Thanks for joining us today. I'm Matt Sykes, a Life Science Tools and Diagnostics Analyst at Goldman Sachs. I have the pleasure of hosting Myriad Genetics this afternoon. We've got Paul Diaz, President and CEO, and Scott Leffler, CFO. Paul, Scott, thanks for joining me today.
Thank you, Matt.
Maybe we'll just start off sort of, Paul, with you setting the stage. You're coming off to a really great start to the year. Maybe just talk a little bit about what drove that strong start and how you see things progressing over the second quarter in the course of this year.
Well, thank you. Great to be here. You know, it's really a progression. I think what you're seeing is a lot of hard work from our team coming together. I think customers really embracing our value proposition. We, we saw that at ASCO last week, among new customers and existing customers, and really building off of the last two years, quite frankly. And so, organic growth across all our products, really strong ASP, good management of cost, even as we're investing in R&D and, and our tech build. And I think that, you know, we're gonna build off of this Q1 momentum, you know, the balance of the year.
Got it. And if you keep up this growth throughout the year, you know, it seems like there could be some upside to the guidance. And, you know, are there any kind of offsets or headwinds we should think about, or is this just sort of a measured approach in what is still kind of uncertain times?
Yeah, I was joking around with a friend. 84 quarters as a public company CEO taught me never to raise guidance after Q1.
Okay.
And, so I think measured is appropriate. You know, we're going through still our lab of the future and transitioning, you know, products to new labs and new sequencing technology, and, you know, there's a lot of volatility in the marketplace. But as we sit here today, I think the road is pretty clear for us. We don't see any headwinds, and in fact, see building momentum and tailwinds. And so, it just seemed prudent not to get ahead of ourselves and hopefully be in a position to, you know, continue to beat and think about raising later.
Got it. When you, when you think about sort of the durable, higher organic growth that you guys have generated pretty consistently now, and I think investors are starting to see that and the evidence of that happening, can you just talk about sort of the room to run in each—at a very high level, in each of your three segments: women's health, oncology, and mental health? Maybe some quick points on each, where you really kind of want to highlight the strength and what could continue that durability.
Yeah. So, you know, a lot of questions when I joined the company about the durability of hereditary cancer testing-
Mm-hmm
... and the profile, both in terms of growth, the competitive landscape, and pricing. And I think we've demonstrated that there is expanding use cases for hereditary cancer testing across a number of indications. We have seen that our MyRisk with RiskScore is a differentiated hereditary cancer test, and that has demonstrated itself in terms of ASP as well. Similarly, I think that GeneSight has shown itself to be a resilient, you know, product and one that is addressing the mental health crisis in America. And we've seen great growth in prenatal, our product lines there. And so I think the piece that I'm most excited about going forward is the ability to address the key issues that our customers are telling us. They want differentiated clinical products. They want fast turnaround times.
They want ease of use in terms of ordering and reporting. They don't want to work with four or five different labs for different products. So they want a comprehensive set of services, and we came out of ASCO last week with a great deal of energy around Precise Tumor and the launch of Precise Liquid, and the evidence that we're building on MRD. And so we think that we're gonna be continuing to come to market with FirstGene and our Precise products to really address what a community oncologist needs to care for patients, and and to be able to do that in a more efficient way. I think will create a lot of value for shareholders as well.
Got it. Maybe if we drilled down a little bit on hereditary cancer, 'cause it's been a nice growth driver for you. You talked about the competitive landscape, but maybe, you know, talk a little bit about sort of the additional potential for share gains in hereditary cancer, and sort of what the level of runway there is in that business. I agree with you. I think it gets a bad rap for being commoditized or too mature, and yet it continues to grow. There's clearly a tailwind from some market share gains you're doing. But I'm just curious in terms of, like, as you see that kind of happening, how long do you think you have that sort of share gain story to play out, and what's sort of the duration, durability of that growth?
