Yeah. Good morning, everyone. You know, Stephen Baxter, Healthcare Services Analyst here at Wells Fargo. We're very pleased to have Oscar Health with us today. Oscar's one of the largest players in the individual or exchange market, in addition to, you know, the aspirations it has in ICHRA and other areas of, you know, platform monetization. From the company, pleased to be joined by CFO Scott Blackley. Thanks again for being here. Any kind of opening remarks you'd like to make, or should we just kind of jump in?
No. Let's just jump in q uestions.
Okay. Great. So you put out an 8-K this morning, you know, reiterating your 2025 outlook. You know, with the second quarter, the company discussed seeing an improvement in utilization trends. So maybe utilization's, you know, the best place to kind of start here is the second quarter's developed more. You know, what have you seen as completeness has continued to increase? And any kind of early comments on, you know, Q3 related to your reiteration would also be appreciated.
Yeah. So as we talked about, in our second quarter call, we saw utilization trends moderating each month throughout the second quarter. We've seen a continuation of, you know, that moderation to date, into the third quarter. So, you know, fundamentally, we're really seeing utilization trends which have almost gotten back to what we would have expected for the risk in the book. So, you know, nothing about utilization is causing us to be anxious about kind of the core performance of our book.
Okay.
which is a really good thing at this point in the year. You know, in the second quarter, we have seen the effects of the second leg of failure to file and reconcile that population. We did see some of, you know, the members that lost their subsidies. We saw that happen, August 1st.
Yes.
We've also seen, in some of the dual enrollment population, that has happened now. And in both those, you know, types of issues, you know, we've been pleased that the amount of membership loss has been modest, you know, immaterial for our book. And, you know, feel like those are good trends for market morbidity for 2025.
Okay. And just remind us on those two factors in particular, you know, the dual coverage population and the FTR population. What were the expectations going into the actual event? How were you guys thinking about, you know, sort of the underlying financial characteristics of that membership? And then as you've actually seen it play out, you know, what have you seen?
Yeah. Well, starting with dual enrollment, very hard because we don't have the data to know.
Yeah.
You know, what that population is. So we got a list from CMS that was, you know, just under 50,000 members in our book who were dual enrolled. We now have seen that, about 18,000 of that 50,000 lost their, subsidies. So that's happened. You know, if you think about that, overall for the market, CMS has said there's about 500,000, lives in the ACA who are dual enrolled. If the same kind of, statistics, that we saw in our book apply to that 500,000, that means that, you know, 183,000-ish people would be leaving the marketplace. So really a pretty modest effect. The other thing that I think is interesting is that, the risk characteristics of the people who we are losing are slightly high to, you know, kind of consistent with our overall book.
Okay.
So, you know, it doesn't look like a really big headwind for market morbidity. Same thing with FTR, the population that we've seen leaving, you know, pretty much neutral to our book, slightly positive to the book. So both those factors we don't see, at least if our experience is consistent with the marketplace experience. You know, we think those are pretty modest to slightly positive developments for market morbidity.
Okay, so you had planned for them to potentially be worse and it's a little better, or is it just? Isn't it just?
With duals kind of, you know, it's hard to plan for that. I think that on the FTR population, we've been pleased with the.
Okay.
The number of people who actually completed the fail to reconcile process.
Mm-hmm.
And we've retained them and, you know, we're excited to, to have those members.
Okay, and then, you know, trying to, obviously, there's a lot of moving parts looking at the MLR because of what happened with risk adjustment, you know, in the second quarter. It helpfully provided us, you know, kind of like normalized numbers for Q1 and Q2. I think as we look at the progression from Q1 to Q2 on that normalized basis, you know, I think people are having a little bit of trouble reconciling the jump there versus commentary around seeing, you know, lower cost trends in the quarter. So maybe just help us think about, you know, the right framing for MLR in the first half.
Yeah. So, you know, we expect MLR in the back half of the year to, you know, increase in the third and then the fourth quarter. I think that the MLR seasonality will look more like 2023 than it did 2024.
Okay.
The dynamics of, you know, SEP growth this year versus what we saw last year in the second quarter of 2025, we did see, you know, a pretty strong amount of SEP growth. As you know, the continuous SEP for individuals at 150% of the federal poverty level has ended. That ended at the end of August, so we would expect less SEP pressure in the back half of the year, so, you know, again, I think that, you know, what the progression of MLR we think will again look closer to 2023 than what we saw for 2024.
