Clymer, who surprised us with a welcome visit. This, you know, a nice visit. I'm glad you're here. She's the Chief Accounting Officer. I am not going to spend a lot of time with an intro because the company wants to spend a few minutes just doing a quick introduction and recap of the company and where they are in the moment. There was some interesting news yesterday that we'll obviously have to hit on quickly, Glenn, but I'm going to let you go ahead and kick us off. Thank you for having us. Always enjoyed joining the Baird conference. A little bit about Premier. We're a healthcare performance improvement company that provides a unique combination of supply chain capabilities, technology, and advisory services that provide meaningful value to our healthcare members and to health systems. Our company today has a mission that is really about improving overall health in our communities. Our vision is working with our members to drive better quality at a low cost in terms of healthcare. Our company today trades on the NASDAQ stock market under the ticker symbol PINC. We're about a $2 billion market cap. We pay about a 3% to 4% dividend yield. Annually, we do revenues of about $1 billion. We have two business segments: supply chain services at a little over 60%, performance services a little less than 40%. That gives you kind of the profile revenue-wise. EBITDA-wise, we generate mid-20% type EBITDA margins, and we're expecting that number to improve here over the next couple of years. Employee-wise, about 2,700 employees globally. As one of the largest GPOs, we have about $87 billion of purchasing spend going through our contracts. We work with about 4,300 health systems at 300,000 sites, and we have about 100 billion data points because we have access to almost half the U.S. hospital discharges. A significant amount of information at our fingertips. At a very high level, that's a little bit about our company. I'm going to have to do a trick math question and ask you how many petabytes of it. You're not the only company I had to do a little scramble on rewriting questions, but this one's easy because I know that if there wasn't a comment to the press, there's not going to be one on stage. There were some headlines yesterday about a potentially interested party in the company. I thought it might be interesting to talk a little bit about your history of reviewing alternatives and how you think about that bigger picture going back to what happened in 2023 and 2024. Yeah, I mean, obviously we're aware of the article that was published by Bloomberg on Friday. I would just say as a matter of our longstanding company policy, we don't comment on market rumors or any speculation. Having said that, we did go through a strategic alternatives review process about 18 months ago in that timeframe. The outcome of that was divesting certain non-core assets and buying back a significant amount of our shares. That was the outcome of that. As always, our Board and our management team is committed to acting in the best interests of our shareholders. We're very focused right now on executing our strategy, executing our long-term plans, driving sustainable long-term growth. If I just look at some of the recent performance, Q3, Q4, we over-delivered, over-delivered on our year. I think we're seeing better numbers going into 2026 now. We said we're at an inflection point in 2027. I think we're doing all the things to put the company on a better path moving forward, both top line and bottom line. We're very excited about our future. I want to get into that. You were gracious enough to give some of the stats on supply chain spend under management, number of health system and non-acute customers, et cetera. Over time, could you give us a sense on how those metrics have changed? I think some of them recently have grown a little bit. The supply chain spend, if I remember, was in the lower 80s, not 87 last year when you were talking about this. Maybe talk about some of those growth dynamics. I wanted to ask specifically in the core GPO, and you're 10 months in, so this is not your history, but you're going to have to remember it. I'll help you out. In the core GPO, I went back through my notes for about a decade, and there were a lot of comments about contract penetration, members using you for purchases that previously they had not. We always got a number around 60% penetration. I'm hoping you can true that up for me a little bit. Yeah, so I'll hit the first part, maybe have Crystal hit the second part because she's been around for 10 years, so you can give a better answer to that piece. If you look at our supply chain services business, we have gross administrative fees, which is the overall penetration of our contracts. If you break that down between acute, non-acute, and non-healthcare, it's about 60-30-10, just in terms of the overall volumes going through our contracts. We've been growing the gross administrative fees in that 3% to 4% range, seeing really nice growth in areas like our pharmacy portfolio, our food portfolio, med-surg, all growing very nicely. That's a combination of increased spend going through our contracts, we call it contract penetration, or we're seeing much more compliance from our members on our contracts, which is driving that. We obviously have new members spend as well. We're ramping up some new