and creates meaningful coverage for life. I want to thank our Oscar team for their dedication to our customers and for delivering a successful open enrollment. Our 12 years of experience in the individual market will drive results for 2026 and beyond. I will now turn the call over to Scott. Scott?

Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. 2025 was a challenging year for ACA carriers as market morbidity stepped up across the industry. We experienced these industry-wide trends with higher than expected claims and lower than expected risk adjustment offset leading to a net loss of $443 million in 2025. Over the course of 2025, we took appropriate steps to position Oscar to deliver strong earnings in 2026, including discipline pricing and cost management actions. I'll begin with a brief overview of fourth quarter results, review of our full-year performance and then discuss our outlook for 2026. Starting with the fourth quarter, we ended the year with approximately 2 million members, an increase of 22% year-over-year. Membership growth was driven by solid retention, above-market growth during open enrollment, and continued SEP member additions. The fourth quarter medical loss ratio was 95.4%, an increase of 730 basis points year over year. During the quarter, we received an updated risk adjustment report for claims through October. The report indicated that overall market morbidity remained stable from the third quarter to the fourth quarter. However, relative to our expectations, Oscar's membership skewed healthier than the broader market, which required an increase of our risk adjustment accrual of $275 million in the fourth quarter. The fourth quarter risk Risk adjustment true-up was partially offset by $99 million of favorable in-year development and $36 million of favorable prior-period development, primarily related to claims run out from the prior year. Overall utilization in the quarter was modestly above our expectations. Inpatient utilization continued to moderate, while outpatient and professional increase, which we believe was associated with members accelerating care as the enhanced premium tax credits expired. Pharmacy utilization was largely in line with our expectations. Turning to the full year, total revenue increased 28% year-over-year to $11.7 billion, driven by membership growth, partially offset by an increase in the net risk adjustment payable. The full-year medical loss ratio was 87.4%, an increase of 570 basis points year-over-year. Risk adjustment was a headwind throughout 2025, driven by higher market morbidity, which we primarily attribute to the full-year impact of members entering the ACA market as a result of Medicaid redeterminations, as well as program integrity efforts. Risk transfer as a percentage of direct premiums was approximately 18.5% for 2025, representing a 390 basis point increase year over year. Switching to administrative costs, we continue to drive improvements in our SG&A expense ratio. The full year SG&A expense ratio improved by approximately 160 basis points year-over-year to 17.5%. The year-over-year improvement was driven by fixed cost leverage, lower exchange fee rates, and disciplined cost management, including an increased impact from technology and AI initiatives. The loss from operations for the full year was approximately $396 million, a change of $454 million year-over-year, driven primarily by the higher risk adjustment payable. The adjusted EBITDA loss for the full year was approximately $280 million, a change of $479 million year-over-year. Turning to 2026, we have been preparing for the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits for some time and took deliberate actions in 2025 to position the business for profitable growth and improve financial performance. We introduced innovative and affordable plan designs aligned with member needs, optimized our distribution strategy, and took a measured approach to geographic expansion. Our disciplined pricing assumed an expected market contraction at the high end of our previously communicated 20-30% range, driven by the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits and CMS program integrity initiatives. We also refilled rates in states covering approximately 99% of our membership to reflect the higher market morbidity in 2025. Together, these actions position us to profitably drive share growth. For 2026, we expect total revenues to be in the range of $18.7 billion to $19 billion, an increase of 61% year-over-year at the midpoint, driven by