Cardinal Health Inc (CAH) September 2026 Conference Transcript

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference. I'm Erin Wright, head of healthcare services research at Morgan Stanley. We're happy to have Cardinal Health with us today, CEO Jason Holler, as well as David Frost, who heads up the IR effort. Thank you so much for coming. I'm going to hand it over to David for some quick remarks.

Yeah, perfect. Thank you for hosting us, Erin. It's great to be here. But before we begin, a little housekeeping. We will be making forward-looking statements today, which are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those projected or implied. For description of these factors, please review our SEC filings, which can be found on our Investor Relations website at ir.cardinalhealth.com. Okay, let's get started.

And for important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at morganstanley.com slash research disclosure if I didn't say that at the beginning. Okay, so let's kick it off with some Q&A. So thanks so much for coming. Obviously, starting off, you introduced initial fiscal 27 guidance in August. Your EPS guide calls for 13% to 15% growth. That is above the long-term target of 12% to 14%. Can you break down a little bit how much of that growth is expected to come from the operational kind of performance versus some of the below-the-line items, lower interest, other tax rate, and just some of those dynamics that we should be thinking about in terms of the important swing factors as we think about this year.

Sure. Yeah. Well, first of all, thanks for having us, Erin, and thank you all for being with us here. How I would think about fiscal 27 is very much a continuation of the success we've seen in the last couple of years. And the words that really come to mind for me is breadth and depth of our execution and our results. In fiscal 26, every one of our five operating segments had fantastic performance, not just the P&L but also in cash flow. We went truly five for five this last year, and our guidance for fiscal 27 is a continuation of that success at a little bit more normalized rates, but we are, again, anticipating a very similar level of breadth of performance that we expect all of our businesses to be in a very constructive period for fiscal 27, and it's also why we reiterated our long-term guidance. for the 12% to 14% longer term and 13% to 15% for fiscal 27. When I look at each and every one of these five businesses, I would then categorize it into two key components. First of all, the underlying volume, the market, the utilization remains very constructive. I like that word because it means it sets us up for success, but it's not going to be the reason for our success. The volume growth is solid enough that we have confidence to invest into the business to provide the investments necessary, organic and inorganic, to continue to grow and to be successful, whether that be for efficiency purposes or other growth factors. And when you look at each of these five businesses, they have their own growth investments and growth opportunities. Of course, you have to start with our largest, most significant business. Our pharma segment remains also in a very constructive period. We anticipate 2% to 3% volume growth within our generics business. We've seen that running a little bit better than that, and we expect it to be slightly better than that in fiscal 27, but it generally is in a very consistent, resilient level. But specialty was the real hallmark for 26, where we had 25% growth there, and we are anticipating closer to double-digit type of growth for fiscal 27 and beyond. Now, 26 had some key catalysts that are unlikely to repeat in the same way. We had significant M&A. We had some big new customer wins in areas like biopharma solutions. These all added to that incremental growth that, while it gives us great momentum coming into 27, we just don't think it will be at the same level. So we will continue to invest organically in the pharma business, inorganically with additional bolt-on M&A with our MSOs. We do consider M&A in other areas like biopharma solutions, but it remains a very good place for us to be. Our other growth businesses, each of these three businesses have their own secular trends within health care, growing faster than underlying market. But we're also making discrete investments in each one, whether that's nuclear with our Theranostics and our high-energy PET programs, the new cyclotrons there in the 11 key markets, certainly our OptiFreight business expanding from the medical side of the industry to inclusive of pharmacy products, and then, of course, at-home solutions, which is a combination of both organic investments into our distribution centers, automation, but also additional M&A. Very successful transaction that we did about a year ago, a little over a year ago with ADS, and we're replicating that in a little bit smaller, bolt-on type of way with Strive and the Diabetes Division of AdaptHealth. And then finally, our GMPD business continues to have significant opportunity with growing Cardinal Health brand volume as well as the simplification work that continues there, both of which drove significant value for us in fiscal 26, allowing us to more than offset the tariff impact, sharing that cost with our customers and setting us up for a constructive 27 as well there. We do anticipate some puts and takes below the line. We had strong cash flow in 26 that will help interest. Our tax rates may be slightly higher in 27 versus 26, but these things are going to be aided by our billion dollars that we have highlighted for share repurchases next year as well. So it will be a little bit of the low line, too, but it will be driven by operating income growth through each of those three key reporting segments, each of the five key operating segments.

