This morning. It's been, we were just chatting that it's been a while since we last had an opportunity to connect when, I think it was right when you took over the first analyst meeting that you hosted at Haemonetics. It's certainly been a journey since your period as the CEO. You know, now you're coming up on the milestone of the end of your kind of four-year LRP, and you laid out some of the dynamics of where you thought you were gonna land on your FY2026 guidance call and presented some of that information. Maybe give us some reflection on, as you come to the end of that period of time, how what the look-back is gonna be.
Great. Great. Thanks, David. Just, it's been more than a decade since Haemonetics has attended this conference, so thank you. We're delighted to be here and have a chance to tell our story. I'm excited to reconnect with you given how you've spent a good bit of your time and off as an operator at Baxter and [Astutis] Medical, and I'm sure that helps add perspective to the work you're doing at the bank today. That's all great. Before I begin, a quick reminder, my remarks will include forward-looking statements, non-GAAP financial measures, usual safe harbors apply. I'm excited to answer your question about the LRP and our performance 'cause we're delivering fully. I'm gonna maybe take a half a step back because I think our story can be complicated, particularly for folks that are new to it.
The way I would summarize it is as follows, which is, you know, Haemonetics is the undisputed global leader in plasma apheresis, which we view as a durable source of EBITDA. We think that there's tremendous potential for that business going forward, but there's also systemic risk that's difficult to mitigate. We've attempted now to diversify into blood management technologies and interventional technologies, which are attractive med-surg markets where world-class companies are advancing the treatment of chronic disease with favorable reimbursement. We're able to thrive in those markets by concentrating on what we describe as therapeutically agnostic enabling tech that's not being pursued by the companies that are driving the growth in procedures. That's really the story behind our portfolio evolution and how we're transforming our company and our operating model, around operational excellence and superior results.
In short, you know, we've built a $600 million med-surg business growing well into the double- digits while we grow our corporate earnings meaningful, you know, double- digits as well. That's a pretty rare entity, and I think our success in plasma has helped enable it. With regard to the specifics on the LRP, yeah, we set a bold and audacious set of goals. We said we're gonna grow 10% over that four-year period. We're gonna have mid-20s adjusted EPS CAGR excluding CSL, that we're gonna grow our operating income margin 800 or 900 basis points over a four-year period to the high 20s. We got it for 26%-27% a month ago, and a cumulative free cash flow in excess of $600 million, with a return to our historically high- conversion ratio.
Our CFO commented on the last call in May that we expect that conversion ratio of free cash flow to net income to be in excess of 70%. We're on track to deliver all that today.
So I, now 'cause you've, you've added some things, I have to go off script here a little bit. But when you talk about systemic risk in the blood apheresis business, is that to do with sort of the volatility in contracts like the CSL dynamic? Is that, I know the whole blood business you are, you've exited, but on the core plasma collection business, is that the dynamic that you're highlighting?
For core plasma apheresis, the real exposure is customer concentration. There are 14 customers worldwide, four of whom really drive volumes. The business has an added systemic risk, which is concentrated 90%, at least for source plasma, here in the U.S. It's a great market. The remuneration is outstanding, but it's a geographic concentration. It's also a unique business model where the capital sits on our balance sheets. We found ways to drive superior return on invested capital in that model, but the combination of those things—and there's really nothing you can do to mitigate them.
Right. As you fast forward to the end of this year, do you have a sense of, like, what the business will look like from a mix perspective between hospital interventional, blood, when you kinda get to the end of the LRP and when CSL is out of the numbers?
Yeah. You know, we're gonna do an Investor Day later this year. We'll break this all down. We're living with what is now a transformed portfolio. Fully, 85% of our revenues and at least 100% of our growth come from a small group of core products in plasma and those hospital platforms. When you last covered this stock, that number, you know, part of that didn't even exist. You know, the blood center business alone was approaching 50%. Today, it is 15, so 5-0 to 1-5. That's a conscious decision to hyper-focus on these attractive, fast-growing markets.
Are you gonna issue a new LRP at the time of that Investor Meeting?
Yeah. We expect to. And, you know, there'll be some very familiar themes, and there'll be some new themes. Things that aren't gonna change is the leadership in plasma and the commitment to profitable growth in the hospital segment. We'll continue to focus on innovation, organic investments in particular, but some disciplined M&A as well if it can further expand our presence in those attractive markets I mentioned earlier. You know, we see meaningful opportunity to continue and accelerate both top and bottom line growth, even off of, you know, where we expect to finish this year. I don't wanna, you know, give away all of our dry powder for that meeting, but if I were to paint a broad picture aspirationally, we expect to deliver fully into the top quartile of med tech performance.
