Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference. I'm Erin Wright, Healthcare Services Analyst at Morgan Stanley, and we are happy to have McKesson with us today. But for more important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. Hopefully, I'll memorize that by now. Thank you so much for joining us. We have Chief Executive Officer, Brian Tyler, as well as the new, or not so new anymore-
Three months.
It's been three months.
Yeah.
Chief Financial Officer, Kenny Cheung, with us today. Very happy to have you. I think, Brian, you wanted to say a few remarks at the beginning.
Well, I just want to thank you for hosting us this morning. We appreciate the opportunity to share a little bit about the McKesson strategy and recent performance, and we thank you all for being here early on a Monday morning. I appreciate your interest in McKesson.
Great. Let's start out with the most recent quarter in earnings print and guide. More recently, I guess, raised your 2027 EPS by $0.40. You've raised your AOI guidance by 8%. I guess to start off, is there anything that you want to highlight from the more recent print or clarify based on the feedback you got? Since then, you also announced an acquisition of PMG. We'll get more into that later on, but just give a high level in terms of the rationale behind the deal.
Sure. I can start with the quarter.
Sure.
I'll turn it over to BT on PMG. Overall for the quarter, for Q1, we are pleased with our business performance. We have momentum across the board. As you think about our four reportable segments, three of the four were double-digit growth across North American Pharmaceutical, Oncology & Multispecialty, and our RxTS business. As you think, and you're correct, we did raise for the full year, given our strong performance in Q1 and our confidence for the rest of the year. The $0.40 raise brings our full-year EPS to $44.20-$45, which translates to a growth of roughly 13%-15%. If you normalize for two things, the Norway exit as well as our gain on sale in US Oncology last year, this quarter in Q2, that is a 15%-17% increase year-over-year.
That is, call it, inline, slightly above our long-term target of EPS growth of 13%-16%. Erin, overall, we are extremely pleased. I will turn it over to BT on PMG. Just one overarching comment. When we think about M&A or just general assets within our portfolio, it is important that we are strategic about it, disciplined about it as well, where the assets, the platforms, are interoperable and are complementary to each other across distribution, practice management, data and analytics, clinical trial services, and the likes. PMG does fit that mold nicely. BT?
If you just step back a little bit, seven years ago, we set a strategy for the enterprise that was focused on a few pillars. One was people and culture, and we think PMG is a great cultural fit with super talented people, so we are excited about that. It was to strengthen North American Pharmaceutical distribution, and it was to modernize or continue to modernize our portfolio through disciplined capital allocation. Then to focus on two growth areas, oncology and biopharma services, where we felt like we had differentiated assets, we had end markets that had good growth that we could foresee into the future. Over the last years, we have been executing on that strategy.
We think Precision Medicine Group fits both the focus on oncology through their clinical assets, which complement SCRI, Ontada, the US Oncology Network, and help extend our reach into clinical research with a particular focus on oncology. Then on the commercial side of their business, it supports our biopharma strategy, adding us depth in things like market access and payer insights and consulting that we think we can then leverage to have a more complete commercial solution for payers. So we are really, really pleased with just the people, the talent, and the strategic fit.
Okay, great. I will get back to PMG in a second. In the most recent quarter, we got some investor questions on this just in terms of quarterly cadence, how you are mapping it out for the year. You tweaked North American Pharmaceutical AOI growth guidance a little bit higher or towards the high end of the prior range. But you did maintain that Oncology & Multispecialty segment and RxTS guidance. Was there anything to keep in mind when we think about that quarterly cadence? Any areas of conservatism, like why the momentum wouldn't-
Yeah.
Continue, kind of-
Yeah. I probably wouldn't use the word conservatism. I would use the word confident. We're extremely confident around the momentum in our business, given the fact it's broad based. You are correct, we did increase the guidance tied to North American Pharmaceutical. You may remember our original guide was 5.5%-9.5% AOP growth for the year. Given the momentum we're seeing across the business from a customer standpoint, a product standpoint, we're seeing good growth from health system with specialty. For us, that gave us the confidence to raise. That was the $0.40, give or take. Your question was around O&M and RxTS. How do we feel about those two businesses as well? For O&M, Oncology & Multispecialty, we're off to a great start of the year.