So I think that the share gains are just starting to emerge. These things take time. You know, hereditary cancer testing is not first of mind for a community oncologist or an OBGYN. We've talked about the unaffected population of Americans, both men and women, that meet guidelines for hereditary cancer testing, so our breast cancer risk assessment program, what we're doing with Prolaris and urology c hannel. So I think the market growth is a lot bigger than people think. And I think that our ability to gain share in a consolidating market, among three or four other players, all of which will probably gain share, at the expense of a lot of smaller LDTs that are gonna be under pressure because of cash, and regulation, and other things.
So the transition, though, takes longer than I think people realize, that from the beginning of a customer engagement, thinking about some of the transactions that are happening and thinking about their alternatives, to converting that customer, you know, into our system and issuing a report and a bill, you know, that could be a six-month journey. And so I think that's just starting to kick in.
Got it. And just curious, is there given the sort of competitor that came out of the market, there tend to be some irrationality in pricing. Have you seen a price benefit? We usually don't talk about price benefit in diagnostics, but just how has the market dynamics and pricing changed?
Yeah, so Scott can add to this, but it's interesting. We have not seen as much pricing pressure from the payers here recently.
Okay.
I mean, we typically see, and historically, this sort of seems strange to me, given the pricing challenge that the payers are having right now-
Yeah
... particularly Medicare Advantage. But I think the instability in the marketplace has given some of the payers a little pause. And part of the tailwind we have in ASP right now is we're not seeing sort of... Maybe we're too conservative, but some of the pricing that we modeled in. And so we think that those trends will continue. But Scott, maybe you can add some color.
Yeah, absolutely. And just to remind everyone, we reported 12% organic revenue growth in Q1, and that included a 2% lift from ASP contribution, which is different from what we have historically expected. The great thing about what you saw in Q1 is that the drivers there were very much Myriad-specific. We've been talking for a while about efforts and investments that we've been making in our revenue cycle management, whether it's more strategic energies around engaging with payers, around medical policy and things like that, or more tactical frontline efforts, such as making sure that we have all of our prior authorization capabilities in place in order to comply with timelines. So in that way, we're able to generate some incremental lift.
But on top of that, now to have this opportunity from kind of the evolution of the competitive landscape, we really see an opportunity where there's gonna be an alleviation of some of the historical pressure around ASPs, and we think that gives the opportunity for incremental and sustainable lifts over time.
I actually think that, maybe in contrast to some of my competitors, I don't think this is a zero-sum game. I think this is a tide that can lift all the boats, and I think you're seeing many of the companies improve ASP. I think that will continue. I think that's good for the industry, and, and certainly we're seeing that, and we think we'll continue to see that, as the industry consolidates. So, I think that's good for everybody.
Scott, I wanna follow up on the revenue cycle management comments you made, because I remember years ago, you guys were talking about it and nobody else really was, and now everyone's talking about revenue cycle management. And I, I think that it often seems like it's sort of an event, but it's actually a process, and it just continues. So like, when you think about sort of additional upside you can get from revenue cycle management, I know it continually evolves, but where do you think you are in terms of getting to sort of the, the goal that you had when you first sort of established revenue cycle management? How much more is there to go?
Well, well, first of all, I give Paul a ton of credit for several years ago for having prioritized efforts around this-
Yeah
... as part of the company's broader strategic prioritization of profitable growth, and obviously, getting paid on the tests that you're running is a critical element of that. But I would say overall, you know, as a company, we're still hovering around that 45%-46% no-pay rate that we've talked about in the past. And so there is just absolutely a ton of runway there. And not to take away from the very successful efforts of the team to date, but there's just a lot more opportunity that they're continuing to drive.
Got it.
Every 1% is $8 million to the bottom line. So this is very high on our priorities. We wanna maintain access for patients, though. We're not gonna, you know, we're not gonna keep people from having necessary clinical, you know, information to treat. But, I think the industry is coming around to, we can't be giving away tests for free either, and nobody else in healthcare does that. And so there's a lot of runway here still left.
