Morning, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us in the room and online. I'm Elizabeth Anderson. I am the Healthcare Services Analyst here at Evercore. I'm very happy to be joined by Cencora. We have James Cleary, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Bennett Murphy, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations and Enterprise Productivity. Thank you so much for joining us this morning.
Glad to be here.
Maybe jumping into the first question. OneOncology has obviously been a great acquisition for you guys and an important growth driver for the business. Given the put-call structure, which, James, you've been very helpful in calling out and reminding us about this year, thank you, and the potential buyout of the remainder, how much capital do we think about that requiring? And then how do we think about the financial algorithm once that business has been consolidated? Let's start there.
Great. Elizabeth, first of all, thanks very much for having us to the conference. Thanks for the excellent work you do covering our company and industry. I'll very much get to your question. I'll start out by saying, of course, we were really pleased at the beginning of November to announce fourth-quarter results and really kind of excellent results for fiscal year 2025 and introduce our guidance for fiscal year 2026, which includes 9%-11% operating income growth in our U.S. segment. Of course, it also included an increase to our long-term guidance. Really, one of the important things as we look at Cencora is our strength in specialty.
One of the things that really drove our performance in fiscal year 2025 and really impacts our guidance for fiscal year 2026 and our long-term guidance is the growth in the specialty market and our leadership position in that market. Our results have really benefited, amongst other things, from our sales of products to specialty physician practices and health systems. This MSO strategy that we've been pursuing really is the natural evolution of one of the most successful parts of our business. We're strong in distribution to specialty practices and health systems. We have the wraparound services, including GPO. Now we have the management services capabilities, which is really kind of an extension of this highly successful part of our business.
We've been really pleased with the acquisition of RCA and the impact that that had on our margins and operating income growth in fiscal year 2026. Getting to your question now, we really look forward to the acquisition of OneOncology when we're able to do that. We invested in the business starting in fiscal year 2023, and we own 35% of the business. The other 65% of the business is owned by a private equity firm and the physician practices. We do have a put-call structure in place to ultimately acquire the rest of the business. We really look forward to that. Right now, OneOncology doesn't have a big impact on our net income because it shows up in other income. It's really 35% of the net income of the business. Then that it's owned by a private equity firm. It's a leveraged business.
It has a relatively small impact on our results now, but we'll have a much bigger impact when we own 100% of the business. We put out there publicly kind of what the kind of put-call pricing is. We very much look forward to owning all of the business. It'll have a very positive impact on our operating income. We think it'll make strategically a lot of sense because we'll have all these services that we're offering to one of our most important customer groups. We'll also start to be able to get synergy between the OneOncology MSO and the RCA MSO. One of the areas where RCA leads is clinical trials. It's the biggest provider of clinical trial sites in the retina market.
Kind of expanding that and making that an even bigger presence for OneOncology is just kind of an example of the types of synergies we think we can get in addition to the back-office synergies.
Got it. Is that also an example of something that maybe you can't really start on until you have that full ownership? I'm just trying to think of what you're able to do sort of with the current stake versus full ownership and how much of a difference that makes in terms of that synergy capture.
Elizabeth, that's an excellent question. Of course, we can start to work on some of those things now, but we really don't want to drive the full synergies until we own the full business. That's one of the reasons why we really very much look forward to being able to acquire the other 65%.
Got it. At that point in time, whenever the execution of that put-call structure happens, is that when you think about you might update the sort of algorithm for the incorporation of that, or that's still something that you're going through the decision-making process about?
Yeah, I think once we're fortunate to acquire the other 65%, like we do when we acquire businesses, we'll kind of update on the impact that that'll have, for instance, to our operating income.
Got it. Okay. Maybe thinking about the MSO platform more broadly, you've obviously just talked about extending the clinical trial capabilities across OneOncology from RCA, which is very interesting. How do you think about where we are on the physician adoption curve in terms of that full MSO model? I assume that everybody has sort of something at this point, but it's a little bit hard from the outside perspective to understand how much of something they have and sort of what the broader opportunities are maybe within practices as well.
Yeah, that is a great question. We think this will be a growth opportunity for us for quite some time in both the oncology market and the retina market. From the standpoint of Cencora, as you know, everything we do is pharmaceutical-centric. The reason that we've really been focused on oncology and retina is they're by far the most pharmaceutical-centric MSOs. As we look at the growth opportunities, there's going to be very good growth opportunities both inorganically and organically. Inorganically, we've seen good growth and new physicians joining the RCA practice. One of the reasons is because not only can they practice medicine, but they can be involved in the clinical trials, which is very attractive to the younger doctors getting out of school. We also see in that market good inorganic growth opportunities.