High single-digit or better growth in revenue, double-digit or better EPS growth, and typically the 2 to 1 ratio is something we aspire to. You know, our hospital gross margins will be north of 70%, corporate gross margins will be north of 60%, and our combined operating income margins should be north of 30% with robust free cash flow and a healthy conversion. We'll put the flesh around that, you know, later this year and try to make that clear for folk.
I have to try to get a little more out of you. That type of high single-digit revenue growth, how do you think that will compare to where the markets you serve are growing?
Yeah. I think we can outperform the underlying market growth rates, right, the weighted average growth rates, because so much of what we do is under-penetrated. So plasma is probably the most closely watched and close-matched. We expect to see mid to high single-digit growth there. We can do better than that because we're advancing new technology that has clear value to our customers, so there's a price premium. In the near to intermediate term, the share gains we're experiencing will really propel us. If I think about interventional technologies, particularly in EP with AFib, you're gonna see continued double-digit growth, and we still are only penetrated half of the accessible market. We'll have utilization on top of that.
You know, TEG, we joke, is the oldest launch product in med tech, but here, you know, in its, in its, approaching its third decade, we are still less than 25% or 30% penetrated in its use cases with the robust R&D pipeline to broaden the shoulders of that. We expect to grow for sure, high single digits across them because of the opportunities that are in front of us, and that's probably 200-300 basis points above market growth.
I wanna go into the segments in a second, but as you think about that ability to sustain above-market growth, you are going into categories that require more sales and marketing that I think, you know, the legacy plasma business, more R&D intensity, more feet on the street. How do you think about continuing to grow earnings at the rate that you just referenced while making the necessary investments to support that growth?
Yeah. Our story, the 800-900 basis points of margin expansion, which, at the risk of belaboring it, when you last covered the stock in FY2016, the gross margin was in the low 40s, 43% of member-served growth.
Right. High 50s.
You know, we're now into the high 50s and pushing beyond. Our operating income was 13%. Today, you know, if we get, if we double that, we'd view that as performance. From our vantage point, we do think there's an opportunity to continue to invest purposefully. Organic growth is our biggest priority. We like the R&D pipeline that we've put forth. We're probably gonna lean into that a bit given the opportunities. They're within reach for us now. Our second vector has been, you know, M&A with tuck-in acquisitions. You know, we're digesting the most recent acquisitions. I'm sure we'll talk about those in a moment. From our vantage point, we're gonna dial that back and really concentrate on delivering value in those assets. Our story to date has largely been mixed driving gross margins. There's been meaningful productivity.
There's been meaningful price, but it's largely a mixed story. What you'll see in the second half of this year for us and beyond is an increasing return on operating leverage where the sales force and the clinical investments we've made will begin to scale and give real outsized returns there as well.
Just the last one on the impending LRP is sometimes with these LRPs, they're laid out for us, and then you get some caveat like, "Oh, it's gonna be lower in the first year, and it's gonna scale throughout the forecast period," or, "The first year we won't show this margin expansion, but don't worry, it's coming in the future." How should we, are there any sort of considerations you want to make sure you get in front of people before you lay it out formally?
Yeah. I think for this LRP that we're completing now, the fourth year of it, you know, there was definitely, it did not come linear, right? We had just, you know, we at the time, we expected a rapid transition of CSL. It took three years. That was fantastic. We had the windfall of that, in terms of our cash flow, but it really hampered margin expansion. As things evolve, it gets cleaner. From this point forward, I think we have much more line of sight and control over the growth that comes. Our expectation is that we'll guide for a three-year LRP rather than a four. We'll talk about the beginning and the end, but the reality is we expect it to be much more controlled and purposeful given where we are. The way we talk about it internally, we have a base case.
This is, you know, hand on heart what we're going to deliver, and there'll be a range, call it 6%-8%. On top of that, we'll do risk-adjusted opportunities. So we fund them, and it's reflected in our margin, but we don't put the revenue in necessarily 'cause they're higher risk bets where we're relying on third parties, regulatory, whatever to, you know, put that all to add a couple hundred basis points on top. And then for us, it'll be the tuck-in M&A on top of that, which should be another 100-200 basis points of growth. Again, we'll try to be very transparent about that. It won't be linear, but it's not gonna be a hockey stick where you have to wait to year three to see the results.