And I hate to ask this up front, but I didn't see an 8K before I stepped up here, but just the obligatory question on sort of the contract renewals, and we just had McKesson up here. But, you know, anything to update on that front in terms of your relationship with CVS or any other relationship of size that we should be thinking about in terms of, I guess, how would you characterize it currently?

Yeah, the relationship is very strong. And you have to start with the core of the business. What this leadership team has done for the last several years is prioritize the core of our business. Customers like CVS, that's what they want to see. Yes, they, like everyone else, likes to see us investing in growth parts of the business to remain relevant in areas like specialty, but ultimately what's important is are they getting the products that they need each and every day very efficiently, very effectively, and that we are doing better than anyone in the industry. So we feel good about the service that they're getting. We certainly feel good about the strategic relationships and partnerships that we have. Yes, the distribution contract comes up for renewal at the end of this year, but we have ongoing, longer-dated relationships in areas like Red Oak Sourcing, a few additional years beyond that, our Averon Sourcing Joint Venture on Biosimilars, our partnership as it relates to over-the-counter products with IQ Purchasing. So we have a variety of different relationships with them that are much more strategic and not just transactional. So it's an all-of-the-above type of relationship with them, and we feel very good about the service that they're getting.

I mean, it is an onerous process to switch these larger contracts right there.

We think so, but, you know, of course, they will always want the value that's, you know, necessary for the size and scale that they have. Understood.

So your guidance assumes strong, I think, is the way that you characterize it, but not necessarily outsized demand trends across that core pharma and specialty solutions business. You know, what, you know, relative to what we experienced in 26, So, you know, how would you distinguish strong from outsized demand and how would you just characterize the underlying utilization backdrop? I feel like it's this debate that kind of keeps going. Are we in this sort of normalized utilization environment? Are we not? And what are you seeing right now in terms of prescription points?

Let's break apart the two key components that have very different drivers, but there's a common base between them. Let's go generics and then talk about specialty. With generics, you know, a little bit less glamorous part of the business, But, you know, 2% to 3% growth is very much the foundation, the ballast of this large industry, this large business. And that growth was a little bit faster than that in the last year, you know, driven by continued, you know, LOE was a little bit better. But just the underlying demographics continue to be quite favorable in this space. And so while we don't expect it to be quite as strong as fiscal 26, we do expect to be a little bit higher than that 2% to 3%. So you're talking about, you know, maybe 100 basis points or so. So you're talking about small differences in percentages, but relative to the baseline, that's a meaningful difference. The other component is, of course, specialty. We had 25% growth last year, driven by MSO acquisitions that allowed us some additional opportunities, the biopharma solutions with new customers like Dupixent within Synexis, our patient hub. And that, we think, will be closer to that double-digit growth rate that we have in our long-term plan. So in both cases, growing faster than the long-term planning assumptions, but in both cases, we think a reasonable backdrop and reasons for why it's not quite as strong as it was in fiscal 26. And it's a very constructive place to be so that we can continue to invest in the business and ensure we get the most value for ourselves, but also our customers and patients to drive more efficiencies throughout the system.

Okay. And specialty is increasingly a driver, obviously, across your business, $50 billion in revenue, growing bid teams. Can you elaborate more on kind of the opportunity to increase your specialty exposure over time just more broadly before we get into kind of some of the more details on the MSO business? And then, you know, how does that mix shift kind of impact margins as well over time?