Okay. Definitely. I feel like the, you know, expectation of something closer to normal makes a lot of sense. I feel like the one reconciling item you'd need to think about is this expectation or possibility that maybe people are utilizing more services in the fourth quarter in front of, you know, the expiration or potential expiration of the enhanced subsidies. How do you factor that into your thought process? How do you go about even developing estimates for what that could look like?
You know, that is more judgment than science.
Yeah.
We did build an expectation into our full-year guidance that we would see an increase in utilization in the fourth quarter from those factors. You know, things to think about though is the average age of our member, you know, is 38, 39 years old.
Yeah.
So we don't have a whole bunch of people who are sitting there waiting to get a hip replacement, or some other piece of, you know, high cost. You know, these are.
Mm-hmm.
Are generally healthy people. So the likelihood of, you know, we may see more instances of people going in.
Mm-hmm.
to seek care from a cost perspective. It's hard to, you know.
Yeah.
For us to see that being, you know, really, really significant. But we have built in.
Okay.
An expectation that we'll see some of it.
Okay. And, as you think about maybe areas of offset, I mean, I think when we look at what's implied by the back half guidance, I think we see the normal trend that you're kind of discussing on the MLR line. It doesn't feel like it's as easy for us to see that there is a large provision for something like that. Are there things you're doing to offset those costs or pull forward affordability?
Yeah. I think we talked about this in our first quarter call.
Yeah.
We start out every year with a list of levers that we don't include in our guidance, right?
Mm-hmm.
The things that we would do if something goes bump in the night and think of this as, you know, kind of, resource allocation. Like I have people in technology and operations that can be doing, you know, task one or they can be doing task two.
Mm-hmm.
And as we saw, you know, elevated utilization in the first quarter. We pretty much flipped all of our, you know, the spend that we can do that, where we have choices of where to allocate resources. We move those towards utilization targets. And, you know, we've certainly seen the benefit of that starting to work its way.
Yeah.
Into the results. That is a big reason why in the back half we would expect to see, you know, less of a rise in Q4 than you might otherwise expect from that elevated utilization. These are things like, you know, fraud, waste, and abuse tactics that, that we've been working on. You know, just kind of the blocking and tackling of operations where, you know, we're all about making sure that our members have really good experiences with us. So, you know, this isn't an effort to try to do anything that's adverse to the members.
Mm-hmm.
It's really making sure that the claims that we're paying are appropriate, that they, you know, meet all the contractual provisions that we have with providers, and, you know, we see we've got clear line of sight into those affordability initiatives.
Okay. As you think about the progression of, you know, membership throughout the balance of the year, obviously, you know, you've, you've given us a little bit to work with on FTR and some of the duplicative impacts. I think as we look at, you know, the fact that you raised the revenue guidance with, you know, the results that you put out, you know, the first half, I think annualizes a little bit below kind of the low end of the range. Just trying to better understand, like, what's happening with membership progression to drive up revenue into the guidance?
Sure.
Trends throughout the year.
Yeah. I think that the thing I would say there is, you know, when we look at revenue, we look at kind of per month, you know, how many member months do we have, and as we've seen growth throughout the first half of the year, the member months in the first half will be, you know, below the second half just based on the fact that we grew. We do expect membership in the back half, by the end of the year, you know, from the second quarter will probably be, you know, modestly below the second quarter amounts.
Mm-hmm.
Notwithstanding that, you'll see more member months in the back half of the year than the first half of the year. That's really the source of why, you know, our guidance is what it is.
Okay. Got it. As we start to think more about, you know, 2016 and the refiling of rates, I guess as you.
2026?
2026. Yeah.
Yeah.
I hope I said that right. As we look more at 2026 and the refiling of rates that kind of became necessary as you saw the environment this year, I guess how has what you've seen so far this year on, you know, the morbidity shift influenced what you feel like you need to ask for, for 2026 beyond just fixing this year's issue?
Yeah. So I think the way I would characterize pricing for 2026, you know, we started off with what do we think trend is going to be. And, you know, we're all trying to puzzle out how much will tariffs impact kind of core trend, excluding all the other things that are out there. So, you know, we would expect that trend will probably be towards the high end of what we've seen historically given that. So we plan for that in our pricing. You know, then you build on top of that the '26 expiration of subsidies, build that in. Then you take what's going on with the effects of program integrity, put that on top.