There is a lot more room for acquisitions in that market. We see very good opportunity there as we really kind of analyze what is available from an acquisition standpoint in that market. Really, that's the same thing in the oncology space. There has probably been more consolidation of the larger practices in oncology, but there are still some opportunities there, and a lot of opportunities for acquisitions into the MSO for smaller practices in that market. Of course, the types of services we are providing are the practice management services, the administrative services, all of the back-office services, which make it better for the physicians because they can really focus on the practice while we do the back-office sort of things.
It is a real natural extension of a strong part of our business because we are doing the distribution services, the GPO services, and now all of those back-office services also.
It gives you some organic momentum behind that too.
Yes.
Is there anything from that group of services that can be transferred into your health system business? Obviously, that's a different model and a bit of a different thing. Is there any sort of leverage on that side, or should we continue to think of those as sort of very separate from that perspective?
One of the really good things about Cencora is we lead with market leaders. In the health systems, we have a very strong presence with the NCCN hospitals that have very strong presences in oncology. A number of the kind of benefits that we can bring, given our strengths, kind of can extend from physician practices to health systems. I do not want to overstate this, but kind of one of the examples would be GPO, kind of the GPO capabilities that we have in specialty physician practices. That is an example of what we have done to extend that into the health system space.
Okay. That's super helpful. And you've obviously talked about the priority of purchasing the remaining stake in OneOncology, but with the projected free cash flow of maybe $15 billion-$20 billion by decade end, how do you prioritize that? Okay, so that happens. And then sort of how do we think about the rest of the priorities?
Great. Of course, one of the really good things about Cencora is we have very strong free cash flow. Capital deployment and how effectively we deploy capital is critically important to us. We'll continue to have balanced capital deployment. The first component of it is investing in our business. This year, we've indicated that we'll have about $900 million of CapEx, which is higher than we've had in the past. The reason why is utilization trends in our market have been so strong that we're really making some additional investments into infrastructure across our distribution businesses, particularly in our specialty business. Investing in the business always has a good return on invested capital for us. There'll be strategic acquisitions. The biggest example will be buying out the other 65% of OneOncology.
That means that a good deal of our capital deployment from an acquisition standpoint is already spoken for. We will continue to do opportunistic share repurchases. We have done opportunistic share repurchases through the years, as you have seen over the past few years. We will return capital to shareholders through dividends also. We recently increased our dividend growth rate. We grew our dividend most recently by 9%. Our long-term guidance for EPS growth is 9%-13%. That is why we increased the dividend growth rate to 9%.
Okay. No, that makes sense. Obviously, with the reclassification that you guys just did, part of, I think, if we think about international, how do we think about the part of PharmaLex went into other? How do we think about sort of the revenue and maybe the AOI split among Alliance, World Courier, remaining PharmaLex, and sort of let's talk about some of the underlying drivers of those businesses.
Sure. The remaining international segment, still the largest piece of that would be Alliance, which includes the Alloga 3PL business. Then you have World Courier and Innomar, the Canadian operations, and then PharmaLex in terms of order of magnitude on the operating income side. The Canadian business is more like distribution, so it's a little bit high. It's more representative on the revenue side, but still Alliance is the biggest on the revenue side. I think the drivers there are still consistent that you have general pharmaceutical distribution demand as an underpinning for the segment because of Alliance's distribution business.
It has a greater proportion of its operating income coming from those higher margin parts of the business that have higher growth opportunities over the long term, which would include Alloga's 3PL business, World Courier, which certainly had a challenging 2025, but we think has a good long-term will return to a good long-term growth algorithm. The Canadian business has been a consistent performer and good growth over the years. Pharmalex is more we've adjusted the size of Pharmalex and specified its offerings to be more targeted and aligned with where we think there's really good opportunities for us to compete. It's much smaller now with the carve-out of some of that into the other segment.
Got it.
Of course, our international business is about 15% of our operating income.
Yeah. Maybe just to double-click on one thing that you said, the 3PL business you said is sort of specialty is really driven by that in Europe. Maybe for some of the more U.S. or North America-focused investors, why is that? Is that just a structural difference of the market there? Is there anything you can sort of just to understand that sort of difference there, why that's such an important driver?
Yeah, it's a structural difference. Those types of products would typically go straight from the manufacturer to a healthcare facility to be administered there, not an independent doctor here or even like a clinic here. For that channel, or for that market, it would generally go through the 3PL service provider, so it would be taking title.