Got it. Switching to GeneSight, you've shown really solid volume growth in GeneSight over the last few years, more recently, increasing traction on ASPs. Can you just talk about the opportunity that remains there from a growth perspective as well as on the coverage side, and kind of how are you driving progress in those areas?
Yeah. Really excited about the progress that the GeneSight team is making. Look, we have a huge mental health crisis in America. This is. The GeneSight's proving itself to be a tool to help people get on the right medications faster, and that makes a difference for anybody who's had a family member with, you know, struggling with severe depression and anxiety. You know, our number one customer there, nurse practitioners, are the front line of healthcare today in America. And, you know, as we've talked about, four or five thousand new prescribers every quarter, you know, we're adding. So, market's 15% penetrated, so there's a lot of runway for GeneSight to continue to grow. On the payer coverage standpoint, the biomarker laws, we're really getting some traction there.
You know, California goes in place on July 1st, so right now, we're very actively engaged with the plans in California to expand coverage to GeneSight among the Blues plans and Medi-Cal and others. You know, those efforts have continued in Arizona and other states. So it is giving us the ability to really engage with payers at a different level, and whether it's through the governor's office or through the state insurance commissioners. The thing that I would point out a little bit is I think you're gonna see a little bit of a slowdown in the volume of GeneSight, while you continue to see ASPs grow. And the reason for that is everybody is on a revenue-based commission plan now.
Our teams, our sales folks are really working with Scott's rev cycle teams to make sure that we're educating our customers about the need to get prior auth, the needs to make sure we have coverage when possible, and not to deny care, but to make sure that we're getting paid. So you've seen and will continue to see, I think, a nice drop in no pay for GeneSight. Net, net, that's highly accretive to earnings and cash flows. But as the team gets a little pickier on which customers we're targeting and those kind of things, you may see that 20% growth in GeneSight slow down a little bit, but the revenue growth should be more than make up for that.
Okay. And that's more of just sort of the structural nature of the incentives versus some temporary?
It's amazing. So, we're seeing the right behaviors and the team working together in a way that they hadn't before.
Okay.
That's a credit to Mark and the whole team.
That's kind of in line with the way you've been treating your other markets, where there's necessarily profitable or as good, and so it's not unique to the mental health category. It's just more about the-
Correct. And I think you've seen some of our other competitors be more thoughtful about that, too.
Yeah.
You know, the whole industry is undergoing, as you described earlier, a stage of maturity.
Mm-hmm.
I think that's good for everybody, but it also mean that a combination of financial pressures, regulatory pressures, and the importance of getting to scale would mean that a lot of the smaller players will probably not be able to move forward.
Mm-hmm.
I think that, again, bodes well for us and, you know, the three or four other larger, you know, more scaled players in the industry.
Got it. And do you think you need to provide any additional clinical data for increased coverage for GeneSight, or you're gonna have what you need? I know the biomarker builds are a big tailwind.
Yeah. No, no, look, I, I think it's, it's incumbent upon us to continue to build the products all the time.
Yeah.
So I think, you know, one of the things that we've done is develop a deeper product management cycle for all of our existing products and all our new products. For new products, we're not going to go to market without, you know, a line of sight on getting paid. Similarly, on existing products, we need to continue to build the body of clinical evidence to be differentiated, and that's going to be important in the regulatory environment with FDA and others. So I think we're continuing to invest incrementally in getting Prolaris to level one, to continue to build a body of evidence for GeneSight.
We had a nice readout from Optum Genomics on GeneSight in terms of clinical utility, but there's more work to do there to keep, you know, solving to the proof points that some people are concerned about.
Got it. Shifting to prenatal, you saw really good sequential growth there to start the year and continued ASP improvements. Seems to be a trend I'm talking about. Do you have any update on market share in that segment? As you kind of continue to take advantage of some of the dislocations there?