Yeah, it's a backdrop that gives us a lot of confidence to continue to invest organically and inorganically. So we have prioritized our three key platforms, oncology, urology, and autoimmune, largely with GI. We've made significant investments, and so that's allowing us to grow with those practices, those MSOs, allows us to have additional plug-in opportunities with the rest of our business, whether it's biopharma solutions or our other growth businesses. That will likely continue to be the same priorities we have going forward. It's still a very fragmented space when you think about especially the non-oncology portions of the market I just referenced, GI and urology especially. About 80% to 90% of the physicians in that space continue to be unaffiliated with an MSO, which is basically the white space that allows us the opportunity to continue to bolt on practices to our MSOs. And that's a long track that we see in front of us that gives us the opportunity to have confidence to invest into each of these businesses. Biopharma Solutions has been a fantastic growth story for us. We said at our investor day over a year ago that we saw a path to get to a billion dollars by fiscal 28 from our $550 million in fiscal 25. And that's a 20% CAGR. And this last year we did over 30%. So it demonstrates that our focus on that part of the market, our leadership, our investments, our execution has been very solid and gives us confidence that we'll be able to achieve that billion dollars, which is a further component to continue. So we have confidence that we'll be able to continue to grow, again, not at the same rates that we saw this last year, but at rates that are at least as high as what we've seen in the historical past and what we have in our long-term forecast.

And when you talk about there's other opportunities as well, like what characteristics must a new kind of specialty platform or area that you're targeting kind of have to fit within the platform?

Yeah, I think, first of all, it's got to fit within one of those three platforms. We have made significant investments, paid a relatively high multiple for each of those three platforms for a reason because it gives us the breadth and the capability that we didn't have. We were building it, and we were on that journey, but we saw an opportunity to accelerate that. So it has to have the profile that fits neatly within those platforms. I just don't think at this stage we need a fourth platform to be able to execute to our strategy because it's so fragmented and there's so much opportunity. It's not optimized at this stage yet, and that's where we're going to be focused in the near, medium, and perhaps even longer term, but we'll continue to evaluate that. It has to be the right culture, too. We've worked real hard to pick the right partners for our business, so it fits well with the cardinal culture, the specialty alliance culture, which fits very well with the cardinal culture. So it's got to be the right organization, the right group of people, but also the right profile. The other kind of component beyond that, when you look at everything outside of oncology, which oncology is a great space in and of itself, when you think about autoimmune and GI and urology, there's a lot of commonality there in terms of the types of services, a lot of infused drugs, a lot of ancillary services, a lot of procedures that happen in ASCs. And so there's a lot of opportunity to bring together different types of activities in a way that's not only better business, a lot of operating leverage and scale that comes along with that, but certainly helps those physicians manage their practices as well. So these are all variables to why we chose those platforms, but that's why we're going to remain on this journey to prioritize there. And they also fit very nicely within the broader Cardinal Health Organization. Our nuclear business is a great example where we are the leader in areas like urology and oncology for those nuclear radio pharmaceutical products. That is a real value proposition for those physicians. So now they're tied up with someone that's a true expert, a true leader in the field that allows them to move very quickly. And I think one proof point of that is Elucix, which we are one of the largest dispensers, distributors in the country, we now have as our largest customer our Solaris MSO, so on the urology side. So we are now our own largest customer as it relates to those products, and those teams are working just fantastically together.

Yeah, I wanted to ask on Solaris, so that's a good segue. So Solaris is now part of the Specialty Alliance, and the acquisition, I guess, will lap, I guess, the second quarter of 27. How has that integration progressed relative to plan? How have all the entities across Specialty Alliance working together? And where are you seeing some of those first realized benefits from this? And then also, can you speak to the distribution opportunity for the Specialty Alliance GI portfolio with Solaris as well?