Got it. No, that makes sense. I think you've obviously in fiscal 2025 talked about sort of World Courier and PharmaLex being impacted by sort of more muted clinical trial activity, but it seems that that started to improve in the fourth quarter. Could you sort of talk about the underlying drivers for World Courier and then the PharmaLex business and then where you're seeing those as we start to move through 2026?
Yeah, so we did see stabilization in the fourth quarter for World Courier with unit and profit growth. It wasn't enough to put the segment back into profit growth for the quarter, but it was good nonetheless to see that, and we expect that to continue to pick up as the year goes on. The big thing for those two businesses is generally how many products are advancing into later phase clinical trial activity. Neither one is necessarily in that early part of the clinical development side where it would be more in the testing side because you get more into their businesses as you get into getting ready to move testing samples across the world and then eventually getting ready to commercialize therapies across the world.
Got it. Why would you say that World Courier seems like it may be inflected a little bit further? Is that sort of just differences in the operations of those two businesses, or do you think that's maybe too nuanced a point and we should just sort of think about them both sort of on the recovery trend at the respective pace, but maybe roughly similarly?
Yeah, I think it's differentiated between the two. I mean, of course, both of them were impacted by the macro over the past year or so. If we look at the World Courier business, I mean, it has been an excellent business for over a decade that Cencora has owned the business. It had a down year in fiscal year 2025, but rebounded and had profit growth in our fiscal fourth quarter, as Bennett was saying. It should be a very strong business over the long term. Being a market leader always helps, and a market that should perform well over the long term, being the leader in doing logistics for clinical trials. It has the capabilities as the cell and gene market grows to be strong there. We just feel that's a very well-positioned market leader for the long term.
The PharmaLex business had been impacted by the same macro things. As Bennett said, that was a situation where we decided which parts of PharmaLex were the areas that we have the right to win. We determined that those stronger parts of PharmaLex were pharmacovigilance and market access and regulatory affairs. We took the other parts of PharmaLex, smaller parts, and put them into our other segment, which we recently established. For the businesses in the other segment, we're evaluating strategic alternatives.
That makes total sense. Obviously, the regulatory environment and the changing regulatory environment has been a big theme of the last 12 months. I think maybe just sort of going through some of the different things, one thing that was sort of new this year, at least in terms of some of the thing on the Physician fee schedule, was the bona fide service fees. As they continue to sort of think about that, how do you think about the potential impact of that? Obviously, very detrimental for your customers, which are the cheapest cost of care in many cases. How do you sort of think about the potential for the emergence of that, what you guys are doing in your business, and sort of how you see that developing over the next couple of years?
Yeah, I think it is the most efficient site of care, certainly, and that sometimes gets underappreciated. It's also a highest quality site of care. I think we spend a lot of our time advocating on behalf of community-based providers, along with many others in the industry. It's really important that we bring that voice and open that door to then have thoughtful strategic discussions on what potential changes are being considered and how they could have intended impact or how they could have, unfortunately, unintended consequences. I would say that change is reflective of that conversation, certainly resonating to avoid some unintended consequences. We'd continue to do that on to have community providers in the future as well. That's something we've done for a long time.
As you can imagine, it's an important dialogue because those unintended consequences typically could lead to less patient access, lower quality of care, and just more difficulty in servicing a part of the patient base that is dealing with very complex life-threatening issues. The last thing you want to do is add more complexity or variables to their care.
Yep. No, that makes sense. It seems like almost, and it's not like that's something that changes over the next dynamic. Probably something we should expect to not have as much of, maybe not even appear or not be an impact going forward in a future year either.
Yeah. I mean, it's a topic that.
Yeah, but.
It's a topic that comes up every year for the last 15 years.
Yep.
I think clearly the underlying message resonates well once you get to the what is the actual quality of care and then what is the efficiency of that side of care.
Yep. No, that makes sense. Maybe turning to IRA, CMS implements price negotiations. How do we think, how should investors think about the impact on drug distributors? Can you talk about maybe some of the differences between P art D and Part B?
Just for IRA specifically?
Yeah.
Yeah. It'll depend. We've seen some manufacturers on the Part D side take some actions. To the extent that there are things that impact us and we go back and seek to renegotiate, I think there are still some TBD to be determined things on the Part B side. We think we have a very defendable value proposition. Certainly, the focus is something else. Clearly, we stand by that value proposition and continue to work with the key stakeholders to make sure that we continue to drive that value. There is still some TBD on the Part B side, but certainly on the Part D side. A lot of that has to do with pricing dynamics that occur outside of the distribution channel anyway.