On a reported basis, our top line was 33% growth, and our AOP was roughly 41% growth. If you back out the Core Ventures acquisition that was done last year, by the way, we lapped that in Q1, it's roughly a 15% growth for Oncology & Multispecialty. That is right at the midpoint of our full-year guide of 13.5%-17.5%. That feels we're on a good track there. Momentum is there as well. We're really seeing a few folds of growth. One is just existing volume. We're seeing good foot traffic into our US Oncology and PRISM networks. We're also seeing just overall healthy utilization in terms of prescription drugs and specialty. The other good news is we're seeing good business growth as well, new business growth too.
On the RxTS side, just to remind everybody, we saw roughly 9% top-line growth in Q1 and 13% growth in AOP. That 13% is right in the middle of our full-year guide of 11%-15%. Overall, we're seeing broad-based growth across our access affordability programs. We're also seeing good momentum around our GLP program as well. Every year we bring in new programs, new brands to our platform. For example, the GLP-1 Medicare bid program is off to a good start. It is early innings, though. It started roughly July 1st. We're two months into it, and we're seeing good volume through there right now. More importantly, operationally, we're ready as well. If you think about some of the key metrics we're looking at, for example, roughly call it 95% of the time when a PA hits our network, 30 minutes, we have the determination.
Overall, we are ready and it's early innings and we'll update as we progress.
Okay. We may have some follow-ups there, but since I have to ask the obligatory question on contract renewals, any sort of update on that front, particularly with your CVS relationship? How would you characterize that relationship today? And then just anything else to keep in mind in terms of some of those bigger contracts?
Sure. Look, we're very pleased to have been aligned and partnered with CVS for over 20 years, and they're a big growing organization. We've been a big growing organization, and so we like to think through constant dialogue, we're helping strengthen their business. Certainly, through their scale and volume, they continue to strengthen ours. So it's been a great relationship. We're super pleased to be affiliated and aligned with them. We extended our contract about five years ago. It extends June 27th. I'm not going to get into a lot of details around contract negotiations for obvious reasons, but we're very pleased with the partnership. We think we bring them a lot of value, and they understand the value that we have helped create over the 20 years plus of the relationship. I would remind everyone that this is just a normal part of the business.
Every year, about 1/3 of our contracts come up, and we're engaged in renewal discussions. We operate those discussions at the cadence that our customers want them. Sometimes we might early renew because they would see value in that. Sometimes we go through a process that can come down to the last months of the contract. But 1/3 every year is pretty normal, and we've got a pretty good track record of renewing.
Okay, great. Let's switch back to PMG, Precision Medicine Group. You have mentioned some of the unique aspects of this business, very focused on oncology, late-stage CROs, with a very niche kind of hand-holding type of experience, with also that commercial arm as well. How does that fit into what you are doing at Sarah Cannon and Ontada, but also, can you talk a little bit more about just the financials as well? We did not get that much in terms of financial disclosure on the asset, but growth profile.
We did just sign the deal, so we are going through the regulatory filings and things of that nature. I will let Kenny comment on that, but maybe just from why are we excited, why this asset, and what does it bring to us? I think to put that in good context, you have got to remember how we have really gone about building our oncology business. So we started in distribution. We had a lot of specialty customers. We then expanded to offer GPO services. Then we expanded into our MSO, US Oncology. After we began to then scale that, we have roughly doubled the providers in the last eight to 10 years. We now have 3,400 providers, so we have got great scale in the network. Then we invested in a data analytics and insight business called Ontada.
We did a joint venture with Sarah Cannon, which then got us into site management and in and around clinical trials. Sarah Cannon, for example, in 2025, of the 52 oncology drugs that made it to market for adult oncology, we were part of managing that trial for 43 of them. As you think about piecing those together, we just see the assets in PMG as a very next natural extension. A lot of oncology trials fail because we cannot enroll enough patients fast enough to get them to the finish line. We think a big unlock for that is availing the community practice of oncology, where most of those patients who could find a trial do not because they do not live near an academic medical center.
Using the assets of PMG in alignment with and integrated into the things we are already doing at Sarah Cannon, we think will allow us to develop a very strong value proposition for biopharma companies developing these oncology drugs. We think that the combination of those assets is actually quite unique and a big unlock for us. As we then grow that and continue to scale that and get penetration, we get more data that we can bring into Ontada, things like bioclinical markers, things that we had not prior had at the scale that we could now have it. Then you referenced their late-stage focus and some of our early-stage focus, and we see that as a great opportunity to kind of cross-pollinate those businesses.