Yeah, let me just kind of start with the last point there. We rolled in the distribution for both GI and urology, so GI Alliance and Solaris, in the Q4, second calendar quarter of 26. So that's now in place, and we'll get that benefit up until the fourth quarter of fiscal 27 from a year-over-year perspective. But to answer your first question, integration is going well. This is a strong organization in and of itself. So back to the people, the culture, the services that they use, even though it is urology versus GI, there's a lot of not just back office but a lot of physician-facing services, whether it's payer negotiation, payer physician recruitment, or a lot of those ancillary services, infusion, ASCs, all these types of opportunities. there's enough similarities there that we see that there's going to be opportunity to work together not just within the Specialty Alliance MSO but back to Cardinal Health to provide the expertise in other areas of the business like nuclear, like our at-home business, like just core distribution. They now have kind of the one-stop shop as it relates to any type of need that they may have, which is varied. I mean, these physicians are juggling a lot in their day-to-day and we're well-positioned to support them with all those needs that they have.

I want to talk a little bit about biosimilars. I guess our pharma team estimates about $175 billion in revenue that will go off patent by the end of the decade. Biosimilar is obviously a big part of what you do and some of the focus in terms of the profit contribution, but can you speak to where the greatest opportunity is from a biosimilar standpoint? How important are some of these biosimilar transitions as you think about the MSO business as well and the economics there. How do we think about some of the puts and takes? And then I guess since we're on that topic, let's talk about generics too, like in terms of just the generic opportunity. How do you see the cycle different? Obviously, it's very different from the last cycle many, many years ago in terms of the last generic wave, you know, just with, you know, generic purchasing consortiums and otherwise. But we can talk about that.

But there's a common theme to your question, though, I guess, at the same time, is if you step back and think about everything you just asked there, the reason why I suppose you asked the question that way is that you're talking about the innovation evolving to the loss of exclusivity, whether it's in biosimilars or generics. And that's kind of how we see it, too, where there's going to be some elements of variability. Some years are going to be stronger than others. Some products are going to have a greater impact than others. But this is not an environment where we see a singular product therapeutic area that it's going to be outsized for our business and our business model. Whether it's generics or biosimilars, it's not a triple in the home run. It's a lot of singles and doubles that add up to a nice base of business. So whether you're talking about our MSOs, our distribution, our specialty business, our PD business, they're all areas that we see more certainly opportunity with this. This is why we love innovation. Even if we don't have as great of margins on day one with some of these innovative products that go straight to brand. Longer term, we have opportunities for services. Shorter term, sometimes we have some opportunities for some of the services like our patient hub. But longer term, as they lose their exclusivity, these are almost always opportunities for us to then generate even higher margins, even higher profitability. And all the examples that you referenced, we see as being opportunities for our business. LOE, overall, you mentioned the biosimilar piece, but also for generics. 26 and 27 are pretty constructive, pretty good years for LOE. 28 and 29 will be a little bit better just by the nature of the cycle of the patents rolling off. So it will be for the next several years and then of course you get after that and you start to get GLPs into some of their time horizons to think about. So as you look out for quite a long time, you see it being a pretty constructive environment and it's why we have confidence in our long-term numbers, and we'll see if any of those themes and drivers can keep us to the upper end of that range. But the exact timing, the rollout of these, and how many manufacturers participate, how brand manufacturers react, and how our customers and PBMs manage the process, these are all relevant factors, but we see more opportunity than not as it relates to both biosimilars and generics, and that environment continues to also remain quite constructive. Okay.

I want to shift to kind of policy, IRA, drug pricing dynamics. I guess, you know, you've indicated the ability to maintain economics, for instance, this year, successfully with the price negotiations and IRA-driven changes. So I guess, you know, and that's kind of the nature of the fee-for-service model these days. But can you talk a little bit about, you know, how that evolves with potentially Part B drugs kind of rolling into that, as well as your exposure from an MSO perspective?