Yeah. I think you made the good point also earlier when we were talking that there's some changing in maybe the list price on the Part D drugs, but obviously, you guys have successfully navigated changes like that before in terms of the insulin without seeing impact on the gross profit. It seems like something could happen again. Part B, to your point about the physician reimbursement, if that same strategy were to be employed on the Part B side, that would also negatively impact the physician reimbursement. It may not be the viable strategy in that channel.
Right. So what are the actual mechanisms for adjudicating would be the key determining factor on if it has that necessary unintended consequence or not. We've had good dialogues and good conversation to make sure that stakeholders are aware of the impact on community providers.
Got it. Anything else on sort of the drug pricing policy front? I know this is something that changes frequently, so not to make a blanket statement forever, but anything else you guys are focused on or you think those are sort of the main potential endpoint?
No, I think we've been pretty consistent in how we've communicated around it. While the underlying message has sometimes changed from one day to another, our message has not changed. I think that continues to be a focus on access to pharmaceuticals, particularly on the generic side, a focus on affordability for patients, which is typically something that is once again occurring outside of that WAC price discussion. No, there's no change to how we're talking about it. I think clearly, while there's been a lot of noise over the last year, we feel that the key messages are coming through and what we're seeing happen, and that's not disrupting supply, which would have been our biggest fear on some of those items.
That makes sense. Maybe turning to other parts of your business, in terms of hospital and health system outperformance, you've consistently cited strong hospital and health system performance. If we exclude in your core business some of the COVID or Florida , RCA, your core AOI growth in terms of U.S. healthcare has been probably north of 20%, which is well above your long-term six-9% target. Utilization has obviously been strong, but we haven't seen sort of the same outperformance necessarily from everyone across the industry. How do we think about the sources of that outperformance? How much would you say is sort of hospital, maybe IDN penetration, or what would you characterize as the other main contributors there?
Yeah, interesting. We have had outperformance for quite some time. When we explain it, we're mostly just repeating the same thing because it's really been driven by consistent things for some time. We talk about strong utilization trends. We talk about strong sales to physician practices and health systems. We talk about broad-based performance across our U.S. segment. We really have had broad-based performance. One of the things that's really driven our strong results is that some of our very biggest businesses are growing the fastest. That's sales of specialty products to physician practices and then also sales of specialty products to health systems. Getting back to leading with market leaders, we have some of the largest NCCN hospitals as customers. Their use of specialty products is very high.
We have other wraparound services, as we talked about, that we also offer to those hospitals. When we introduced our guidance for fiscal year 2026, our guidance for the U.S. segment is nine-11% operating income growth. As we referenced a little bit earlier, that has a net 1% headwind included in it. That is an extra quarter of RCA because we acquired it at the beginning of our second quarter last year, and also not having three quarters of an oncology customer that was acquired by a peer. If you black out those two things, it is a net 1% headwind. Without that, our growth in the U.S. segment for guidance for this year is 10-12% growth.
We expect to continue to have very strong performance, but we just are not guiding to the level of outperformance that we've had in the past.
Yeah. I mean, that goes back, I mean, to the extent that's one of the reasons many investors like distributors because you're so consistent in the performance. It goes also back to, I feel like what I've been hearing you guys say for 15 years is you want to align yourself with sort of the fast-growing customers, execute well, et cetera, and then that sort of takes care of itself. Is that also fair?
Yes. Leading with market leaders. When Bob Mauch became CEO about 14 months ago, he established four strategic drivers. One of the strategic drivers that he established is prioritizing growth-oriented investments. That meant being very intentional and looking across the portfolio about what parts of our business could grow fastest over the long term. That is one of the reasons why we established the other segment, which includes businesses that are very strong, but we really wanted to focus on growth-oriented investments and also investments that really bring strategic advantage to the balance of the enterprise.
Yeah. Maybe talking about the core pharma distribution business a little bit, I think one thing investors have been a little bit increasingly focused on over the last few months is sort of the next wave of oral solid generics. Obviously, that's an important contributor to your core pharma distribution non-specialty business. How do we think about the opportunity there? Any big differences you're seeing in this upcoming wave versus what we might remember from sort of the 2010 to 2014-ish type of wave? You guys have evolved your pricing model a little bit since then. Maybe could you double-click on that a little bit and help us to better think through that?