another year of above-market growth during open enrollment, solid retention, and rate increases. While our weighted average rate increase for 2026 was approximately 28%, the increase on a per member per month basis is lower, reflecting shifts in member age and metal mix. Our outlook also reflects elevated churn this year, driven primarily by passively enrolled members facing higher premiums following the sunset of the enhanced premium tax credit and ongoing CMS program integrity initiatives. From a member profile perspective, our average member is 38 years old, approximately one year younger year-over-year. As expected, we saw migration from silver plans to bronze and gold plans, reflecting plan designs intended to offer affordable options following the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits. For 2026, we expect risk adjustment as a percentage of direct premiums to be approximately 20% based on our updated membership mix and 2025 risk adjustment experience. Turning to medical costs, we expect our medical loss ratio to be in the range of 82.4% to 83.4%, representing 450 basis points of year-over-year improvement at the midpoint. Our outlook reflects elevated market morbidity observed in 2025, an incremental increase in morbidity in 2026, and medical cost trends and utilization patterns largely consistent with our 2025 experience. We also incorporated additional third-party data to assess the risk profile of new members, which is tracking modestly better than our pricing and expectations, while renewal risk scores are in line with our expectations. With respect to seasonality, we expect MLR to be lowest in the first quarter and highest in the fourth quarter as members meet their annual deductibles. On administrative expenses, we expect continued improvement in our SG&A expense ratio. We expect the SG&A expense ratio to be in the range of 15.8% to 16.3%, representing an approximately 140 basis point year-over-year improvement at the midpoint. We continue to see the benefits of scale as fixed cost leverage and variable expense efficiencies driven by technology and AI are expected to drive further improvement in our SG&A expense ratio. We expect our SG&A expense ratio to be fairly consistent in the first three quarters with an uptick in the fourth quarter. We expect meaningfully improved financial performance and a return to profitability in 2026. We expect earnings from operations to be in the range of $250 million to $450 million, a significant improvement of nearly $750 million year-over-year, implying an operating margin of approximately 1.9% at the midpoint. Adjusted EBITDA is expected to be approximately $115 million higher than earnings from operations. Shifting to the balance sheet, we have taken opportunistic steps to strengthen our capital position and optimize our capital structure. As a reminder, during the third quarter, we increased our capital in preparation for 2026 growth, completing a $410 million convertible notes offering due 2030 generating $360 million of net proceeds. Subsequent to that transaction, we entered into a new $475 million three-year revolving credit facility. The transaction was well supported by a strong syndicate of top-tier banks and executed on favorable terms, further strengthening our balance sheet and providing additional flexibility as we execute on our strategic plans. We ended the year with approximately $5.5 billion of cash and investments, including $414 million at the parent. As of December 31, 2025, our insurance subsidiaries had approximately $1 billion of capital in surplus, including $315 million of excess capital. To help frame our capital position in the context of our growth outlook, I want to spend a moment on regulatory capital requirements. While individual states vary, a useful rule of thumb is that for every $1 billion of premiums, we are required to hold approximately $50 million of capital, which reflects roughly 55% quota share reinsurance seeding percentage for 2026. Overall, our capital position remains very strong. In closing, 2025 marked a shift in the individual market dynamics. OSCAR has been in the ACA since its inception, and today we are operating from a position of scale and experience. That perspective has informed the actions we've taken to position our business for profitable growth in a rational market and improved financial performance. We are well positioned to return to meaningful profitability this year. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Mark for his closing remarks.