Yeah, so overall, we continue to be very confident in our business and our models as it relates to any and all of those regulatory changes. And not only do we have good contractual protection for this, I'll say it's equally as important, it just makes sense. The compensation we receive is a 1% margin business when pricing changes. And by the way, we can't control pricing. So when something happens to the industry and happens to us, We are providing a service, and we expect to be compensated fairly for that, and that service does not change as pricing changes, and therefore we fully expect and have seen very clear, consistent examples of our economics maintaining over that period of time. And there's nothing I see in 27 and beyond that indicates that it will be anything different. You're right, the MSO piece has a potential variable to that, and there's a whole discussion around that's not the intent of the administration. and everything that we're seeing is that they have sufficient off-ramps and opportunities to manage the community physician differently in this process, and we suspect that will likely be the case. But even if it's not, it's not a material impact to our organization because of the diverse revenue streams that our MSOs have. Because of the breadth beyond, yes, oncology, but also the urology and GI, especially urology and GI, which are the bigger pieces of our MSOs, our drug spend is only about a third of the overall revenue, the other two-thirds being split between patient visits, office visits, and the procedures. So this diverse revenue stream gives us diverse margin within the practices in the MSO that mutes any type of impact, if there were some impact to their economic model, which, again, we don't anticipate at this point. So it's something that we certainly analyze many different scenarios and variables. We feel very good about the setup. We, of course, advocate ultimately for the patients, the physicians, to ensure that the administration hears this voice because it is the lowest-cost form of care in the industry through these specialty community physicians. And that's where patients want to receive their care is closer to home with that physician and not necessarily in, you know, someplace that's far away from home. So we think it makes sense as well and that the administration will support that, but we feel good about any and all alternatives that go around that.

And on 340B, you noted that, I guess, the more meaningful exposure would essentially be for some of your, I guess, hospital customers in terms of their ability to, you know, fund procedures and patient access rather than your own economics. I guess, can you describe a little bit your exposure to 340B and where kind of some of those changes in 340B kind of could create either volume dynamics that are a little bit different or different economics for you?

Yeah, I think the important thing to think about with any type of product class, whether it's 340B, GLPs, generics, brand, specialty, all these product classes, because the question that you're asking here is about the health systems. And typically with the health system, we have a wide array of products with them, and we can't necessarily control where they choose to prioritize their business, their model. And so we have a lot of utilization protection within those different contracts and agreements. So the mix of products are relevant, but we try not to guess so much with that. We try to have contracts in place that allow the customer to have flexibility. and if they choose to really lean in on one part of the business or another, then we shouldn't be harmed by that type of activity. There's always going to be normal volatility, and there's some timing between when those corridors hit, the utilization hits, and then you have to have those price adjustments. But overall, I think the original comment you were referencing is what we think is most impactful to the industry would be how does this flow down to those that dispense these products, and does that change the behavior and is there some type of volume impact for those particular locations that then I think people typically find care somewhere and it may shift from a health system to a pharmacy or something else at a higher cost. We won't track that individual script. We'll just be present with all of our customers and given our size and breadth in the industry, if we lose it on one spot, we typically pick up another. Our health system market share is pretty consistent with our peers and so we're not unusually large or small in this space. So as that volume moves somewhere else, then we're in pretty good shape to pick it up. So overall, this is one about just being present for our customers and make sure we're helping them manage through any of these scenarios. And it's just not something at this point, a lot to play out with 340B, so we don't know exactly where this is going, just highlighting that care finds a way of getting delivered at some point. And with IRA, with MFN, there's a lot of opportunities to make care more affordable as well. And so the net of that, we think, will continue to drive at least that 2% to 3% underlying volume growth for generics and double digits for specialty, and that thesis remains intact, irrespective of what's happening with 340B or any other particular product class.