Got it. Okay. We will, we'll look forward to tuning into that when the event is announced. Maybe, maybe we'll jump into some of the businesses here for a second. You know, you talked a little bit about the hospital segment that grew 12% last year. Maybe help us unpack some of the underlying drivers there and how we should think about sustainability.
Yeah. I think, again, it's driven in equal parts by blood management technologies and interventional technologies. IVT gets all the headline because it's such a robust market, and there's lots of really interesting things like the adoption of PFA that are creating, you know, kind of positive and negative flows that people wanna get under. I'll start with BMT. For BMT, you know, it's really a focus on hemostasis management. While it's a global product and we're doing quite well outside the U.S., we expect to do increasingly better there. It's a story of U.S. execution on utilization. You know, that product grew mid-20s last year on the back of the heparinase neutralization cartridge introduction. It's helping us convert existing TEG 5000, the legacy product. It's helping convert those accounts.
It's helping drive additional penetration to new accounts and then just utilization, which again still hovers, you know, well below 50%. So it's a trifecta on BMT. We like transfusion management. We'll do well with Cell Saver, but it's really first and foremost about, you know, our hemostasis management, viscoelastic testing here in the U.S. On the other side with IVT, it's predominantly a story of closure, VASCADE, VASCADE MVP, and VASCADE MVP XL, where we continue to have real success. The latter two grew 26% last year and 28% last quarter, as we continue to ride the wave created by PFA. That'll continue, albeit more moderately as we round out the adoption curve.
Again, you know, we added probably 600 or 700 basis points of growth from Japan alone last year, but it will continue to be a story of U.S. penetration, U.S. utilization in particular. Those two products in the U.S. are the mainstay of the growth there. Over on the collection side, it's really share gains and annualization of those price increases that we took last year as we completed what was a long-awaited technology cycle upgrade.
I wanna go in a little bit more on VASCADE 'cause I think there is a ton of interest in that segment, especially given the enthusiasm around PFA. Maybe you just unpack a little bit more of the Vascaid strategy and what is contributing to that 26% and 28% growth that you referenced?
Yeah. Half a step back, David, you know, we expect hospital will approach 50% of our corporate revenues this year. I think the guide into the, you know, mid to high 40s. We expect to do at least that. You know, it's disproportionately driven by those two products. When we look at vascular closure, we measure a TAM of roughly $2.7 billion, fully $1.1 billion of which is here in the U.S. alone. EP is by far the highest growth factor. It's roughly a third of the total closure, with coronary and peripheral, you know, PCI being the other two-thirds. The rapid growth in EP procedures is really exciting. Folks get a bit confused because some of the newer technologies are reducing the number of access sites. We've done a full breakdown of that.
In fact, there are two pages on our investor website that we published with our last earnings call to break this down. We see the aggregate growth in the addressable market in FY2026 for closure at 8.6% on the EP side, 1%-2% on the coronary side. Today, that is 15% of what we do. We can do better than that, but the growth is disproportionately going to be on EP.
Okay. And how, maybe just, you know, as you think about other players here like Abbott entering, obviously have a strong closure business, how do you stay competitive as companies like them try to come in as a, you know, they're gonna be the fourth player in the U.S.? That franchise has a history of being not shy to use price as a lever, and they certainly have a very broad portfolio. So how do you think about staying relevant as full-service line players come into that market?
Yeah. I think this is where we are benefiting from the investments we've already made. First and foremost, it's to build out the indications and the clinical evidence in support of those indications. We don't take Abbott or Cordis or Terumo for that matter lightly in this space. I think the competitive dynamics are very different if we're talking about AFib versus some of the other procedures. You know, our value proposition established back during COVID was that, you know, MVP, when used for AFib, reduces the time of ambulation from six hours to two hours. It gets patients out of the hospital 99 point something percent of the time same day. When you're looking at the cost of an AFib procedure and candidly the benefit to the hospital, to be able to do those procedures without needing the overnight stay is incredibly powerful.
I think that was the value proposition that catapulted us into market leadership. Like I said, we do not take the competition lightly, but our biggest opportunity on closure is the half of all procedures today that are done without an advanced closure. It is either compression or it is suturing. I think driving utilization in those at one level, having competition helps because it is more word of mouth and more, you know, voice in the market making it clear there is a better alternative. We go head to head. We like our chances competing head to head with the available technologies.