Yeah.
Then you look at, oh, we had this market morbidity shift in 2025, put that on top. So, you know, the thing that we have not tried to be really precise in is figuring out where those things might overlap. You know, we've.
Yeah.
More stacked the risks, and built that into pricing. So we feel like we've been, you know, we feel like we have visibility into the things that are changing and, you know, those. What you can't do is to price for something that you don't know is gonna happen. I feel like that kind of happened in 2025.
Sure.
That some regulation came in after we had priced that drove a bit of the market morbidity pressure that we saw. At least this year, we feel like we've got good visibility into what are the program integrity measures that are going to be in effect, you know, what may happen if enhanced subsidies lapse. So all of the pricing kind of has built up those risks.
Mm-hmm.
From my mind, the risks are that some of those bad guys, and when I say bad guys, I mean things that would cause the market to shrink.
Mm-hmm.
You know, the risk is more that those don't happen, perhaps enhanced subsidies, you know, get extended. The way that we look at all of those things is probably net positive to our pricing. So that's the way we approach pricing. Turning to the conversations with regulators, we believe that our pricing is substantially complete and final.
Mm-hmm.
We've had really good engagement with regulators in almost all of our states. You know, we had really constructive conversations with regulators. They're very aware of the set of circumstances in the market. They want to ensure that you know there's appropriate pricing for the risks that are being taken. So you know we feel like that we've been able to get the pricing that we think is appropriate given the risks that we see. Obviously, prices vary from market to market. In the states that had you know significant amounts of new lives coming in through Medicaid redetermination over the last several years, those are probably going to see the highest increases of prices.
Mm-hmm.
In the states that didn't see that, probably lower, but still, you know, kind of, even in those states higher than what we've historically seen.
Yeah. Okay. And then just in terms of, you know, like, obviously there's a lot of components going into the pricing, but I think like the most critical seem to be the assumptions around, you know, the EAPTCs. Like how do you go about like philosophically looking at it on a market-by-market basis and estimating, this is what we need in Florida versus this is what we need in Texas versus this is what we need in Georgia? I guess what are the key assumptions that are underpinning? Like what do you think is going to happen to the market as a whole in 2026 to inform those assumptions?
Yeah. Well, we are basically, for a while, we have just planned that the subsidies.
Mm-hmm.
The enhanced subsidies will expire at the end of this year just from a how to run the company, making sure that we're prepared for that. Each market's going to be impacted differently by that.
Mm-hmm.
I think that program integrity overlaps to a degree.
Yeah.
With the effects of just having the expiration of enhanced subsidies. The combination of those two probably causes a bigger reduction in the size of the market than just losing the enhanced subsidies. So, you know, the way that we've approached this, we look at how many people are gonna lose subsidies? What's the likelihood if they lose their subsidies that they will be able to find a product that they can still afford?
Mm-hmm.
And so we have that population. We go through that process. These people are gonna lose their subsidies. They're going, you know, this portion of them will leave. We then look at for those who have, you know, some price shock because their subsidy is going to change by some degree, you know, is there a product that they can migrate to that has a similar out-of-pocket premium? And one of the things that we did this year is to try to ensure that we had plenty of alternatives for our members that, you know, if they were in one product that had, you know, this out-of-pocket premium that post the, loss of subsidies, they would be able to migrate to a different product that may have a higher deductible, a higher copay, but similar to lower out-of-pocket premium.
And so, you know, we've tried to position our book to allow people to migrate to where they can retain their insurance. That's also embedded in some of our assumptions. So, you know, we feel like we've built all of those risks into pricing. And we used a lot of our historical experience from price shocks and the markets where we've been in to see kind of how behavior was influenced. The other thing I would say is that we've worked, you know, really hard with our brokers to make sure that messaging to members, you know, is ready, that the members understand like, "Hey, here's the new program integrity things. You're gonna need to provide this additional information. Can we get that information in advance of open enrollment?" So we're trying to do everything we can to make this as efficient a process for the members as we can.
Okay.
Whether it's, you know, things that we can do like plan design or, you know, working with the brokers to make sure they're prepared to message the changes to, you know, the people in the marketplace just to reduce some of the friction that otherwise might happen.
Okay. There's obviously a lot of focus right now on trying to benchmark the rate request across, you know, different companies and trying to get a sense of, you know, where market positioning might shift given how sensitive things are to who is the second-lowest cost silver plan in the market.