Sure. I'll start out, and then Bennett, don't hesitate to add. Yeah, there really will be a very nice wave over the next several years of generic launches. We'll certainly be a beneficiary of that. It's something that we're certainly looking forward to. As we look at the impact it will have on Cencora, it will certainly be a positive impact. It won't have as much of an impact as it would have had, say, a decade ago because what we really did over a period of time once generic deflation started is we really rebalanced our contracts so we make a very fair profit on brand specialty and generic products. It will certainly have a positive impact, but it wouldn't be as positive as it was a decade ago because of the rebalancing of our contracts, which is something we always do.
Yeah. No, that makes sense. Obviously, we have the upcoming more Part B biosimilars on the other side, which are a nice also a profit tailwind. That is a different bit of a market. I learned a new nuance from Bennett's comments we were just talking earlier in terms of the reference products. If we are thinking about that market today, how do you think about that opportunity as sort of we look at the pipeline going out into 2028, 2029, the rest of the decade?
For which piece of it?
For the Part B biosimilars.
Yeah. I think it'll be positive, certainly for us, certainly for providers, and most importantly, for patients in the U.S. healthcare system as you make room for new innovation that's coming. As we think about that space, you have the strong underlying demographic trends setting up for long-term demand. You have new innovation coming to market that could be standard of care. You have existing innovative products in the market that are the standards of care that are going to move out from under patent protection. It's a good part of the market for us for the innovator side, is a good part of us for the non-innovator side. You have that underlying organic growth driver from demographics. It sets up to be a really good part of the market near term, intermediate, and long term.
Yeah. No, that makes sense. I guess that nuance about being able to potentially change some of your economics slightly with the innovator drugs as the drug goes biosimilars is a little bit of a difference versus what we think of the branded and oral solid market too, right?
That's right.
Okay. That makes sense. Maybe going back to 2026, I think your fiscal 2026 U.S. healthcare revenue guidance is lower than your AOI growth. Can you talk about what's driving that sort of revenue versus profit makeshift?
Sure. I'll comment on a couple of things on the revenue front and then also on the GP front. From a revenue standpoint, some of the things that cause our revenue growth to be slower than our operating income growth is we had a large grocery customer that we no longer have, and that was a very low-margin customer. It impacts revenue, but does not negatively impact adjusted operating income. Another thing would be the conversion in Part D to biosimilars. That will cause our revenue growth to be lower, but does not cause our adjusted operating income to be lower. Really a third thing would be MSOs. RCA is a lower revenue, but higher adjusted operating income business. That causes adjusted operating income to be higher.
One of the things about RCA is we've always had them as a customer, but we don't double count the revenues. We don't double count our sales to RCA and then RCA's sales. It doesn't have a big impact on revenue growth, but has a significant impact on operating income growth.
Should we think about as we get into longer term than 2026, and obviously not asking for specific 2027 guidance at this point, but just within the longer term framework, how do we think that mix should those generally get a little bit closer as we go forward? How does that mix work sort of over the longer term?
Yeah. Of course, there are always so many moving pieces there. There are so many things that can move it around. There could be, for instance, GLP-1s, which would cause one thing to happen, and investments in MSOs, which would have the opposite impact. One would cause our margin percentage to go down. One would cause our margin percentage to go up. Those are something we track, and there are so many moving pieces. I think probably an underlying comment to make is one of the really just great things about our business is we have a very strong return on invested capital. That return on invested capital can come from high revenue, lower margin percent, but good gross profit dollar products, or it could come from higher margin businesses. That focus on return on invested capital is something that we really benefit from.
A lot of it's driven by our working capital profile.
That makes sense. Just on the grocery store customer, we have how many quarters of that left, GLP?
One.
One. That is almost done. Then as we look for GLP-1s that you just mentioned, if we think about the upcoming drivers of some of the oral pills that potentially are coming out, how should we think about that and potentially shifts in the economics there going forward?
Yeah. Of course, we've consistently said that GLP-1s are a real driver of our revenue growth, but they're minimally profitable for us. As the oral solids come out and gain share, they'll be a little bit more profitable for us because we won't have the same handling costs because, of course, they won't be in the cold chain. The handling costs will be lower, and the operating income will be a little bit higher. I would say there still, as we do looking at our fiscal year 2026 plan, there's still what I would describe as minimally profitable for us. It's something that we've always been very transparent about. Each quarter, we indicate how much revenue growth we're having from GLP-1 products.