Does anyone still suture? Like, what's the penetration of closure versus suture?
Yeah. I think suturing is probably the dominant play for the half of the market that does not use an advanced closure device. There is some compression, but yeah, I think for folks that were trained on suturing that have that as their backdrop, they continue to defer accordingly. We've got a better answer, and we need to do our part to drive the, you know, utilization there.
How about moving procedures into the ASCs? This is a topic that also came up when I was with Abbott last week, and they were highlighting the potential for EP procedures to move into the ASC, the need to do more of this under conscious sedation versus general anesthesia. It would also seem like in that environment, to get the patient in, get the patient out would also be a priority. Are you seeing opportunities emerge there for you guys?
Yeah. No, absolutely. I think that's, and we're not, you know, individually, we don't have the scale or the resources to drive that. This is where I think the metaphor that somebody offered when we first did the Cardiva acquisition is you guys are basically water skiing behind boats that are driven by the likes of, you know, Medtronic and Boston Sci and Biosense and Abbott to some extent. As they drive into ASCs, there's a different profit imperative, which makes the value proposition, you know, we don't give this product away. It's amongst our highest gross margin, but it's a fraction of the cost of the actual procedure or the reimbursement they've secured against it. If we can enable it, we have good play in an ASC as well as in the hospital itself.
Obviously, you know, parts of the pipeline you're gonna disclose and not disclose for all the reasons I think that people understand. Your M&A strategy, similarly. If we were to look at some of these procedures, is the right way to kind of assess where you might go next exactly to what's hanging around the hoop? You know, it's in the procedure, but, you know, sort of on the side of the, you know, side of the playing field, maybe not fully in the case, I guess. Is that the best way to assess where you might go next? Is that how your marketing team spend their time thinking about where the other sort of hang around the hoop opportunities are?
Yes. Right. We need an attractive TAM that is defined by, you know, our therapy. We need, you know, a SAM within that that we believe we can capitalize on. As I said a moment ago, right, we're looking at these attractive areas, but we're therapeutically agnostic. When we pursued OpSens, we knew that the SavvyWire was an outstanding tool to enable better valve placement. We went and talked to the leading valve companies and said, you know, is this your interest? Because we don't want to waste time. For our scale of a company, it just doesn't make good sense to pursue something that's ultimately not going to materialize. We heard back a couple things. We heard back, it's a great guidewire. We hope you guys get it 'cause in your hands it will be successful.
We're not interested in it because, you know, if we have this, you know, $800 or $900 guidewire on a $35,000 valve procedure, we're gonna be asked to, to your earlier point, we're gonna be asked to bundle it and just give it away for free. There's no value prop there. I think a more nuanced answer, which probably is also true, was we don't want our very well-compensated, highly trained clinical reps scrubbing in to use that guidewire on our competitor's valve. It just doesn't make sense. This notion of therapeutically agnostic enabling tech lets us, you know, we're on the dance floor, but we're not getting trampled because we're not in the way of those procedures. In fact, we're enabling them, and we tend to get the access and the support from those other companies as well as the labs themselves accordingly.
I feel like in this sort of same context, we do need, I do wanna touch on, on Attune. Obviously temperature monitoring under pressure as RF becomes a smaller percentage of total. I mean, that seems to be one of the common themes here is if there is any cost savings in a PFA procedure, it is the elimination of esophageal temperature probe, which is not that expensive a product. Like, where is that a business that you decide to wind down, defocus? How, where does this fall in kind of the priority scheme for you?
Yeah. Look, I think it's important to learn both from your successes and your mistakes. I would characterize the Attune acquisition last year as, potentially the right deal at absolutely the wrong time. It wasn't like we didn't know about PFA. We didn't, you know, we took all the available information, including from the leading PFA therapeutic companies that were forecasting 40%-60% growth. At the time, Attune had 9% share of all procedures. We knew that if we could essentially double that, this would be a home run in terms of the return on invested capital. What we need for that to be true is for RF to retain at least, you know, a 30% stake in the market. Until we have clarity around that, we're not gonna double down on that investment. We're gonna be thoughtful about it.