members. It's probably about 90-10 if I look at the weighting of how much is driven from existing members versus new members. We did announce last year a very big win with Allspire, about $3.5 billion plus of spend. That's still ramping up for us. That's going to help us and be a nice tailwind for us going into this fiscal year. Overall, that's how we kind of see this playing out. We do expect to see our overall gross administrative fees continue to accelerate, just given the momentum we have. The other dynamic is the fee share, right? This is the amount we actually give back to our members. That percent has been going up. We've gone through a pretty significant restructuring of our contracts with some of our larger members. That's provided and been a big headwind for us in fiscal year 2025. The good news is we're now about 80% plus of the way through that. We'll be fully through it in fiscal year 2026. Once we get through that, then we should be on a path to growth. That's how we think about the overall gross administrative fees. Crystal, maybe you can comment on the other part of the question. Absolutely. Eric, when you're talking about that, I think you're talking about that about 60% penetration that we've talked about for years. On contract. Right, on contract, right? Absolutely. I like to think about that as more of a directional figure that shows really the opportunity that we have to continue to have our members spend channel through our portfolio. It really just shows the long opportunities that we have for increased gross administrative fees and savings for our members. Have you seen any shift in client behavior with all of the macro headlines and noise around things like tariffs? Has that actually encouraged any? Is it too soon? You know, we've gotten that question several times. I think even on our earnings call, someone was asking Mike Alkire, our CEO, if we had seen any pull forward, right? We really haven't seen that at this point. To your question, is it too soon? I'm not sure, but thus far we really have not seen that. Now, I know, as Glenn mentioned, you've had the renewal cycle, which you had such a unique IPO and the five and seven-year contracts, and then, you know, the corporate changes since, which I think everyone obviously knew was coming from back in fiscal 2012, fiscal 2013 when you came out. Now that it's a more standard structure, if you will, and you're 80% plus through this round of negotiations, you mentioned a little bit of a revenue share back headwind as that goes up to the mid and then higher 60% over the next year plus. You do think it's going to stabilize at that point. I guess bluntly, why? Why would it stabilize at the high 60% and not continue to move higher on, say, a distant round of channel pressures or customer consolidation or whatever it might be? I think the big thing is we've gone through the major resets, and it doesn't mean we're never going to see another fee share increase after we've gone through these. The way I think about it is the growth we expect to see in our gross administrative fee should more than offset any type of fee share increase, which should be nominal. Of course, you could see a point or two of incremental headwinds beyond what we're expecting. Again, we expect to grow our gross administrative fees at a much faster pace than that. Net-net, we would expect our supply chain services business, just on the GPO side, to be growing faster. We've got a co-management supply chain business and our digital supply chain business, which are growing much faster. They're growing double digits. Right. Keep in mind, it's still a smaller part of our overall supply chain business, like 15% to 20%. That's why we're confident once we get through these fee share resets, even if the fee shares tick higher, we should still be growing starting in 2027. On core, and I agree with everything you're saying, it makes sense mathematically. Core administrative fees, gross administrative fees growing historically 3%, 4%, zip code. RSO goes up a point, you're still getting 3% of growth or 2% of growth depending on how fast the... Yeah, the other point I'd highlight. That would be the long-term vision? Yeah, I mean, and then getting faster growth than that though with some of the other components that are part of supply chain services, right? Right, yeah. Keep in mind, these discussions around revenue growth 2%, 3% on our GPO business, it's dollar for dollar drop through to the bottom line. We don't have to add more infrastructure costs to support that. If you look at our margin expansion plans, this coupled with our software business is a key part of our margin expansion story moving forward. Let's transition over to performance services. I didn't expect this to be all the conversation with the last quarterly report, but advisory became a very big talking point. You announced that you had four larger wins, very large, I think was the terminology. Granted, those might span, they do span more than 12 months. It's not all fiscal 2026 business. You'll have a tail into 2027 and possibly beyond. Glenn, you mentioned that advisory, and in Q&A, you mentioned advisory was roughly a $50 to $100 million business. The segment is, you know, low to mid $300s. $350 to $380 is the guidance, to be specific. It's a decent percentage of performance services, but still a minority. Now