Sure.
I guess as you've gotten more data and been able to see more of like what your peers are requesting for rates, like when you step back, like where do you think you sort of fit in terms of the rate requests that are being updated? And then when you just think about broadly, you know, your market position in 2026, where do you think that leaves you?
Right. Well, I think that it's a challenging time for external, you know, parties like yourself to get good visibility into where prices are because a lot of the data that gets, you know, has been populated on HealthCare.gov is either missing. So it doesn't include any new plans that you've put into the market. So none of that is included in that data set. And even some of our plans that we had that we've repriced.
Mm-hmm.
Doesn't look like they've captured that repricing, so I would just, you know, be cautious about the utility of the current information that is out there, so if you wrote research leveraging that, I would not say that I would find that particularly useful. Just stepping back, you know, we try to get information on where we are vis-à-vis competitors. We do all the things that, you know, we can legally and appropriately do, FOIA requests, information like that, and, you know, in conversations with regulators, you don't get, you know, clarity on like who's where. You just get a general sense of where you might be position-wise. Our emphasis in pricing this year, you know, obviously we wanted to make sure that we were ahead of all the issues that we've been talking about today.
Mm-hmm.
Right. So we did not price with the assumption that we wanted to be, you know, super competitive.
Sure.
We always try to balance our ability to, you know, continue to grow our market share, but we also have a significant objective to ensure we get to profitability next year and that we see meaningful margin improvement. So I think that pricing is always a market-by-market thing. So when I look at where we believe we're falling competitively, I think we're kind of, you know, there's some markets where we feel like we're really competitive. There's other markets where we're not. On average, I would say I feel like we're nicely in the pack and that it will give us the opportunity to, you know, have an opportunity to grow market share.
Yeah.
With some of the carriers leaving, we think that's a real opportunity. Then also we think that we will return to profitability and we will be able to see, you know, meaningful margin expansion next year. I'm comforted by all the things we've seen, you know, in our most recent information about, you know, 2025 utilization.
Mm-hmm.
Doesn't look like we're seeing runaway utilization. FTR looks to be less, you know, impactful to the market than I think many have feared. Duals not quite, you know, the population that actually is leaving not that significant to the overall marketplace, probably less of a risk to 2025 than many had feared. So I kind of stack up all these things and.
Mm-hmm.
It's not usually the calling card of CFOs to be positive and, you know, feeling great about things. But I look at those things and I look at the pricing we've done, and it really does give me some confidence that we've got an opportunity to have a really soft landing in 2026 in terms of financial performance.
Okay. And then just to expand a little bit on the role of, you know, the new plans and how different that might feel, you know, for 2026. You know, obviously we can't see those prices yet. Like how do we think about how much of your enrollment might be shifting into plans that are new? And generally like is there any difference in, you know, sort of the profitability profile you'd expect in newer plans and whether that takes time to improve or are those immediately gonna demonstrate the improvement assuming the market's?
I would say, the plans for you and I, if we sat there and went through them, they might look really different. To the consumer, they don't look that different. It's more of the story of how you explain, you know, okay, this plan has this premium and it has this set of benefits and it has these deductibles. And, you know, we tried to make sure that we had multiple options for people who may be losing subsidies that they could migrate to things. And when we do our plan design work, you know, obviously there's different financial performance across the metal tiers.
Mm-hmm.
We try not to let them get too divergent because we want people to be able to, you know, move out of this one to that one.
Yeah.
And not have a meaningfully, you know, whether just to we don't want there to be too much volatility in our results from that. We feel like we've got plans now that we've priced and put into the market that are.
Mm-hmm.
Easy to understand. Again, we've, you know, worked with the brokers to make sure that they understand things. But I would say that's less risk in terms of people not understanding the plans or selecting the plans and creating different utilization framework. And it's more just making sure that people have choices across metal mixes, that they have choices across, you know, the right level of out-of-pocket premium that works for them.
Okay. And then just to come back to the regulatory side of things, you know, I think initially there was a lot of talk about, hey, we're submitting like dual sets of rates. Like it feels to me a little bit like maybe we've moved off of that at least in some states. Just trying to get a better sense of, I guess, are you still filing dual rates in the majority of your states? And to the extent that you're not, like what do you understand would happen if there were to be an extension of the enhanced tax credits?