Oscar is stronger than ever. Our decisive actions in 2025 position us to take a significant leap forward on profitability in 2026. We primed Oscar for the market of the future. The team introduced new affordable consumer products we increased broker distribution with new tools data and training to efficiently move new and existing members to oscar plans we drove strong retention showcasing brand loyalty and followership 2026 is the springboard for oscar to accelerate financial performance toward our long-term targets our playbook drives repeatable value in the market with ongoing product innovation, geographic expansion, and membership growth. We are not here by accident. Our growth is the culmination of years spent navigating the market and obsessing about the consumer experience. We proved consumers vote where they find value. Oscar's growth is not just about retaining our book of business, it's about staying ahead of the consumer, driving long-term individual market growth, and setting a new standard for healthcare.

Now I will turn the call over to the operator for the q a portion of our call at this time i would like to remind everyone in order to ask a question press star then the number one on your telephone keypad again we do ask you to limit yourself to one question and one follow-up and your first question comes from the line of josh roskin with defran research research hi good night good morning i guess the obvious question is how you get comfort on this new membership coming in for 2026 and you know why you think the mlrs will be down so much and then i guess related to that maybe scott if you could provide a little bit more color on your assumptions around risk adjustment i heard the 20% accrual but you know it should become a larger part of the market i think you said 30% market share overall does that actually help does that reduce your overall accruals so i know there's a bunch in there.

Yeah, Josh, thanks for the question. Can you just restate the second half of your question? I want to make sure I get that right.

Just more color on the assumptions around your risk adjustment in 2026. And my point being, if you're 30% of the market, you know, does that make your risk accruals more market rate, right? Meaning, are you going to see less volatility as you become a larger part of the market? Yeah, understood.

All right. Well, let's start off with kind of the membership and and our ability to project um what we see there so i would kind of bifurcate the membership between you know we've got a significant portion of our membership or renewing members we have a lot of information about those members and you know feel like we can project what their behaviors are going to look like and then we also have a population that is um you know new members for oscar we obviously picked up shares so we do have a lot of new members one of the things that we've increasingly done is to leverage third-party data to pull in clinical information about those members. That really is giving us, you know, a fairly rich amount of information about those members in terms of their, you know, historical utilization trends. It also helps us to target our outreach to, you know, help them manage their care journey. So, you know, we feel like we've got better insights into this oncoming membership than we've had, you know, really at any point in our history. So, you know, those are kind of the building blocks in terms of, you know, why we're comfortable with the MLR projections. On risk adjustment in 26, I would say that you can see from my talking points that we're actually expecting our risk adjustment as a percentage of direct revenues to increase year-over-year from 25 to 26 to about 20 percent in 2026. It's an interesting thing that, you know, we're starting to see a little bit of a barbell between, you know, the plans who really cater to the highest morbidity populations and the plans that have everyone else. We're picking up, you know, a very large share of young, healthy members, And so that's driving risk adjustment higher. You know, we are continuing to look at ways to get more information about what is going on outside of our books, because that's the hardest part of forecasting risk adjustment. You know, we've been engaged with Wakely on helping around this new reporting that they're proposing to bring forward in the first quarter. We're expecting that will give the entire market more visibility into what's going on with membership. That should help all of us in forecasting risk adjustment. And so, you know, I don't know that it's going to decrease the challenges in making that estimate as accurate as it can be, but it certainly will give us a head start.

All right. Perfect. Thanks.

Your next question comes from Jessica Ktisan with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.

Hi, thanks for taking the question. So I appreciate the color on membership. Can you elaborate maybe a little on the fourth quarter utilization pull forward you described? You guys spoke about higher retention, so should we think about the pull forward as being kind of silver members in 25 who are disinclined to utilize care in 26 due to higher deductibles? Just any color on 4Q utilization and how it relates to your 2026 utilization expectations?

Yep. Thanks for the question, Jess. So, I want to emphasize utilization was modestly higher than our expectation in the quarter. Really, when I look at the MLR performance in the quarter, I really would say that it is vastly driven by the risk adjustment true-up. You know, in terms of the utilization pressure, we did see, you know, we had a modest expectation of an increase as we went into the end of the year, members losing their subsidies likely to go ahead and seek care. We saw that. We think that was, you know, primary driver of some of the movement we saw in outpatient and professional. You know, we also saw things like substance abuse disorder that ticked up, you know, some mental health benefits that ticked up and labs types of things. So really things that would indicate to us these were members that were just trying to make sure that they took advantage of the benefits while they had them.