Okay. I'm going to do a couple of GMPD questions that make sure we leave enough time for other, which I view is somewhat underappreciated, but GMPD. So your guidance assumes a modest tariff tailwind that will broadly offset, I guess, rising fuel and commodity costs. What sort of price realization is embedded in your expectations from a medical standpoint, and how does that flow through? And then also if you could comment on just general underlying medical utilization trends. That would be great.

Yeah, we're well into the tariff framework now where anything related to tariffs and pricing has largely been put into place. And so we took very limited types of increases. You may recall that we had a $450 million tariff impact last fiscal year, and we were able to mitigate two-thirds of that operationally through sourcing and other actions. So that remaining $150 million or so is what we effectively split with our customers, and then we will expect to refund that as we receive our tariff refunds ourselves. So a lot of activity there, but ultimately a relatively small impact to our underlying business given the $450 million starting point. So that's an important position. But that half that we did price for, that pricing remains in place, and that effectively covers the most of what would carry over into fiscal 27 as it relates to tariffs. Now, the part that we highlighted at our guidance for 27 is that, well, you've got a lot going on here with the Iran conflict that is putting pressure on oil-based products, whether that's fuel or some of the commodities and raw materials that go into the products. And that is something that is still in the early innings of the underlying cost, and we don't even know exactly where it's going. At this point, we certainly know some of the input costs, but first and foremost, we're doing what we can to mitigate it so that customers won't have to deal with this. We have not put in any significant pricing at this point related to commodities. It's something we're going to watch very, very closely. But the other key is that we have about a six-month buffer because most of these products have enough inventory that we don't have to react right away. We'll see what happens with the market, certainly, and we'll see about our ability to mitigate it. but that's a different question for a different day. Right now, we're operating with the mechanisms that were put in place earlier in this last year.

Okay, okay, great. So I want to switch gears to the other segment, which never gets enough airtime. It was significant profit growth in 26, I think up 37%. You're targeting 15% to 18% AOI growth in 27. That includes about that 2% contribution from STRIVE, adapt health diabetes transactions. I guess what's driving then the underlying kind of growth that's now still well ahead of the long-term target of 10%?

Yeah, we're really pleased with the performance of the business. Obviously it came off of a really strong fiscal 26 as well, so it's another example of the continued momentum, not quite the same level from the core perspective, but above our 10% long-term guidance that we had originally put out there for those businesses. So whether it's nuclear with the Theranostics growth, that continues to grow well above the underlying market, or OptiFreight continuing their expansion both on the medical side but also now into new product categories like pharmacy. Those are nice additions as well. The more significant incremental growth has been and will continue to be with our at-home business because of the M&A piece, as you highlighted. Now, the 2% that's a part of that 15% to 18% growth is driven by the strive and the expected very small benefit for what we would expect at the tail end of 27 for the diabetes segment of ADAPT Health. But there's also the carryover benefit of the synergies that we have with ADS. So we fully lapped ADS, but it's good volume that when we implemented that and when we announced that transaction, we talked quite a bit about the synergies we expect that business to bring. So that gives us some additional opportunities in addition to a strong underlying core business there. But each one of the three operating segments within the other reporting segment is well-positioned to grow and is a component of that growth.

And how are you positioning the business when I dig into at-home solutions, you know, particularly on the diabetes care segment with ADS and others? I guess, how do you manage the potential changes from a reimbursement environment standpoint, especially with competitive bidding, you know, potentially returning for CGMs and pumps? How do you navigate that?