When you're using RF, adding enso ETM is a game changer for a relatively modest price. It makes it completely safe. You avoid the risk of lesions. You don't have to do temperature monitoring. There's no probes, and you can move fast, which is what those EPs want. We'll see where the dust settles later this year on PFA adoption. In the meantime, we're just being very surgical about, you know, kind of what we euphemistically call, where's Waldo, where Waldo is the one, you know, a clinician who wants to use RF either in conjunction with PFA or standalone where there's a risk of burning 'cause they're on the back wall. In that case, they need to be using enso. It's the right technology. If we can scale that business to something north of 15% market share, we'll still pull it out.
Here and now, you know, best I can say is right deal, wrong time. We need to learn from that and move forward.
Is it the same Salesforce carrying these, carrying VASCADE and Attune products?
Yeah. I think for Attune in particular, it's all EP based. The folks who are detailing MVP and MVP XL are well positioned to have the enso ETM conversation.
How do you think about that from a quota setting perspective? Just to try to keep your reps, your reps focused on the right growth drivers, but also not, you know, letting Attune sort of die on the vine?
Yeah. Again, what I said earlier has to be true, which is, you know, we win or lose on vascular closure in the U.S. The mistake we made with the acquisitions back to back was we distracted our existing team from closure. And that's where we seeded some market share. We had a delay on the product release for XL. Didn't help with PFA. The combination of those two things put us back. We've bifurcated the teams. We are hyper-focused. Enso is an add-on when we know that the doctor has a tendency to use RF, but it doesn't get in the way of the base plan. These, our teams, like the company, succeed or fail on vascular closure.
I know you made the comment earlier as you think about your LRP and risk adjusting different opportunities, but one of the challenges of the strategy of latching yourself to other categories is that those categories might not grow linearly either, right? PFA adoption is probably the fastest adopted medical device I have ever seen.
Correct.
technology. Now, the other one that took this didn't end well, if you look at, you know, coronary stents, for example.
Yeah. Drug-eluting stents.
Right. From 0% - 90% penetration overnight back to 60%.
Yeah.
I don't know if that's gonna happen with PFA. It doesn't seem that way because there's no safety signal, which I think was the issue there. It also seems like it puts you in a position where you're not totally in control of your own destiny.
Admittedly, that's true. We're not, you know, so we're not trying to influence his choice between cryo or RF or, or PFA. From our vantage point, what we're observing more broadly in AFib is this tremendous, you know, earlier diagnosis, more thoughtful diagnosis, and, you know, just a massive expansion in the treatable population. From our vantage point, again, you know, we care, but we don't really need to discriminate between whether it's RF or PFA, whether they're doing commitment therapy or they're doing standalone therapy. The issue is, are they, do they need access? If they do, there's a play for closure.
Okay. I wanna open up to the audience, see if there are any questions before we kind of go to plasma and then talk a little about financials. That's okay. It's a fireside chat. I'm supposed to open it up. No one ever has any questions, but that's okay.
It's 9:00 A.M.
Yeah, I know, I know. It's, it's, so, just I wanna close on plasma on the top line here. Obviously, once CSL is out of the picture, you've reduced, you know, you are losing one, I think what has historically been your largest customer, one of your largest customers. Should we think about that rebasing to like a 7% growth rate on a go-forward basis, on a, you know, reported?
We'll provide more color around what we think is the underlying base when we do our investor day. What we look at is, you know, just a $30 billion with a [B] million-dollar therapeutic market. So there's tremendous growth opportunity. If you look at the forecast that the leading players, CSL, Grifols, BioLife, [Decade] have put forward, they're all talking about double-digit growth of IG-based therapies. We like the long-term prospects. If you go back and study this over a multi-decade period, there are always ebbs and flows. The current ebb is really a function of increased productivity, much of which we've brought to the market. We've done so at a very handsome premium on innovation. You see that benefit in price. This year and next, you'll see that benefit in terms of share gains.
We look at a number of factors. We look at the clinical trial work they're doing. We look at the actual use case for alternate therapies like anti-FCRM, which absolutely have a role. Today and probably for the foreseeable future, they tend to be adjunctive therapy given the price differential, which is 50%-70% higher. It is pretty clear the way the market is shaping out. We just look, there is a whole bunch of factors around rates of reimbursement, around number of new center openings. The number that seems to be a very accurate long-term predictor, as you said, that 7%-8% is fractionation expansion. That is what we ultimately track to. That said, we got ahead of it last year and had to be more cautious.