Don't give us a lot of concern about carry forward impact of those types of activities. got it and then just um i know you all mentioned that overall market-wide membership could come in a little bit better than the um 20 to 30 percent disenrollment you were you had been forecasting last year can you just maybe offer any color on the overall size of the market um post effectuation and then secondarily just um any comments on on kind of the adequacy of pricing market-wide so how should we get comfortable with the fact that you know all of the peers have been um also priced appropriately and that risk adjustment doesn't end up being a problem in 26 same way it was in 25. Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica. Um, from the standpoint of, um, of effectuation versus actual enrollment, um, we believe that the market grew, the market currently has shrunk by 5%. Um, however, a lot of people have changed their plan designs and it was purposeful on our part to give brokers specific transitions that they could do for their members to impact the loss of enhanced premium tax credits. And so as a result, in our book, we saw silver drop in half as a percentage of what it was before, and bronze increased by almost 50% and gold almost quadruple. And that's the kind of shift we saw in our membership mix. That means people are carrying higher deductible health plans and this is the big open question mark for the rest of the year two things one when we get closer to pades and our pades are on par with where they've been the last couple of years anyway the next question is how many people when they see their their premium actually pay it um and and that's the first piece that will get us to um the end of the year and that's where we go from 3.4 million lives, as we currently stand in February, to 3 million lives by the time April 1st rolls around. The next big question is, I think this is as big a political issue as any other thing around enhanced premium tax credits, is as people start to use their plans and realize the amount of out-of-pocket that they need to pay to use those plans, will they maintain coverage or will they drop out? And this is where the big passive enrollment and you don't know how they're going to behave until they start using the plans, it's going to create a lot of financial hardship for most Americans who only have $400 in their bank account. And this is where we have an open question, and we think by the end of the year that that number drops to the lower end of our range, which was 20% to 30% reduction of the overall market size.

Your next question comes through Andrew Mock with Barclays. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Tiffany, and on for Andrew, can you share where OEP membership landed for the book and give us a sense of where paid rates are tracking in January 26 versus January 2025?

Our OEP ended with 3.4 million lives enrolled. We have not seen all the paid yet, but our current paid are sitting close to where they were last year and and you know a little lower than they were in 23 and 24 on the Oscar book and as a reminder we expect that as of the end of the first quarter we'll have 3 million paid members that's what our expectation is for for that time period okay got it that's helpful can you can you provide a bit more color around expected membership cadence following the 1Q grace period and how we should think about that throughout the year?

Sure. So in terms of churn expectations, you know, through the first quarter, we're obviously going to see higher churn as we see the effects of the higher payment rates, you know, or premiums that Mark just talked about. And so we'll see, you know, a dip from 3.4 down to 3 million by our estimate by the end of the first quarter from there we're expecting churn patterns to look more similar to what we saw pre-ARPA so in the range of one to two percent a month in terms of you know kind of churn from the end of the first quarter through the end of the year the other thing i just point out is the other factor impacting that you know the churn rates is that we are expecting to see less scp membership this year than what we've seen in recent years as some of the things like the continuous enrollment for you know people below you know the FPL 150 level now that that's expired we would expect to see less of that that membership so while in in recent years we've seen our overall membership trending up throughout the year we would expect this year to kind of revert to more pre ARPA you know trajectories where you see membership decrease throughout the year thank you your next question comes from the line of Jonathan Young with UBS please go ahead hey thanks for taking a question can you just talk about your mix of metal tears it sounds like bronze and gold went up significantly and silver went down and I assume you're screwing a little bit more towards bronze which typically has had more

variability how would you characterize your historical experience with bronze and higher to think about this time around?

Yeah, I would say, you know, it's going to be interesting. Everything that you might think about metals, we should probably discard because we've seen a transition from people who've historically been in silver to other metal mixes. So I don't think you're going to be able to, you know, really proxy history. Um, bronze in general, you know, for us has always been, uh, a high performing, um, you So I, the fact that we've seen more, uh, growth in bronze, um, you know, than in silver, and we've seen that transition is actually, you know, something that we're, uh, we are completely comfortable with. If I just kind of pull up for a second, talk about the metals overall, our general philosophy is that our plans need to have margins that are in a relatively tight band. We would expect that all of them generate, you know, a strong contribution towards total company profitability. You know, I do think that with the momentum, with the movement from silver to bronze and gold, we will see those plans look and act actually more similar to each other. Obviously, bronze has higher deductibles, So we may see, you know, a bit higher churn in that population than we may see in other populations that don't have those higher deductibles, as Mark talked about. We think that may be a driver over time of more churn.