Yeah, I think that's where you're starting to see, as we talked about more, the early wins. So if you think about the market disruptions at Sema4 and Invitae earlier this year-
Yeah
... when Invitae, you know, sadly and unfortunately, was getting out of prenatal earlier this year.
Yeah.
You've seen those market share gains start coming to us, and you've seen it coming to others, too.
Yeah.
Natera's picked up a lot of share, too. I think we've picked up good share and the right share, and I think you'll see in a continued acceleration of volume, ASP in prenatal, and that's what we're seeing. And so my hat's off to Melissa and the team. And keep in mind that the profit center there is hereditary cancer in that channel.
Yeah
... which we have uniquely, I think, positioned ourselves, you know, with folks. And so, yeah, really excited about Melissa's leadership and of our women's health group and a lot of opportunities still there.
Got it. You've been clear in the past and today on your focus on profitable growth and are waiting to release the Foresight Universal Plus.
We released it last week.
Yeah. Oh, okay. Sorry.
It's okay.
Been that busy preparing for the conference.
Yeah.
But you had mentioned you had a strong path to payment via guideline inclusion, and so maybe just talk about
You know, I lost this one. I wanted to launch a Foresight Universal Plus until we actually had ACOG. Our competitors, you know, like to kind of use anything that they can try to differentiate with. So, I became convinced that we needed to demonstrate to our existing customers and new customers that we were going to be right there when guidelines are expanded. And so, yeah, we're excited. It's a soft launch of Foresight Universal Plus, but it's out, it's out there, it's available. It's got all the genes that we expect ACOG to ultimately adopt, that are all in the ACMG, and we wanted to run it, you know, start running it commercially through the labs as well.
Once ACOG guidelines expand, we're going to be right there, and nobody can make the claim that we're not where we need to be.
What, what is your expectation for ACOG guideline inclusion at this point? I know you've been very conservative about how you've thought about that, but just-
I mean, it's a great lift for the sector. This is, again, one of the tides that lifts all the boats.
Mm-hmm.
You know, it is rumored to be in final review and, you know, could be over the next, you know, 60-90 days. And the real key here, Matt, I think, is coverage.
Mm-hmm.
We recently hired Dr. Gina Moore, who's a MD, OBGYN, who spent the last 15 years at Evolent and United and other payers. She's running, you know, point on making sure that the minute ACOG guidelines come out, that we're in front of the payers to expand coverage and make sure that they, that's a little bit of, again, how we're changing our go-to payers. At the same time, we're going to market with the docs. So, you know, Dr. Moore is going to be a great, you know, asset to Chris and the team there. Just an illustration of, but the coverage will take longer.
You know, it's not like ACOG's gonna issue guidance, and the payers are gonna all jump up and scream, "Oh, I can't wait to cover that!" That's not exactly how this works. But I do think we can shrink what used to be 12-18 months to hopefully six. So maybe early next year, you know, we get the $10 million-$20 million bump that this could be.
Got it. We talked about the salesforce incentives, and I think a lot of that is probably gonna have an impact on no pays at some point over time. And you've also talked about not really trying for salesforce additions in 2024. Maybe just talk about how you're driving increased productivity with the existing salesforce that you have, and certainly as you prepare for additional product launches.
It's, it's something I get very excited about, but I'll let, we'll let Scott take this one.
Well, I mean, the tools that we've implemented in terms of the CRM capabilities of the team in order to make sure that we have the most efficient deployment of the sales team, really, I think, is the number one driver of efficiency over time. You know, the leadership in terms of span of control across the organization that I know that Mark and Paul have been working on over time just result in the right structure in terms of delivering you know, the optimal return on that investment.
You know, it's not lost on you, but lost on some folks in the sell side. You know, we grew 9% in 2022, we grew 11% in 2023, and we're gonna do 12% + this year. That's the trajectory that we're on, and we've done that with no additions to the sales force, zero. So productivity is way up. We're using digital tools. We're actually using Salesforce the way it was intended to be used. You know, as we launch new products, we'll probably have more medical affairs support, you know, to help people understand, you know, the products and guide people through that. But very committed, and Mark's just done a phenomenal job on, you know, getting productivity up in our sales force. So that's the leverage in this model that needs to happen for everybody, quite frankly.