Yeah. I think that in the end, it was atypical that states asked us to file rates with and without the extension of enhanced subsidies. So, you know, very and I would maybe even go further to say our largest markets didn't ask for that. So, you know, we've had lots of dialogue around what it may look like if those enhanced subsidies were to be extended. But I would say this, it certainly feels like there's more momentum.
Mm-hmm.
In thinking about enhanced subsidies being extended in some form or fashion, you know, we certainly have seen polling results that from you know kind of conservative pollsters that suggest that a very significant portion of voters support the extension of enhanced subsidies. And we think it's good policy, right? We think there's a lot of working-class people in this country who you know deserve the right to have access to affordable healthcare and would lose that right if the subsidies weren't extended. So, you know, good reasons for optimism that something might happen there. And for us, because we didn't build that into our base assumptions, you know, we think that would be generally upside to the financial performance should they be extended.
Exactly what's gonna happen, I think it is folly to try to hypothesize about what will happen, right? What we, you know, think is likely is that you would see enhanced subsidies, you know, attached to the continuing resolution around the budget.
Mm-hmm.
That's the most likely place where that would happen. A surprise to none of us in this room, historically, the conversations about the budget have not resulted in, you know, agreement, initially in that sense to, you know, get delayed and delayed and delayed. I would not be surprised if even if it did get passed, that it wouldn't happen until later in this year, potentially, you know, during open enrollment.
Mm-hmm.
It would seem if the government goes to the extent of passing some level of enhanced subsidies.
Yeah.
It would be surprising to me that they then don't do something to, you know, allow the people who benefit from those subsidies to get access.
Mm-hmm.
So we don't know exactly how that would work. We're not really. We're obviously having conversations with both federal and state regulators on those topics. We're having, you know, conversations about what might happen with pricing, and I think that it remains to be seen, but you know, we're cautiously optimistic that something good will happen there in terms of an extension of subsidies.
Okay. And if something were to get done, but it was done later, granted, yeah, I guess there could be a potential extension of open enrollment or a special enrollment period that gets added or something like that. I guess how is there any way to, you know, to think about how disruptive it would be to have it done late versus having it done ahead of time?
You know, I think there's two things to consider. Number one is this really is a market dominated by brokers. They are the primary, you know, source of member acquisition. And they have, you know, they have a playbook of how they contact members. And they will, it's to their financial benefit to get these people back into the market. So I do think that that would be one reason for optimism that people who, if enhanced subsidies were passed, that group of in-place brokers would be very aggressive at making sure that people who, you know, may have left the market 'cause they weren't getting a subsidy, you know, come back into the market.
I also think that it's again. I said this a minute ago, but to the extent that our government extends those enhanced subsidies, I think that the regulatory agencies will go to great lengths to ensure that people can take advantage of them. I don't think there's a good political story that says we, you know, passed enhanced subsidies, but we actually didn't do anything to facilitate the people who would benefit from that, you know, being able to actually get healthcare insurance. So, again, we're cautiously optimistic that something logical would work out.
Okay. Maybe just to spend a couple of minutes on, you know, a few, you know, adjacent topics. I guess, you know, capital has been a big area of focus. You know, we can see your parent cash and we understand you have a lot of excess capital at the subs. At the same time, it's a business that has, you know, like significant second half seasonality. I guess how do we think about, you know, your comfort level with where capital levels are and where you think maybe you might end the year from a capital perspective?
Yeah. Well, I think you can do a reasonable estimate of where year-end parent cash plus excess capital will end up. Like, we've given you full year guidance on where we think adjusted EBITDA will be. You can do your own math on what does that mean. It's a reasonable proxy of, you know, you take our back half losses and back that away from current levels of parent cash and excess capital to subs. In general, I think that, you know, we had a significant amount of excess capital and parent cash going into this reset. We feel like we've got adequate resources in the company to, you know, to continue to fund our company in almost all scenarios.
And then on top of that, we have very low, very little leverage in our balance sheet and believe that we would, you know, have access to additional leverage should we need to. And, you know, you can never have too much liquidity. I would say that. But feel really good about the current position of our company.
Okay. And then just considerations around, you know, even if the consolidated metrics still look like they're gonna be pretty solid, you know, getting capital in and out of different subsidiaries, you know, parent cash needs, like how do we think about, you know, sort of those dynamics, any kind of complicating factors there?