And then just going back to the membership gains, if I think of that $400,000 that's going to roll off by 2Q, I assume those are the passive renewals. So that would imply a little less than half your membership is, quote, unquote, new. I guess are those new members coming in from new markets that you entered into and I know you have data You're using third-party data to get a better sense of the members, but I guess how much has things changed? You know from last year to what it may look like this year where maybe that third-party data may not be as accurate.

Thanks I'll let Scott talk about the third-party data Yeah, but let me just sort of dimension this for you. Your calculation is pretty close. That $400,000 is going to be passive. That will roll off. We have grown a bit. And what we did early in the summer is we went out and enrolled 11,000 new brokers. We met with 17,000 brokers over the summer and gave them lists of members that they had with us and showed them the members that were most affected by the lack of enhanced premium tax credit and what plans you could move them to based on their needs. They went and did that, and we gave them access through our broker portal to our campaign builder software, which we used to outreach to members, to reach those people and give them the information before open enrollment, and that's why we got off to a fairly significant start early on because the brokers had it all stacked up, ready to go. Our view was, the more we can help the brokers get people to the right place, the more they can be productive elsewhere, which is then what happened, is that they went to other plans who either were leaving the market or had not prepared the broker community or the membership with the right kind of product changes and moved those members as well. So that's sort of the lay of the land on how our growth occurred. We weren't sure how it was going to roll out for new membership, but it obviously had a significant impact.

Yeah, and Jonathan, with respect to the third-party data, I would say that, you know, for new initiations, most of those people, we've got clinical information from third parties that gives us, you know, a good basis to have an expectation of how they're going to perform. And, you know, importantly, it gives us, you know, a lot of information about who we need to start to engage to help them manage their health care conditions um that's important both from the perspective of managing our costs as well as you know getting the member in as early as we can which is a positive thing for risk adjustment as well you know there are a portion of our new initiations who are new to the market who we don't you know have great information about but we do have a significant amount of data over time as to what those types of people might look you know look like in terms of their acuity and you know we've in looking at kind of the information that we do have about those members we're not seeing anything in terms of the the characteristics of them that causes us you know to think that

there's something there that should be concerning for us your next question comes from the line of john ransom with raymond james please go ahead hey good morning um so if we if we take three million as kind of the quote-unquote real member number uh approximately what percent of those do you think work with the broker and you know try to tailor the coverage versus the remaining passive renewals i think that'd be helpful thanks we generally see 90 95 percent of our members come through the brokers, although in some of our custom plans, like Hello Mano, we saw a lot of direct enrollment, significant direct enrollment, people specifically wanting that product

and came directly through us through the exchanges. So, but generally, and we're looking at 90, 95%. And then my, I mean, this is kind of a basic question, so you all can downgrade your opinion of my IQ, but what I don't understand is I get the passive enrollment, but you've got to pay the first premium before you get coverage so what kind of member gets passively renewed pays the first premium and then decides to drop off again that's the big question this year versus prior years usually when they start paying premium they stay with us unless there's some sort of event where they don't require our coverage anymore however in this case when they start looking at the out-of-pocket costs associated with plans that they were moved to or stayed in they're gonna start to say wait a minute this is expensive, and I'm not going to be able to afford this. Now, what we see, and this is an important aspect that's far different than prior years in this marketplace, is that most Americans now see health care as their single largest line item in their homes, in their family budget, more than their own mortgage. The result is that they are afraid of, a lot of people who buy from us are afraid of losing the house or losing their family or having to go bankrupt if they don't get coverage. So then the real question, the pivot question that we have, and I met with the AHA board of directors a couple of weeks ago, is what happens when they can't pay the deductible? And how do we handle that? And that's where we're sort of looking at this milieu and saying, does it create disenrollment? Do people still hold onto it because they're afraid of losing their homes or going into bankruptcy, we're not sure. So we're hedging our bets on the level of disenrollment that will occur as a result.