you have these four very large wins. Talk to us a little bit, for those less familiar, just maybe a one-liner, two-liner on what exactly we're talking about, the nature of that business. I'm really interested to get into how that, the four very large wins, how does that compare to history? What's a normal quarter, a normal year? Let's go with a little bit of a backdrop so we can get a better picture. Sure. Yeah. You hit a really exciting part of our business right now. We have really good momentum. I think a lot of this is stemming from the big beautiful bill and some of the headwinds that's created for our health systems that we support, in terms of reimbursement headwinds and cost challenges. It's created a big opportunity for our advisory business. We've brought in a number of new leaders with great capability now, and with our strong, long-lasting relationships, we've got a recipe for success. We mentioned probably two or three quarters ago, we are starting to see our funnel build pretty meaningfully. In the most recent quarter, we actually converted some of those funnel opportunities to actual contract wins. To put it in a historical context, the four contracts that we've won are the four largest contracts we've won in recent history. I go back five, six years, I don't see contracts that were as large as these contracts. You mentioned $50 million to $100 million in terms of the size of the business today. I mentioned on the earnings call, we expect to grow that part of our business in fiscal year 2026 by at least 25%. You can kind of do the math and say, that's about $20 million of incremental revenue. These are 18 to 24 month contracts, so you can kind of get a general sizing of these deals being $10 million plus in the aggregate. Yeah. When you look at each of these, we got great momentum. The best part of it is we're just starting, right? We've got these four wins. We're now going forward and executing, and they are performance-based contracts. Many of these members are trying to take costs out anywhere from $75 million to $200 million in their cost infrastructure. The more we can help them do that, the more we make. These are performance-based type contracts or milestones. We've got a whole funnel of opportunities right behind these. I'm expecting to have more positive news on our next few earnings calls, hopefully more wins, start to see it in our numbers. I would just tell you that we're not going to see it right away. One of the messages on our earnings call was our Q1 is expected to be our lowest quarter of the year because we're ramping up all the resources. I've got the cost of bringing these people on board, but the revenues don't get recognized until later in the year. We do expect that ramp will lead to much better performance in the second half of the year versus first half of the year. We are just delighted with the progress we're making here, lots of opportunity. This is a business candidly that was a drag on our EBITDA margins. If I look at our performance in fiscal year 2025, because we didn't deliver on our numbers and you have utilization productivity challenges when that happens in this type of business. With this ramp now, a big part of our performance services EBITDA margin improvement should come from advisory services. I think long term, this is a business we would expect to get to about 30% EBITDA margins. Is there a certain scale, a certain number that it has to be at, or is it more about aligning resources with the opportunity appropriately? I'm not sure if it's more we need to get to $150 million or we just need to be humming with a steady state of projects that are in the later innings versus the early. That's well said. Humming with a bunch of projects that are continuing to come in, that's the secret sauce for us to continue to show EBITDA margin expansion, which we're expecting. That's actually a great lead-in to my next topic, which is when I look at the history of performance services, which has had some different mix over time. Companies have come and gone, acquisitions, you've moved things in and out of the segment. You've been anywhere from, call it a mid-teens organic grower to mid-teens declines. You've had anywhere from mid-30s, upper 30s margins in some quarters down to low double digits. We're coming off of a low watermark in fiscal 2025. Q1's going to be lower end because of the investment. Yeah, right. Where does this, based on the current mix today, you just said advisory, when it's humming down the road, could be a 30% margin business. Does that mean performance services overall is a 30%+ margin business again? You want to take this? Yeah, absolutely. Eric, I'll address some of your ups and downs, right? We've talked about this a good bit over the quarters and the years. We have enterprise license agreements within our technology business. What happens with those is it does create some ebbs and flows within our quarters, right? If we have a higher enterprise license agreement quarter, we have much higher not only revenues, but also profitability because much like our GPO, those agreements are pretty high margin, almost 100% margin, right? That means we have a trough the next quarter. We're continuing to look at those. We do anticipate changing some of those over this year into more SaaS agreements, which will be, you know, three to five-year