If you think about it, for us, we are excited because now, long story short, we can add more value to biopharma partners from innovation/clinical trials to commercialization to, at the end of the day, access to patients, affordable access to patients, especially in the community setting. From a financial standpoint, as BT said, we just signed the deal. We are in the process of the regulatory approval framework, if you will. With that said, this deal is accretive from a strategy standpoint, as BT just mentioned, as well as from a financial standpoint too. We will share more financial impact as we get closer to the closing date of the asset. Two things I will say. As we think about this asset strategy-wise, it is on strategy, as BT said. I will not repeat what he said. Financially, it is also accretive, as I said earlier.
As you think about the ways we use to evaluate assets, we factor in cost of capital, we look at the risk profile of the asset, and we parlay that and marry that up with the near-term and long-term value for our shareholders. Overall, this asset checks all the boxes. Last but not least, given the fact that we have a strong balance sheet, IG-rated, and the fact that we have ample cash and liquidity, we have the luxury to do both invest in our business organically and inorganically, and also reward our shareholders. As we said on the earnings call last quarter, this year, we plan to redeploy capital against share repo of $5 billion. $2.5 billion was completed in Q1, and also in July, we raised our dividends by 15%, which is commensurate with our long-term algorithm for EPS growth.
Okay. Since you are talking about capital deployment, I will switch to this question then, and it ties into PMG. You have suggested in the past that an FCS type of transaction or size of transaction is probably less likely. There is just frankly not that many MSO deals to do like that, or at least of that size. Should we interpret PMG as evidence of that next phase of strategy that may lean towards acquiring these types of capabilities in sort of that CRO category, where there is a long tail and a very fragmented market? Could this be even a larger presence in what you are doing with PMG today?
Yeah, look, scaling our US Oncology Network or MSO was an important part of our strategy over the last few years, and we are super pleased to be able to integrate FCS into the US Oncology Network and give us the leading scale at 3,400 providers. We think there is continued growth in that network, building off the states and the practices we are already in, recruiting new oncologists to join those practices. Kenny mentioned the solid same-store patient traffic that we are seeing. There are an active funnel of additional practices that we think fit our model, meaning they want to practice oncology in a way that is consistent with the way US Oncology manages itself as a network. There are not more FCSs' scale out there, but we think we can continue to add active practices to grow it.
But the key is for us, that now that we have this leading scale, how do we continue to find ways to leverage that scale through doing things like acquiring a PMG, bringing CRO capabilities, integrating them with site management, and unlocking access to clinical trials in the community? We think that's got a long growth runway for the foreseeable future, and that's what we're really excited about, is leveraging off prior investments, GPO, Ontada, SCRI , US Oncology, to attach an asset that we think has tremendous complementarities and makes those things in themselves stronger, as well as making PMG stronger.
Yep. Okay. So let's dig into the MSO assets as well. So oncology, obviously, you're talking about that being a key growth driver, key platform for you. You've really built that out nicely with a lot of other ancillary services as well. But I guess, can you talk about the underlying growth of that MSO asset on an organic basis? And you can highlight kind of US Oncology or the broader MSO business, but how sustainable is that growth in light of what we could see in terms of reimbursement evolving across that space?
Yeah, I can start. As you think about Oncology & Multispecialty, he mentioned MSO, that's where that falls under. We're seeing really good momentum in that business, and as I mentioned in Q1, the operating profit growth was 41%. And if you back out the Core Ventures piece of it, which is M&A last year, fully lapped in Q1, it was roughly 15%. That 15%, it's a good proxy for organic growth in that business. That's point number one. Point number two is if you think about the composition of O&M from a revenue contribution standpoint, the majority of the business is actually distribution and GPO. That is the majority, the lion's share of that business where we provide distribution services to providers and allow them to do, obviously, the treatment side of the house.
We provide surety of supplies, safety, reliable service as well, and we get a fair fee for our service as well. That's a really important point. And the second piece I would say is that on the MSO piece, the benefit expands beyond just financials. Obviously, when you join the US Oncology Network, to your point, or our PRISM network, you get the full basket of service, obviously distribution, GPO, but you also get practice management. You get revenue cycle billing help as well. You get some back office help as well. So it's a full suite of service that we provide to our provider and physician. In terms of your last questions around the reimbursement side, et cetera, I think I'll say three things. One is, and I think this is more of a safe harbor, and is we don't own the physician or the providers.