Yeah, well, first of all, let's step back and think about the administration's intent with competitive bidding. You know, first and foremost, it's getting after fraud. We know there's a lot of fraud in that space. We know that we are operating at the highest level of compliance and regulatory attainment, and we feel really, really good about our leadership in that space. and the partners that we are aligning ourselves with through these acquisitions, we feel really good about how they have operated as well. So we are the leader in the CGM space, the diabetes space already. This will allow us to continue to build even greater capabilities for the administration. These acquisitions not only diversify our products, but also our customers and our payer set. So competitive bidding is just for the government payer. and we have a much bigger business above and beyond that. So our leadership becomes even more clear, our capabilities become even more clear, and we become an even more obvious partner for the government through competitive bidding to be a part of the solution. We anticipate that with or without these transactions as a key leader in the space that we would be successful in the competitive bidding process, likely picking up share and likely having a lower margin for that share. but net-net we feel really good about that trade-off and you see very few people in this space willing to invest in it. It's a bit of a stalemate right now. I can tell you that when we looked at Strive and when we looked, which Strive is urology so it's not impacted at all by the bidding but when we looked at Adap's diabetes business there were a lot of choices with who to acquire in that space. We ran a process more than the sellers running a process because we wanted to make certain and that we pick the right partner, and that absolutely is the ADAPT diabetes team. We feel really good about the fit with their product set and our capabilities, and we feel really good about the culture and the people that will be coming along with it as well. So some work to be done. We have a few years until whatever impacts will occur there, and along the way we'll build up a bigger, better, stronger, more competitive, more efficient business that will allow us to migrate to whatever that outcome looks like.

Okay. And so as you think about the mix of your business longer term, is there anything else that you would reprioritize, deemphasize, you know, lean into a little bit more from a capital deployment standpoint, any areas that you really want to build out more? We did see a competitor of yours by a CRO asset, for instance, you know, maybe that fits their oncology strategy, but how do you think about, you know, building out, like, what is the focus? Is it building out in specialty? Is it building out in at home or Optifrade or otherwise that across the other segment? And then, you know, continued commitment to GMPD.

It's a fantastic question, especially as we're getting close to wrapping up here. And I think the key about strategy is it should not be done just annually. It shouldn't be, you know, it also shouldn't change every single year. It should be something that you're always evaluating, always thinking about making changes when it makes sense to make changes, usually because something else changes in the market, the environment, maybe your own operations. Our strategy has remained quite consistent ever since our last reprioritization a couple of years ago, and that remains now the same exact prioritization. And I cannot imagine this is going to change for the rest of even our careers, and David here is a lot younger than I am, but pharma and specialty solutions, it's by far the biggest, most impactful, important part of our business. It's where we prioritize organic and inorganic growth. Within that, we will continue to prioritize the core of the business. That strong foundation is incredibly important for all customers. You asked about CVS earlier, but for the big customers especially, they want to see that we have a strong foundation, but also investing into areas like specialty. We will continue to prioritize as the single greatest recipient of our investment outside of the core is going to be in the specialty business. It's still the fastest-growing, highest-margin part of the industry, and the reason why they have those attributes is they're solving a lot of customer and patient problems. And so we don't see that innovation slowing down anytime soon, and so I anticipate pharma with investments in specialty be our priority for a long, long time. The more recent reprioritization that we had on bringing other growth businesses to their rightful place as a close second to pharma was intentional, And that's when we embarked on an inorganic strategy as well. We saw that we had the foundation of each of those three businesses in a really great spot, OptiFreight, Nuclear, and At Home. And we saw that in this incredibly fragmented part of the market with At Home Solutions, the direct-to-patient business, Nolan doing it really, really well, that this was a fantastic opportunity for us, not just to grow and expand the business, but those capabilities of bringing those supplies, those products directly to customers' homes fits very well with the other capabilities and strengths that we have in the enterprise. And so those businesses, especially with at-home and that integrated investment, was a natural fit. Now, with our GMPD business, still an important priority for the company, but it's still in that turnaround mode. But we do see great growth opportunities, like our Cardinal Health brand volume, growing at least at the mid-single digits now for six consecutive quarters, highlights that this can be a very good, growthy type of business for especially those higher-margin Cardinal-branded products that is a nice addition to our business as well, but not the same level of priorities as the others two. And, of course, those other two are the ones that are getting the M&A dollars, and that will continue to be that priority.

Okay, great. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.