Yeah. It's more challenging when you're in a market reset moment to move capital between legal entities. I think that's you know just a fact. And so, you know, the way our business is structured, we have a host of legal entities. Some of them are state-specific. Many of them have multiple states in them. That's where the excess capital sits.
Mm-hmm.
We think that, in many of the markets that we expect to pick up market share, you know, we've got excess capital in those businesses. So, you know, it won't be a drag on parent cash. Some of the smaller states in particular don't have excess capital. If we see growth there, that may require some funding from the parent. But in general, you know, we're not counting on moving, you know, capital from one legal entity to another legal entity in order to keep, you know, our liquidity right. We kind of think about that being stuck in the short term at these legal entities. And, again, I think that overall we feel, you know, confident about that we've got the right level of capital for the vast majority of the scenarios that we see, you know, potentially playing out.
And then, yeah, maybe spend a minute on, I guess, on cost of care initiatives. You know, a couple of years back when Mark joined the company, you know, really big opportunities on, you know, things like PBM, provider recontracting, you know, waste, fraud, and abuse. Some of that's either been executed on or kind of pulled forward in response to, you know, things that you've seen this year. Do you think about kind of like what the opportunity set is that's still remaining in front of the company beyond 2025? Like, how should we think about that?
Yeah, you know, when Mark arrived and talked about watermelons on the ground, you know, I think that we did see a lot of opportunities.
Mm-hmm.
Not that long ago, Mark sent me a text of a picture of a bunch of watermelons in a big basin. And, you know, his comment was they're still there. So I think we've made a huge amount of progress, but we still see loads of opportunities both on the side of, you know, what we can do on medical costs and as well on our administrative expenses. We really are on the front end of what's possible with AI. We just launched a super agent that we think is really going to, you know, be differentiated than what others in the markets. This thing goes in and pulls information from all of our systems. And so if you're a member, you can, you know, do chat with that bot. It'll give you information from all of our systems.
It also, you know, you can call in and speak to it, here in the near future. So we just continue to see opportunities that, in addition to just the basic blocking and tackling that I always think we can do better, you know, just from a technology perspective, I think we're really well positioned to be able to continue to take costs out, from the admin side and to improve, you know, the overall dynamics of how our network contracts work, how, you know, fraud, waste, and abuse works. All of those things can benefit from technology.
Okay. And then just to probably the last question would be on ICHRA. You know, on one hand, you guys continue to see a lot of promise in the business. You're investing. I think you bought some assets this most recent quarter to help drive, you know, the opportunity for that business. At the same time, you know, there are these headwinds where, you know, the overall pricing in the exchange business could be going up substantially. And part of the advantage in some cases has been the difference between the small group risk pool and the individual risk pool. I guess how do you think about sort of those counterbalances in ICHRA and how to think about the next couple of years for that business?
Yeah. Well, we continue to be incredibly excited about the opportunities in ICHRA. We just, you know, did our launch with Hy-Vee, a partnership that we did in the Midwest. They're a large grocer. They also have, you know, a number of healthcare clinics, and we partnered with them to build, you know, ICHRA plans for their communities, and so we think that's a really great example of, you know, a high-profile local institution who wants to bring more of their community into ICHRA, obviously using some of their clinics, but we see that as a terrific example of the enthusiasm for the product.
Some of the acquisitions that we did of these assets are just kind of foundational assets that we think collectively give us more abilities to design, deliver, you know, create a curated experience for potential ICHRA members, to choose the right plans, to make that easy, to bring in, you know, potentially supplemental types of offerings, all of those things we can now do with those assets we acquired. So still feel like it's early innings for ICHRA. You know, the price moves this year, you know, we think that's short-term noise as opposed to, you know, impacting kind of the long-term trajectory of that market. I would just say, and you can put this one in a time capsule, like this market is going to be the fastest sector in the individual market. It's just a question of when.
Mm-hmm.
You know, there's no reason to believe that the fundamentals of why you would do this won't work in healthcare. Every commercial I see for auto insurance, for, you know, life insurance choose the product that works for you. Why would we do something different, you know, in healthcare? So, we continue to see traction, great conversations with companies, and, you know, feel good about the long-term prospects. Although in the near term, our aspirations, you know, are, or I should say what we build into our, our long-term projections is pretty modest.
Okay. Great. Well, that's a perfect place to stop. Thanks so much for the time.
Great. Thanks, Steve.
Yeah. Appreciate it.