agreements. What that may mean is a quarter that feels a little bit lower, yet we have that recurring revenue going forward. As Glenn talked about with our advisory deals, we are looking at a lot of wraparound tech services within those advisory deals, which is really exciting for us because not only are we having really good success in advisory, it also really helps our members with the technology as well. As we see those conversions, we think that we are expecting to hit those 30% margins. Dare I ask when? No, no, but listen, I think if you think about our advisory business getting to 30%, our software business obviously has very high margins. The rest of the business should be generating in at least the low 20%. I think we'll need a little bit of time to get there. We did indicate that in fiscal year 2026, we're expecting it to be a down year with our software business because we have fewer renewals just based upon the timing of when these contracts come due. The inflection should happen in 2027 in terms of the software business. I think once we start to see that advisory starting to improve, you know, reasonably in the next three to five years, maybe we can get to that type of aspirational number. I would just set an expectation for fiscal year 2026, we do expect to see an improvement in our EBITDA margins for performance services. You talked, you've given us a lot of the backdrop on how you have the building blocks to get back to growth in fiscal 2027. Obviously, second half better than first half this year, it would seem. Playing devil's advocate, if you were to wind up at the lower end of this year's range, it would be a down year. Does growth simply mean getting back? You could grow a lot and still be below fiscal 2025. I mean, bluntly, that's mathematically, you could have a really nice growth year in 2027, still be below 2025. In your mind, are you thinking 2027 above 2025? I would think so, but. Yeah, I don't think we want to comment on that. The reason why we wanted to put the '27 message out there that we expect to grow in fiscal year 2027 over 2026 is to make sure everyone understood. You know, we've gone through a couple of years of decline. 2026, based upon our guidance, could be a year that's, you know, low single-digit declines again, based upon our guidance. We wanted to make sure that everyone understood this was a transition year for us and that given, you know, what we see in terms of the fee share discussions, the expectations around contract penetration and growing the gross administrative fees, the strong growth we're seeing in digital supply chain, the recovery in our software business, the consulting and advisory business really humming, that we do expect to get back to growth in 2027. What that looks like, obviously, I don't want to say whether it's going to be above 2025 or not because, you know, I don't want to commit to a specific number yet. We do want to set an expectation that the declines are expected to stop in 2026. That was the key thing we wanted to get out there. A couple of one-offs. When you are having these discussions for the larger advisory deals and these four being recent history highs, are they open RFPs, or are these internal conversations you're having directly with those health systems and management teams and you come to an agreement on your own, or is this something that multiple parties are involved in? If it is multiple parties, maybe give us a sense on who the top competitors are. Yeah, I mean, listen, I think it depends. The good news is we have longstanding relationships with many of our GPO members and even non-members. I think a lot and probably most of the opportunities are just coming through the relationships that we have and us being very proactive around our capabilities and what we can do to add value to their health system and how we can help them with some of the short-term challenges that they're dealing with. I mean, that's why we're winning. In many cases, these become competitive, even if we're kind of the one bringing ideas to the table. Let me bring in some of the competition. Who would that be? Your traditional Big Four accounting firms, a McKinsey, a Chartis, a Huron, those are the firms we compete with in this space. There is lots of opportunity here for us. We're really excited about it. A combination of our capability and the relationships we have over decades with many of these members is really what's driving it. You mentioned that 18 to 24 month deals, and if you outperform on savings targets, there's upside potential in the contract. Going back to the GPO, we noticed that in this year's filing, you also added some new risk language around the GPO and talked more about, you know, having some, I don't know if I want to call it risk malice, you know, malice reward kind of contracts. Maybe tell us what led to that change in language around the GPO. It was a more a new CFO. It's great because I have the Chief Accounting Officer taking a look at it. Once you say 10K, you know he's going to flip it over to me, right? We're glad we have you. Thank you, Eric. As we look at our offerings to our members and even our non-members, we really look to be flexible and differentiate ourselves with our offerings. Whether that's looking at tech bundles or our advisory services, supply chain co-management, or in some cases, looking at guarantees on savings, we have a very long history of providing meaningful savings to our members through our GPO. Our member support teams have done phenomenal jobs in what they've been able to provide in savings to our members, as well as our advisory teams and whatnot. As we've been going through some of our contracts and certain of those agreements, we do have language that essentially guarantees those savings or portions of those savings. Is there risk there? Certainly. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a risk factor in our 10K. However, I can tell you that through historical practices, we have historically, I always hate to say always because always and never are bad words, but we have consistently provided and hit all of our achievements. Very strong track record. Very strong. I wouldn't anticipate you signing deals that you didn't think you could deliver on. I guess the real question is, is this more of a proactive, why are we not doing this because we always deliver great savings and we could get the upside, or is it more of a response to a competitive marketplace? Is it more, we need to make some promises or wow, we really need to make some promises? Yeah, we can really make, especially if you look at our consistent track record, you know, why wouldn't we do that, right? Why wouldn't we provide some of that assurance? Fair enough. With the strategic review a few years ago and then the $1 billion share buyback authorization, the accelerated share repurchases, you've done what, $800 million year to date? Yeah. That was the last figure. You had a couple. This is the beginning of 2024, right? Big chunk, big chunk of the company. On the last call, it sounded much more like you were going to reconsider your focus on repurchase and shift gears to other growth areas, other capital return areas maybe. Dividends pretty solid, not sure we need to see massive increases in the dividend at this point. What's next? What is the outlook over the next 12, 24, 36 months in terms of capital deployment? Yeah, I mean, I'll start and you can add some color, especially around the cash flows and why we're giving so much return back to our shareholders. I think where we are right now, we're probably going to put the share repurchases on pause. Our top priority is to grow our business long term. Getting back to growth, investing organically, especially in the technology areas, is really important for us. That's going to be our focus in terms of where we deploy capital. I think we've got a lot of interesting acquisition opportunities as well. To the extent we can do accretive deals that will add to shareholder value, we've got a great balance sheet. Crystal will talk about some of the numbers, but we're in a great position where we can go out and do deals and not have to go to the market to raise any capital. Maybe talk about our leverage and talk, Crystal, maybe around our cash flows. Absolutely. We have historically had a tax receivable payment that we had to some of our members based on our structure. That ended at the end of our fiscal 2025 year, which gives us about $100 million of additional free cash flow in addition to the very strong free cash flow that we've historically had anyway. To Glenn's point, we have a $1 billion line of credit. We've leveraged that less than one time, and we have this really strong balance sheet that we intend to utilize to continue to grow the business over the next 12 to 24 months. The only reason why I have any debt at all is because we did a $200 million RASR, we'd have no debt. We are in a great position here. We just did a smaller acquisition called Illumicare, really nice complement with our stance in business in the clinical decision support area. We are excited about some of the opportunities in the market and we have plenty of flexibility to go out and execute our plans. With the free cash flow, you had a great year. Obviously, the TRA's done as of a couple of months ago, and there were some moving pieces in the cash flow, one-time unusual items. The two years look flatter, but is this circa $180 million or 70-80% conversion level? Is that a sustainable run rate? Sustainable run rate. We are not, there are no one-time or unusual expectations in that number. On a go-forward basis, expect more of the same. Free cash flow grows, give or take with corporate growth. Yes. No other unusual item or thing to consider for a long-term model. In theory, if that works up over a few years to a couple hundred million, you have a couple of billion market capital north of that. You could get a sense on how strong the free cash flow profile is versus the overall enterprise size. Yeah, we're expecting our cash flows to get better just because of the TRA, which is $100 million by itself, and then elimination of the one-time items. We're very well positioned financially moving forward. We're excited about the future. That's awesome. All right, I'm going to, 15 seconds left. I don't think I've ever been on time before at one of these events. I'm going to go ahead and introduce the next round of companies. I do want everyone to join me in thanking Glenn, Crystal, Ben, of course, for being with us today. Thank you very much. We do have Alcon coming up in session one. Bio-Techne, Praxis, and Voyager Therapeutics are the next four presenters. Thank you very much. Thanks, Eric.