John, just to add one more dimension there, when you look at our expectation and what we're seeing on payment rates, if you're going from having an out-of-pocket premium that you were paying in 2025 to having an out-of-pocket premium that you're paying to 26, and you have actively enrolled and even passively enrolled, we're seeing relatively strong payment rates in those categories. It's really the population where you're going from a $0 plan to something that you've got to pay out-of-pocket. So you've either lost your subsidy or you've transitioned from one plan to another. That's where we expect to see really high non-payment rates. And the way the whole process works, you know, you may not make your first payment in January, but you don't ultimately turn off until the end of the quarter because, you know, you are in a grace period until then.

I see. So passive going from zero premium to some premium. And we know that, like, call centers in some cases were used to sign these people up and never had a payment link.

But our understanding was Oscar wasn't a big user of these legacy call centers. so you've got payment links it's just that they go from say zero to 100 bucks a month and they just that's just a bridge too far is that right you are correct we did not uh we're not a big user of call centers okay thank you your next question comes from line of stephen baxter with wells fargo please go ahead yeah hi thanks i wanted to come back to some of the questions on next i I appreciate your saying that silver is lower and both gold and bronze are much higher, but is it possible to get maybe the percentages kind of before and after for each category? And basically the crux of it is that obviously your membership PMPMs seem like they're going to be up somewhere in the 50% range. So we're kind of comparing that to the overall revenue increase on the guidance line. And it's a little bit hard for us to square quite why there's not maybe more of a PMPM yield in there. So it'd be great to have some more quantification of that and then have a follow-up if there's time.

Sure. So for bronze, for the prior two years, around 25%, and 26% is 39%. Silver has been steady at 71% the prior two years. This year, they're at 36%. And gold, which is in the low single digits, 3%, 4% for the last two years, is now 25%. So fairly significant changes. And the bronze and the gold plans we offered were $0 with, you know, fairly, not very rich benefits.

Stephen, the other thing I would just mention is that the characteristics of the membership are important to modeling your revenue. So the fact that we're seeing a year younger membership has an impact on PMPM revenue. So you need to factor that in. That's one of the reasons why I discussed that in the call is to help with your ability to project revenue with that information.

That's helpful. And then maybe just, you know, qualitatively, like, is there any difference in terms of this MLR guide, how you're thinking about, you know, kind of what you're budgeting in for retained membership and sort of how you're thinking about this newer to the plan membership and how that might perform? I would love to understand just how you're thinking about that part of it.

Yeah, well, we obviously model membership with a lot of our past history. so, you know, we will have experiences that are different for returning members versus new initiations. I would say that in the aggregate, given the amount of work we've been doing on this population going, you know, which is now over two years that we've been expecting that these subsidies are going to go away, and so starting with the whole, you know, how do we design plans to capture people who, you know, who had a price shock. We've really built in, I think, a deep level of expectation and understanding about how those different populations are going to perform. I talked about all the, you know, the ways that we tried to triangulate and get data about those folks. But I think that in general, I would say we're using our historical experience with each of those populations to, you know, project the future, feel like that the estimates that we've made both in pricing and now you know we've taken everything that we've heard you know to date and built that into our guidance and you know I feel like we're we're being very balanced in in our estimates and the increase in risk adjustment allowed also takes the MLR up your next question comes from the line of Scott Fidel with Goldman Sachs please go ahead hi this is Sam Becker on for Scott Fadell.

Yeah, I was just curious on what are your levers, key levers to achieving EBITDA profitability without the extension of the enhanced subsidies? And what are those key headwinds or tailwinds when thinking about MLR and SG&A from 2025 to 2026?