Yeah. I mean, it brings up an interesting topic of operating leverage in the diagnostics business model. I think given that there's just so few folks with actual operating margins, it's difficult to see. But I think the great fear is that $1 of sales and marketing spend equals just $1 in revenue, and you can grow if you spend. But you guys have shown so far that there is that operating. What do you think it is that you guys are doing to create that operating leverage that has sort of been a challenge for the sector overall?
Well, you know, I may not be the innovator that some of my peers are, but, but I know how to drive a P&L.
Mm-hmm.
And the P&L starts with, you know, how do you grow efficiently, as we just discussed? ASP can drive a lot of gross margin expansion. And then, you know, Sam, who's been a great addition to the team, and our lab of the future operations, really makes a difference. If you look at our cost of goods sold, they continue to kind of trend down, even in an inflationary environment. And then you go further down the P&L. You know, we've made important investments in technology and important investments in R&D, but we have found other places to find efficiencies to pay for it.
So you're seeing tech and R&D investments grow 10% or 15% per year, but that means to hold the line at around 6% OpEx increase, that we're saving money elsewhere, which is what you should be doing if you're a disciplined organization. So, yeah, just excited about the discipline we've brought across the P&L to the whole company and the opportunity that affords us to invest in our new product pipeline and continue to grow going forward.
Got it.
I would add to that, that we did add to our guidance for 2024 for the first time, guiding to an adjusted EBITDA range.
Yep.
We guided to an adjusted EBITDA range of $20 million-$30 million for the year. And I think in doing that, it really emphasizes, first of all, how far we've come overall in terms of the profitability journey over the last couple of years. But in particular, it will make it that much more clear to our stakeholders exactly how we're able to extract the type of leverage that we're talking about here.
We spent a lot of time on one part of the gross margin equation, the ASPs, but which is... What's discussed less is sort of the reduction in cost per test, and I think you guys have reduced these costs by about 8% last year. And so any more progress on that front, and how much room to grow is there on that in terms of further cost per test leverage?
I mean, Absolutely, we think that over time, the automation and lab of the future, our unified order management system that's gonna begin to get rolled out this year, means that we don't have to have sort of this linear growth of customer service and billing people, for example, or lab techs. And these are great folks that do great work, but right now, you know, sustaining our volume growth means we've had to add more. That's the only place we're adding positions in the company right now, quite frankly, those areas. But the automation that we're putting in place, some of the AI tools that we're working on, you know, we continue to partner with Bain and PwC on just being smarter about stuff, and those are great dollars. I think we're getting great returns on that investment.
But we're also absorbing inflationary increases. You know, there's a reason why 86% of our teammates just recently said we're a great place to work. Turnover is down 9%, 'cause we're trying to make sure we're paying people fairly. And health insurance costs are up, you know, 12%, wage rates, 4%, so we gotta cover those things. Even while we work with our suppliers, and Sam is leading a great effort with Julia, to—for the first time, we're taking an enterprise approach to sourcing $200 million worth of spend. You would have thought this would be like table stakes, but again, it's some of the immaturity of these companies, things that you would think are routine, like FedEx charges and reagents and all of the other things, it's $200 million dollar spend.
And so Sam and the team are all over trying to uplevel that and figure out how we can engage with our suppliers in a more systematic way. Those are all the things that hopefully can get us beyond 70%, but at this point, I don't think—I think that's a pretty good margin, that we can sustain a 70% margin, so we're gonna hang on to that for right now.
What benefit do you think you'll ultimately see from the investments you made in San Francisco and Salt Lake City in those labs, the automation? I know that's a long-tailed kind of investment-
Yeah
-to play out, but what, what, what do you kind of envision?