We don't own the clinic as well. We provide choice, but the choice is retained by the provider. That's just really important. The second piece is that as you think about our business, it's a resilient business model. Distribution right now is the backbone of the public Oncology & Multispecialty, and we're off to a great start. Right now, as I mentioned, the exit rate of our business right now was really strong in Q2, and we're two weeks away from quarter close. Right now, momentum is still there as well. Overall, we feel good about the space.
You were referencing the IRA Part B drugs.
Yes.
Which were announced in 2026, will not take effect until 2028. We don't know what that MFN price will be relative to pricing in the market today. So it's a little bit hard to try to quantify what these few drugs' impact could be. We step back, though, from a little bit more macro level and look at it and say, we know the community is the lowest cost location to provide healthcare services today, good oncology care today. It's dramatically lower than the hospital setting. Any public policy that would incentivize care to leave the community setting to go somewhere else is going to work very counter to the overall goal of this country to reduce healthcare costs. We think that's pretty widely recognized by our regulators and our legislators.
In fact, they've given us a blueprint of a model to achieve what they're trying to achieve through this IRA Part B in a way that does not potentially impact physician incomes at all. That's the GLOBE Model, where you effectuate the price by a direct rebate from the manufacturer to CMS. We think that's a very workable and productive solution that allows the government to achieve its goals of reducing their spend on drug pricing, but insulating the community-based providers from any economic harm.
So you feel like you can navigate this as-
We think there's a working model that's out there that's already been endorsed and developed. We will advocate, as we always do, on behalf of the community practitioners, whether it's pharmacies or oncologists or anyone else based in the community, because that's going to be an important part of solving the macro healthcare challenges in this country.
Okay. Then you mentioned PRISM on the MSO side, and that platform now includes more than 200 providers across 97 locations. You've obviously expanded some of that. Can you talk a little bit more about that opportunity, where that can go over time, and then where else you might consider expanding from a specialty standpoint?
In my mind, it's a little bit of a similar playbook to what we've done in oncology. It's just we're a little bit closer to the starting blocks and we had a 15-year head start in oncology. But we really think the same model is kind of applicable. The reason we were attracted to retina and ophthalmology was because we see a heavy intensity of physician-administered drugs. We see a good innovation pipeline. We see a complicated practice where scale can help the practitioners be more efficient, improve the operations of their practice, get more patients that we can then ultimately leverage that data off of. We started our retina journey by realizing we had a lot of scale and just our specialty distribution to retina clinics, and then we acquired some assets and launched a GPO specific to retina.
This story's probably sounding a little familiar to how we built oncology. Then we went for the platform, the MSO platform, and now it's about finding the practices that want to practice retina and ophthalmology consistent with the way we do in PRISM, and growing that over time. So growing, again, same store visits, getting more throughput for our physicians, attracting ophthalmologists to join the locations we already operate in, and then finding new practice platforms in new states that have the relevant scale and want to practice ophthalmology the way it's consistent with how we do. We're really excited about it. We look at the pipeline of drug innovation in ophthalmology, and we think that there's going to be a similar playbook to be run here.
Okay. I wanted to switch gears to the North American Pharmaceutical segment. Again, the AOI growth was pretty solid at 19% in the most recent quarter, supported by some of this timing of new branded or branded to generic launches. I guess, how does that flow through? Why doesn't that flow through for the remainder or balance of the year? How do we normalize for those contributions as we think about the quarterly progression? Can you talk a little bit about that dynamic and what you're-
Yeah, sure. Yeah, no, that's a good question. Let's talk a bit more deeper on North American Pharmaceutical. As you know, that's roughly, call it top line 80%-85% of our top line. From a profit standpoint, over 50%. Q1, we saw really healthy leverage across the P&L. Top line was 5% growth. We saw leverage down to GP as well as to operating profit, and 19% growth on a year-on-year standpoint. It wasn't just one single thing that drove the successful quarter for us and the momentum that we're seeing. It was broad-based from a customer channel standpoint, as I mentioned earlier, specialty growth, for example, in the healthcare system. We continue to see healthy and stable growth on prescription utilization as well.