Well, there are a number of them. first it's growth um so um it's um you know growth drives um a reduction in overall percentage of costs ai where we're able to create a better member experience and greater stickiness and we're seeing that on a regular bit on a regular basis we have dozens of lolms on the back end of the business and now two agentic ais or about to launch another year in the next few months so we're now having a lot of impact where people can access us quicker with much more accuracy and without having to wait on phones which we also again again reduces our costs and then on the mlr front we are constantly working on our contracts and our utilization management and we take and we um um you know we task the team to deliver so many hundred basis points every year and opportunities to keep our trend in line with where we think the market should be. So all of those things together, and there are a lot of levers that we manage every day through the management process, are the things that we track to make sure that we can hit our targets.

And Sam, I just want to make one point really clear. Our guidance is on EBIT, so it's not on um adjusted EBITDA I did talk about in a call that we would expect adjusted EBITDA to be 115 million dollars um above our earnings from operations guidance that we put out so um I just want to make sure that we're talking you know about the same things thank you your next question comes from the line of Michael Hall with Baird please go ahead good morning this is Olivia Yeah, on for Michael.

Thank you for taking the question. Because exchange marketplace risk adjustment is net neutral, creating a reliance on other plans near markets, the lack of visibility any one plan has into the rest of the market makes risk adjustment mechanics difficult in our view. Looking to 2026 and beyond, you mentioned the potential Wakely industry report in 1Q. Whether it's through this potential Wakely report or other efforts, can you share how you're getting more insight into the rest of the market, as well as your thoughts on what can be done to make risk adjustment more transparent and less volatile in the future? Is there any potential reform you think could be done to improve risk adjustment? And I have a follow-up if there's time.

Olivia, thanks for the question. Look, I think that estimating risk adjustment, as you say, is the most difficult thing that we have to do each quarter because you're both trying to project your own performance inside your own book and also the market. I think we're quite good at projecting our own market, you know, our own book and what the performance is. Where we do get surprised is by how the market moves in ways that we can't see. I'm optimistic that working with Wakely, and it sounds like most of us in the industry are working with them as an important service provider to all of us, to help get more timely information about what's going on with the market. because that's the most challenging part of our ability to project that. So, you know, I think we're taking steps in that direction. I'm not sure that we'll get all the way there in this first report, but I do think that with the support of many of the industry players that we can, you know, increase visibility into this estimate over time.

Thank you. And I can squeeze in one more, please. When I think about health care innovation, two specific areas I see Oscar leading the way in becoming an agent of change are in ICRA that could disrupt an employer group market that is ripe for change and leading the charge in crafting condition and disease-specific plans, which appear to be the future of health insurance. Both are exciting, but both are early on. So as you look ahead, what do you think needs to happen to catalyze the rate of adoption? And as a first mover, what type of competitive advantages do you believe this will present Oscar longer term?

So from a NICRA standpoint, Olivia, we are not only concentrating on products to capture membership in the insurance company, but we've also built out the front end of the business where we can now work with employers to convert them. There's a lot of opportunity in revenue and actually in a higher margin, unregulated and not requiring any risk capital to work with employers to move employees into defined contribution. and once in defined contribution, work with brokers to get them into whatever plan works for them, whether that is an Oscar plan or not. So you're going to start seeing us over time report two different kinds of revenue in the model, where we're going to have revenue coming out of the conversion of employers to the defined contribution, the whole brokerage work that's done there, and then also membership that we capture inside our own health plan. So the ICRA opportunity is much larger than just the membership, although our membership did double the share. And given what happened in the individual market relative to rates, there was some reluctance on employers to jump in now. We need to show that we can stabilize that marketplace and get more people in. So that's sort of the lay of the land on ICRA. On the disease or the lifestyle products, we truly believe, and this is the proposal that we put in front of the administration, and one they've talked about, is to separate the investment decision from the financing decision. The investment being what I buy versus how I pay for it. And the opportunity to create HSA, Roth IRA-like funds where people can take whatever funding mechanism they have, whether that's their employer, their own money, Medicare, Medicaid, or other subsidies like from the ACA, and put them into a bucket, and by buying a qualified health plan, manage the rest of their costs by themselves, and this is where our new agentic AI tool is headed, then having a marketplace where people can use the money that they receive for healthcare to buy what they want in their local market, a narrow network, with a plan design that changes with their life, starts to create the opportunity for lifetime value of membership and change the investment thesis that insurance companies would have in managing that membership and how we would approach it, which leads to the lifestyle products. If we can move with a family or an individual through their lifetime offering them new designs that allow them to stay with their network, be effective in managing their current health status, and live as fully as they can until their last day, I think that's the ultimate culmination of an individual market where all Americans can get health care that they want, their choice, and where we have a market so large that morbidity changes really have no impact on the overall underwriting cycle of the business.