We're already seeing it. So, you know, the integration of Intermountain Precision Genomics that we just completed-
Yeah
... we've already knocked 4 days of turnaround times off of Precise Tumor. Precise Tumor right now is growing at 184%. That's the number I saw this morning. I know it's a small number -
Yeah
-that's grown up, but it's, it's pretty exciting. We had a big customer at ASCO tell us that they are ready to pair MyRisk, our hereditary cancer test, which they love, and MyChoice, our HRD with Precise Tumor. And so we're really starting to make inroads on getting the comprehensive set of tests in the hands of folks. And part of the reason is they don't want to deal with multiple labs and have to reconcile discordance among reports and outcomes. And so that's part of our value proposition, and I was just really excited coming out of ASCO that some new customers and some existing customers are starting to order Precise Tumor, and I think that bodes well for Liquid, and certainly bodes well for a Precise MRD, you know, as we continue to march that forward.
I think, you know, we've got some good energy at ASCO around that.
Great
part of our deal.
Just, you know, continuing on the margin piece, you talked a little bit about investing a little bit more into R&D through the rest of 2024. Where are these dollars going, and what progress have you seen there?
You know, we don't buy into that it's an arms race about how many studies you have. I don't know how compelling it is to have a study with 50 patients in it.
Yeah.
You know, but I do think it's compelling to have the studies that we're talking about with Memorial Sloan Kettering and MD Anderson, and others. So, but that notwithstanding, as I said before, we're playing catch up in tech, the underinvestment in tech that happened in this company for over a decade, and we've made great progress. We went to ASCO with seven posters and abstracts. But across every one of our products, we need to continue to invest in the clinical evidence base, and particularly, I think the industry... MRD is a perfect example of that. If we don't figure out how clinicians are gonna use this in clinic and give rise to how a payer should pay for it over the course of treatment, we're not gonna get the full benefit at MRD.
And so we are amping up our studies across the portfolio, whether it's Prolaris or whether it's MRD, FirstGene, and so that's part of the investment. The rest of the investment has a higher and quicker return, the tech stuff. You know, EMR integrations are the gift that gives back really quickly. This customer that I mentioned, that's a very large oncology group, basically said that, you know, we could see a significant increase in Precise Tumor testing if we built, you know, the tech lift in her EMR to do this, and so we committed to doing that by year-end, and that should bode well for Precise Tumor next year. Because they want that ease of use to be able to push the button on MyChoice, push the button on MyRisk, and push the button on Precise Tumor.
Just in general, where are you, you think, on the EMR integration front? I mean, are you kind of doing it project by project, or is it more broad-based and kind of where are you?
It's definitely more broad-based.
Okay.
You know, we've engaged PwC to help accelerate-
Okay
... you know, that, but we're still on the third inning of this, quite frankly. And I don't see how these folks in this industry who are not investing in Epic, Flatiron integrations, Athena integrations, are gonna be able to do business. And it's millions of dollars of investment there, just like it's millions of dollars of clinical studies. And again, I think you, you're seeing, you know, the companies that have made those investments, like Natera and us, start pulling away from folks, and I think that will continue.
Got it.
And Exact as well, 'cause Kevin's done a lot of those investments, so...
You recently kind of reorganized your European assets to allow you to focus on kind of more strategic initiatives. Are there kind of any other areas of the business that you still see opportunities for streamlining, optimization?
You know, none that are readily apparent. We really like the portfolio of products we have right now. Do we need to do more work to get Prolaris into a more competitive position with Decipher? Absolutely. But, you know, we've got a great path there. EndoPredict is a good product, and we've sat back and let Oncotype DX sort of take the market well. So I think we have opportunities there.