Got it. No, that makes sense. Maybe one last one on sort of the MSO business. Obviously, PE has been rolling some of those MSO assets up. You guys have a very drug-specific or drug-focused strategy on that front. Why is it, in your view, that distributors are better owners of MSO assets versus private equity?
I would say we're in the best position of really any of the players because obviously you have other players in the market that have bought MSOs. Certainly, versus private equity, we were longer-term holders. I think holistically, if you get down to it, we have aligned incentives. Specifically on the pharmaceutical side, we're picking those, as James said, we're picking those specialties because they are pharmaceutical-centric standards of care. We think that with our pharmaceutical-centric strategy, with those specialty providers having the course of treatment that they're typically utilizing, being pharmaceutical, we have the opportunity to be a really important strategic partner for pharma long-term and also helping to contribute to positive outcomes for patients in the near-term, long-term.
I'll also say that because of who we are, we're not necessarily inclined to go into the clinical side to disrupt the clinical decisions between doctors and patients. Letting both RCA and OneOncology are doctor-led organizations, and we intentionally align ourselves with those. We continue to expect that they'll make really strong decisions that are in the best interest of their patients. Sometimes with other types of MSOs, there's been challenges there for other parts of the industry. For us, we think that that's a really good strategy, and it makes us positioned well for the long term.
Yeah. Bennett, I'll just add one thing. I mean, everything you said is absolutely right. Another thing is that I talked about Bob Mauch's four strategic drivers. One of them is digital transformation. I think you'll see us with MSOs making really important investments in systems because the systems and data and analytics over the long term will be really important. You asked how we would compare to other owners. I just think someone like us focused on digital transformation, being a very long-term owner, would kind of do those sorts of things as opposed to a short-term owner, which will ultimately, what we're going to do, have benefits for physicians and patients.
Yep. No, that makes sense. Maybe turning to some of the direct-to-consumer models or Trump RX, which has been in the press recently, we're seeing increasing momentum behind these from manufacturers, digital pharmacies, etc. Given your position as a wholesale distributor, you guys are the logistics backbone for many of these products. How are you evaluating the risks and opportunities of this DTC shift? Do you sort of see it as just like, okay, this is another growth avenue and that's sort of the thing, or are there sort of different services or mix that you could provide that also create an additional opportunity in addition to the growth?
Yeah. I would say that they're generally attempting to solve for either a problem with accessing a prescribing physician or a problem with accessing affordable price. Generally, or consistently, they're using the existing pharmaceutical supply chain. It's just solving for one of those two problems or both of those two problems. To the extent, much of it is, prior to the government discussion, was singularly focused on trying to add new scripts to people who were not able to get on, either due to that lack of physician interface or the affordability side because of the nature of their benefit designs. I think to the extent that it's really trying to add more scripts to the system that aren't getting written or filled because of some of those challenges, it's just something that's occurring.
We're part of it in a number of situations because, like I said, a lot of these programs are direct in name, not direct in physical movement.
Right. You would probably argue that most of those scripts are additive to the system in general as opposed to a transfer from a more traditional channel.
Yes.
Okay. No, you're nodding. Okay. Perfect. All right. Maybe just in our last couple of minutes, if we sit here and we're sitting here in December 2026, what are you going to be most excited about that sort of happened over the past 12 months? What are you sort of excited about going forward at that point? I'm going to start with you, James, and then Bennett.
Yeah. I'll go back to the four strategic drivers. Prioritizing growth-oriented investments, I'll be really pleased by kind of what we're doing in the specialty market and kind of growth in the specialty market through distribution or services, and in particular, MSOs. I'll be really kind of pleased. One of the other strategic drivers is productivity. We're a highly efficient business, but we want to even get more productive. Not it to be just initiatives, but for it to be a capability throughout the company. One of Bennett's responsibilities is we put him in charge of our global productivity efforts. I want to see us just continue to get more efficient, which is really going to be good for our customers and ultimately for patients also.
I'm excited for what we're going to do with regard to digital transformation that I talked about and for talent and culture. It's kind of those sorts of things I'm excited about. What that's going to translate to into continued strong results, which will ultimately benefit all of our stakeholders, our shareholders, our customers, and our team members.
Yeah. That makes sense. Bennett, anything from your side?
No, I think that was fulsome. I mean, clearly, we play a really important role in the healthcare supply chain, and the patients getting access to their pharmaceuticals contributes to their short-term and long-term health. I think we'll continue to see the positive utilization trends.
Great. Thank you guys so much for joining us today, and thanks for everyone listening online and in person.
Thanks, everyone.