Your next question comes from the line of Raj Kumar with Stevens. Please go ahead.

Hi, maybe just following up on the kind of ICRA commentary, just curious on the membership associated with the Hy-Vee arrangement and kind of what's the initial uptake from that employee base and then you know historically have you seen kind of the ICHRA population exhibited more kind of stickier membership base or you know should we expect a similar level of churn relative to the kind of broader individual plan I think the first of all we're not giving out actual ICHRA numbers by segment yet it's not meaningful enough to move the dial although we see all of these efforts being successful so far.

The more important part is, again, back to this thesis of I have my money, I buy it the way I want. We think ICHRA is stickier because as long as I have the funds to pay for it, I can keep what I bought. But I don't have to change it. If my funding circumstances change, I just use the different funding to keep the same thing I had. So we view ICHRA as a development moving beyond the ACA model, which is helping people when they can't afford health insurance, to a model where I now buy my own insurance, my own network, the product design that fits me at this time. It allows me to stay with my product and my network for as long as I want. that's where they have met them that's where the member experience and all these tools were building comes in where people can actually use it the way they need to and have the information they need to use it most effectively got and then as a quick follow-up just kind of curious on the new member engagement rates for 2026 and how's that comparing to what you're seeing or experiencing at this same point last year yeah I don't think that too early to tell yeah after the first quarter will have a better idea your next question comes from the line of craig jones

with bank of america please go ahead okay thank you um so i was wondering uh what you've assumed in your guidance does the uh change in the percentage of zero utilizers between 2025 and 2026 i think that would need to come down oh declaration enhanced tax credits uh if you can't give us exact percentage maybe just how do you think that'll compare to your 2019 percentage prior to when those um were enacted yeah correct thanks for the question excuse me um in general we don't comment on uh you know the the the portion of our our book that's non-utilizers you know it's a normal part of given that we have a very healthy um membership we would anticipate

that that not all of those members need care in any given year so we do have a portion of the book that um that doesn't utilize uh you know when i look at the how um our book is evolved there our book is younger than it was a year ago so you know it isn't necessarily the case that you should assume that we'll see you know lower levels of uh non-utilization um you know we uh we take all of those factors into account when we set our um guidance for mlr and as i talked about earlier. We've done a terrific amount of work to build up our estimates around those projections, and we feel like we're as comfortable as we can be with them at this point in the year.

Okay, got it. Thank you. And then maybe for those 400,000 members that expect to roll off by the end of the quarter, what do you think their 2025 MLR was, and how would that compare to, say, historically what your members that rolled off would be? Thank you.

Yeah, I'm not going to dimension the specifics of those members. You know, when I look at the difference between 2025 MLR and 2026 MLR, it's really a story about the changes in market morbidity on a year-over-year basis. That's really the biggest driver. You know, we've taken into our pricing for the upcoming year all the changes that happened in market morbidity last year, our expected increases as, you know, people are leading the ACA in 26. We build all of those things in. We've included, you know, a trend that is higher than what we've seen, you know, in the history, historically, but, you know, relatively consistent with last year. So, you know, we feel like we've taken all of those building blocks that's going to impact utilization next year into our pricing, which gives us confidence about our ability to, you know, return to profitability next year.

There are no further questions at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.