So as we look at the portfolio, and you know we've divested a lot of stuff in the early years of the transformation, we kinda like the ability to organically grow, and it's a lot, in my view, it's a lot better return on invested capital to figure out how we can get all of our products to their full potential than going out to try to buy stuff that's not fully tested and fully vetted and stuff. So bolt-on acquisitions may be part of our future, but right now, getting all of our existing products to their full potential, I think creates the most value for patients and shareholders right now.
Got it. And then just digging in the pipeline a bit, just talk a little bit about you know, why your whole genome MRD product is potentially differentiated from the competition and kind of where you fit in, in, into that market ultimately?
Yeah, I think, you know, if you're a clinician and a family and a patient and talking about de-escalating care, whatever word choice you want to use, you're gonna wanna have a high level of sensitivity and specificity in terms of the results. You're gonna wanna have very low failure rates. And I think what we heard at ASCO from many, many clinicians and from our pharma partners, where I think you're gonna see, you know, more of our pharma arrangements. We put out one press release on our recent deal, but there'll be more to follow that, the MRD is a big market, but I think a highly sensitive test is gonna matter, and particularly when you're talking about de-escalation of care.
One of your competitors did a KOL meeting not too long ago, that us and Personalis are really kind of called out as differentiated in the marketplace in terms of everybody else is thinking about MRD. We need to continue to put out proof points of that. I think you'll see some readouts this fall from some of our studies. So it's not just the analytical validation work that we are doing, but it is the work with others that is also validating, you know, the MRD test that we built on our platform. And again, we built... Dale built MRD on the Prequel circulating DNA platform with AMPLIFY. That's highly differentiated, an IP that dates back to 2016 in terms of that.
You know, what we do with MyChoice in terms of the FDA-approved tumor. And building on that platform, when we look at the unit economics there, we think we're gonna be highly competitive and what's gonna be a big market and a great opportunity for patients. So we're really excited about MRD.
Could you talk a little about just the extent that you know the unit economics? So people hear whole genome and think it's more expensive or costly to run, when in fact it might not be, that case. Maybe the unit-- Can you talk about the unit economics potentially?
Yeah. I think at our next Investor Day, we were just going through these numbers. The incremental cost of the run is not as expensive. You know, Dale was kind of taking us through that a couple of weeks ago in the way that we are running it right now and seeing it. So, it is... Is it more expensive, you know, than, than, than... But if you think about the, the industrialization of our whole platform and what I just talked about-
Mm-hmm.
putting this on an existing platform that is FDA-approved, and we're not outsourcing any of this to anybody. I think our prospects of the unit economics here are quite gonna be quite compelling.
Can you ultimately leverage sort of the expertise of the existing commercial team to sell the MRD, and so therefore, the commercial spend is just not gonna be near what it needs to be, would have-
You know-
needs to be for others?
... We're really excited to have Dr. George Daneker, you know, an incredibly experienced oncologist running our oncology business. And we think the commercial team that we have right now, that's successful with MyRisk, MyChoice, Precise Tumor, can lead this. We'll make more investments in the medical affairs people-
Mm.
- that need to hold people's hands, you know, as they, as they think about more, novel technologies. But for the most part, I think our commercial infrastructure is quite scalable-
Yeah
... in terms of liquid, as well as MRD, as we think about our oncology business. Same thing in women's health. I mean, we're I think we're built to scale at this point.
Operating leverage.
Operating.
Um, in-
Serving more patients.
In the minute-
Creating value for shareholders.
In the minute we have-
Not a bad way to make a living.
Sorry. In the minute we have left, just any kind of... What do you want investors to kind of take away from about Myriad? What do you think is underappreciated?
I think the fundamental sciences this company was built on, the operations that this company was built on, and the fact that we are growing at 12%, and we're gonna build on that, that... I see one of your Goldman partners here, who showed me a slide the other day, that most people think we're only growing 7% or 8%. It's just not true. We grew 11% last year, 9% the year before. I know I said those numbers. We're off to a great start this year at 12%. We're gonna build on that, and so, and profitably. So I guess that's the final takeaway in our last three seconds.
Sounds great.