We were able to deliver our plan because of our share gains. This year we're assuming very modest growth. In fact, really 0%-2%, mostly backloaded. We will grow meaningfully in excess of that ex-CSL. We've guided to 11%-14% growth. The reason is share gains and the continued annualization of our price increases from last year. You know, we're using what we view as a very temporary pullback in collection demand to accelerate the technology adoption and share conversion. It's a team that's firing on all cylinders. If I look back three years, that plasma apheresis team has met every single objective or exceeded them over the planned period. We have no doubt they'll continue to do so.
Would you say as you get ready to issue the new LRP that this business represents the potential driver of what could be variability across the forecast period?
There's gonna be ebbs and flows, but I think we increasingly have line of sight to be able to normalize that. You know, when we started this discussion, you know, plasma was the real workhorse. It was, you know, large, you know, more than half of our revenue and well more than half of our EBITDA. Today, you know, our guidance for this year, plasma will be 38% of what we do. No one customer will be more than, you know, 9% or 10% of our corporate revenue. So we've succeeded in the process of diversifying the business. There will be ebbs and flows, but what we really look for, for this is, is that, you know, EBITDA, that free cash flow that we're using to fund the more stable, more predictable growth in MedSurg.
I'll close on a P&L question and turn it back to you for any closing remarks. The, you've seen a huge amount of margin expansion. I mean, step function type improvements in your gross and operating margin. As you look at exiting this year at a high 50s gross margin and 26%-27% operating margin, that profile does stand out versus the rest of the space. I mean, most companies at 26%-27% operating margins have gross margins that are well into the 60s, if not higher. Can you continue to see steady margin expansion without a big step up in your gross margin?
Yeah, absolutely. I think part of it is understanding the dynamics really of our entire collections business, which of course is mostly plasma apheresis, but it's also plasma and platelets on the blood center side where our blood center customers are looking to replicate the success that the source plasma guys have. You know, we're now operating well north of 50% gross margin in that business. In fact, in our 10-K filings, we tried to break this out more fully to provide additional transparency. I think what you can see when you look at the plasma business, it's now mid-50% gross margin, but the pass-through is tremendous. It's just the nature of it. That is sustainable and scalable. On the hospital side, it's been, as I said, mostly a mixed story. That's gonna transition over.
There'll still be meaningful benefit from mix, but we're also gonna see an uptick in productivity and operating leverage where the investments we've already made in Salesforce, in clinical development and R&D more broadly are now scaling in ways that, you know, will make us much more consistent with the MedSurge Group, which in combination is what drives what you described. That's how we're, you know, have a $600 million hospital business growing double digits as part of a corporation that has delivered double-digit earnings growth year in and year out.
Okay. Excellent. We have a couple minutes remaining here, so I just wanted to turn it back to you to see if any wrap-up or closing remarks. Again, very much appreciate your making the trip and great to have the opportunity to reconnect here.
Yeah, David, thank you for that. I think the timing's pretty critical as well. We believe Haemonetics is at an inflection point, and we think this year, fiscal 2026, will be defining for us. You know, three years ago, as we talked, you know, fiscal 2022, excluding CSL, we earned $1.83 a share. We were very public about that. Our actual earnings were $2.58, but we said we had $0.75 of CSL. That June, we issued this current LRP and, you know, the targets we've talked about, double-digit revenue growth, mid-20s earnings growth, high 20s operating margin. We're in the final year of the plan. We guided last month for this year's results. We obviously don't intend to miss our own guidance. That will imply revenue of $1.3 billion, which is a 10% CAGR over the four-year period.
It implies at the midpoint, $4.85 of EPS, which is a 28% CAGR over that period. Said differently, a buck 83 to [ 4.85]. It is a $3 increase in EPS over the four-year period. That earnings is coming from a portfolio that is more profitable, higher growing, more diversified, and better margins than anything that existed previously. We have our challenges, but we've got a clear path forward on interventional. We aligned our Salesforce and invested in clinical. We are excited about the continued momentum with TEG's [success] driving blood management. We look at the technology upgrades and our leadership for U.S. source plasma, and we think we've got more room to run there and margin expansions on track with meaningful more room to go. You know, we think we're executing. The strategy's sound, the portfolio and the transforming effects are there.
We have just, you know, got heads down delivering.
Excellent. With that, we are just at time. Again, appreciate your making the trip and look forward to following, watching the story from here.
Yeah. Thanks, David. Appreciate your [time].