I think you mentioned there was some timing, I think around the new product launch side with brands as well as the brand to generic conversion as well. Maybe I can talk more about that because that one, in particular, does cause some variability for our business, if you will. Let me think through some of the variables. Branded generic and LOEs as well as just overall new brands coming to the pike, that is a consistent part of our business. With that said, though, each product launch is unique, if you will. It is unique. You think about from a brand side, customer mix, a channel mix. Think about adoption as well. Think about on the supply side, supply readiness. On the Gx, sorry, on the brand to generic side, there could be a lot of variables as well.
Thinking about the molecule itself, number of entrants on the generic side, adoption, price strategy launch, a brand marketing launch. There is an array of things that could impact variability for the business. The good news is that our team does track this on a granular level, and that has been reflected in our forecast and our guidance for the year. As we learn more, obviously, we will reflect that into our guide. But overall, even though there is variability, the underlying fundamentals of our business are durable and sustainable as we think about the full-year guide.
In terms of the back half of the year about the flow-through that we saw in Q1, as we mentioned, the earnings call, we do expect, given the fact that we are seeing strong momentum in the business. At McKesson, we are all about delivering value for our shareholders today and building for tomorrow. For the back half of the year, we are expecting a step-up on investments around business growth, automation, and technology, and these will render accretive returns for our business, not necessarily this fiscal year, but for many periods on the forward.
Okay. Another policy question for you. What is your exposure to 340B, and how should we think about your position in this market amid some of the, I guess, broader uncertainty there and shifts that we are seeing, and they seem to be a little bit more aggressive with that. I guess, have you noticed any changes in terms of where volume is flowing through and reimbursement thereon, or how do you think about the evolving policy backdrop there?
Well, we do serve contract pharmacies, health systems, biopharma manufacturers, all participants in the 340B segment. Look, Erin, you know this has been a pretty active area of discussion, really, for my entire tenure, so the last seven or eight years, and we've seen a lot of proposals and models and things kind of come and go, either dying in the courts or being retracted and then coming back. Today, there's a small handful of various proposals out there. Most of them are still in the comment period or the evaluation period. So we really haven't seen any changes in customer behaviors or volume flows or any of those types of things. I couldn't point to any specific data that would back that up.
When I think about it in general, though, I think about the scale and the breadth of the capabilities that we have to help our customers manage inventory, manage their reimbursement settings, just the broad capabilities of McKesson. Whenever we talk about policy and policy shifts, I just have confidence that we have the assets and the scale and the solutions that will help our customers, our biopharma partners, navigate these changes in a constructive way.
Okay. Can we dig into a little bit of the RxTS business? You mentioned a little bit on GLP-1s and how should we think about lumpiness across that business? Can you break out kind of the different drivers, the different components, how important kind of everything from the third-party logistics to kind of the core technology assets within that?
Yeah. So the RxTS business, again, grew double digit in Q1. The full year guide is 11%-15% AOP growth. So we're right on pace in terms of our Q1 performance. In terms of some of the dynamics driving the growth for us, obviously GLP-1 has been a topic for a lot of folks, obviously in this room as well, and we're seeing momentum in GLP-1 right now. I think one interesting fact is that with orals being, again, early innings on orals, however, we're seeing or for the most part being, I would use the words additive, accretive, versus cannibalizing injectable side of the house for the most part. So we're seeing that piece. That's great. I think the other thing that I want to say to impress upon is the fact that GLP-1 is growing nicely for our business.
It is only roughly 11% of our revenue contribution. The non-GLP-1 part of our business is also growing in a meaningful way for us. For us, we continue to see growth across both affordability and access across the board. As I mentioned earlier, every day, every month, every week, we bring in new programs and new brands to our platform, and that has been going really well. You are on the core side of that house. We are growing, and then we are also expanding with new wins as well.
The strength of this business is really the networks. We have got over 50,000 pharmacies. We have got over 1 million providers, and they are on our technology platform, which is levered into their workflow. That is a pretty big differentiator for us, and that is why 650 brands choose to collaborate with CoverMyMeds or RxTS. It is that network, it is that trust, it is that ability to transact at scale with high accuracy that we think, and it gives us the right to win and continue to win in this space.
Within RxTS, how should we think about the competitive positioning in the broader access market, and particularly relative to the vertically integrated PBMs and payers and manufacturer direct-to-patient type of models that could disintermediate third-party solutions? How do you fit into all that?
I look at the networks I just talked about. I look about the track record, the history. I look about the 650 brands. I look at the growth that we've had in that business for the last five to eight years, and it gives me great confidence that the market is signaling to us there's real value in what we do and that there will continue to be real value in what we do.
As it relates to, I think you had said direct to consumer or direct to patient programs, I think about that in a couple of ways. Let's separate GLP-1s, because I think GLP-1s has clearly demonstrated there is a pretty big cash marketplace out there. It looks to us, based on the growth we continue to see in our access business for GLP-1, that these are incremental scripts, that this has brought new patients to the market that otherwise wouldn't have been there.
We are and will explore how we support the cash market through the technologies that we have, but it's net not taking away from the business at this point. If you think about the rest of the market, the non-GLP market, if you have coverage today, you're going to use that coverage to access your meds. If you don't have coverage today, you probably aren't buying that drug. So if you are using a DPP program, you are probably also net new to the marketplace. The GLP-1 we see as an opportunity. The non-GLP-1 we think of more as not really impacting our business.
Okay. I want to ask a question on Medical-Surgical. I know that's a pending spin, but what trends have you been seeing across the business recently? What is behind the 0%-4% kind of operating profit guidance for the year?
Yeah, I can start. So for the last quarter, our top line was 4% growth, which is one of the highest we've seen in the recent periods. Our AOP was down roughly 20% year-on-year, and that was driven by twofolds. One is more product mix, the other one was we had a one-time admin cost from a year-over-year comp standpoint, which burdened obviously this year, but also there was last year one-timers as well, and we don't expect that to continue. That is the reason why we guided 0%-4% in Q1. I think the question behind your question is what is the glide path, if you will, right between Q1 and the rest of the year. What are the actions that management is thinking through and working through? The good news is it's not one thing.
It is quite a few things we are working through right now. Top line, obviously, we have a robust pipeline on the top line side of the house. The second piece is on the GP side, sorry, gross profit side, where we have GP initiatives. We have initiatives that drive private label penetration as well, mix as well. So those are the few levers on the GP side. Then on supply chain and SG&A, the team has done a nice job looking at productivity actions to drive leverage in the P&L. So those are the three, I would say, levers to go from our Q1 number to the glide path of 0%- 4%.
Now, you did mention trends. Obviously, illness season does cause variability within our business quarter to quarter, period to period. And right now, we are not in illness season yet. We are ramping up as we speak. Illness season becomes more pervasive towards the end of the calendar year. However, based on early reads so far, even though it is early innings, it is a little softer than expected. As we learn more, we will definitely update, as well as part of our next earnings call in November.
And maybe just to remind everybody, we have stated that our goal is to exit IPO in the second half of 2027, assuming market conditions are right and all of that stuff. I think the team has made great progress on marching towards that goal. We took on an investment from Apollo that valued the business at $13 billion. They have a minority stake. We set up the capital structure for the business, so that has been done. We just launched its name. We have TSAs operating well. In fact, we are starting the phase where we are starting to roll off of some TSAs. So operationally, I think the team is doing a great job in preparing us to execute the ultimate strategy.
Okay, and then two last questions I will stick in together. One is just more housekeeping. How is tariffs flowing through in terms of that business, and how are you treating that? Then second, bigger picture. You have done a great job in terms of successfully steering this business towards some of these higher growth, higher margin segments, such as Oncology & Multispecialty, such as RxTS, really building out that platform. Are there other areas, once Wellverse is separated, that you would further optimize or see some sort of bigger structural change across your base business?
I can start. On the tariff side, just remind everybody with Medical-Surgical/Wellverse, we do not manufacture anything, right? Most of the products that we buy are in the U.S. for the U.S., so we do not have much exposure on the tariff side. It is something we continue to evaluate, but it is not material in terms of the exposure to our business. In terms of capital allocation, et cetera, and with Wellverse, I think there is the overarching comment. We believe the spirit of this deal is this transaction makes both sides better, RemainCo and NewCo as well. As you think about for RemainCo, McKesson, it allows us to further deploy, further focus on higher margin, higher growth platforms for our business. It ties back to capital allocation around Oncology & Multispecialty and biopharma services. For us, the capital allocation does not change.
We will invest in our business, both organic and inorganic, reward our shareholders, and obviously maintain our IG-rated balance sheet. This deal is meant to unlock value for both sides, the Wellverse side as well as McKesson, and we feel very good about that.
Okay. All right. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Erin.
I appreciate it.
Thanks, Erin.
Thank you, everybody.
Thank you all.