Beta Bionics, Inc. (BBNX) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

I'm Stephen, and this is Sean.

Welcome. Disclosures. You're not going to go to the website anyway, but it's here if you feel really compelled. Massive, thank you to Stephen and Sean for coming along from Beta Bionics and agreeing to this, and I really appreciate having you guys.

Thanks, Patrick. Great to be here.

Yes. It's been a good conference -- and yes, we're looking forward to the time here.

Yes, good energy. I mean let's just dive into right -- like why don't we -- I mean maybe 2 minutes just to level set people. I think probably almost everybody in this room is aware of like pumps and how that market works. But maybe just from your perspective, what really distinguishes beta relative to the pump competitors?

Yes, absolutely. So we all know Beta Bionics is an automated insulin delivery pump, but we don't like to call it an insulin pump, let's call it bionic pancreas to differentiate it, why the difference? It is the most automated version of an insulin delivery system ever. We've all been adding these user simplicity functions like trying to reduce boluses and whatnot, and we've done that completely. But we've also added the concept of moving from a static to an adaptive algorithm, which removes the need for the health care provider to set up and manage the pump, which means it can be done by, for example, a primary care physician. We have data on that. We generally believe that the insulin pump industry has -- this is not a criticism by the way, more of a statement of fact has sort of failed at improving outcomes with diabetes not on the patient basis, but on a population basis. The way the evidence of site for that is that the average A1c in the country is not really falling, right? But we know that we can take those patients and improve their A1c massively. And we do that by providing a product that's not absolutely fantastic for 1 person, but broadly applicable to everybody, which means work with CGMs that they like, meaning provide a form factor that they prefer, meaning give them an algorithm that they can utilize successfully. And lastly, provide to them in a channel that they can get it, namely pharmacy if they can't afford the DME channel, et cetera. And by doing all of those things, we do think that we're in a position to meaningfully improve population health, meaning lower A1c of the population, at least with type 1 diabetes over time. That's what we're up to.

Love it. I mean loaded questions forward, but starting with Type 1. What 40% on penetration in the U.S. You could argue it's still pretty low, frankly, given who wants to be doing multiple daily injections and trying to manage and everything. What do you think is that's been holding it back has been growing well, but was still less than half of patients where do you think is the gap?

To me, there's really only 1 answer to that question. And I mean, there's a lot of -- on the margin answers, but the big 1 is primary care. You take that 40% number and you look at 45-ish percent of patients are managed by primary care providers and if you ask them, 80%-ish of their patient cohort on AID pumps, what is it [ 80% times ] 45 is what 36 or something like that. There you go. That's pump penetration, meaning it's not being used by primary care providers. Why? Because by and large, they don't know how to do it because they're complicated to set up and manage and that's the direct thing that we've added with Beta Bionics. I do think it's important to note that the patients are not any different, right? The same patient goes to an endo, goes to a primary. It's more a factor of where you live, et cetera, than who you are. And therefore, that 80-plus percent penetration in the endo space really ought to apply perfectly provided in the primary care space. But we do need to provide a product that can be well utilized by those patients with that provider, and we think we've done that -- we do a clinical trial, clinical trial data showing that outcomes with our product with primary care providers are identical to those with endocrinologists. That's unprecedented, but we've done it, illustrating that you really don't need to certainly manage the pump the way a traditional endocrologist does.

Do you think the PCPs don't trust their patients or don't trust themselves?

Certainly the interesting question he phrased that way, themselves would be my guess. Managing diabetes is not particularly complicated, but it's also not easy. And it's not something that they do on a daily basis. So we have protocols on how to manage Type 1 with MDI, it's like the [ Berg ] install protocol, you can look up, which tells you exactly how to do it based on testing blood glucoses and waking blood sugars, et cetera. And they work to some extent as long as they're followed, they require every 2-day titration. They're just not followed enough. So I think it does come down to that. They just don't know how to set up and manage the pump.

The CGM like -- in to Sean's point and Sean, feel free to add to this. CGMs figured out what Sean was alluding to a moment ago there with primary care and making a system easier to prescribe far earlier than pumps did. So in like 2015 -- CGMs before like 2015, before Dexcom created a sensor that didn't require a calibration. They would compare with another using metrics like accuracy, so the MARD and metrics that patients turns out probably didn't care about. But then once they launched, once we made the devices easier, not we, but once the industry made CGM easier to use, that was a huge unlocking mechanism that now Type 1 penetration for CGMs is north of 80%. I don't actually know that number. It's probably closer to 90% now. And yes, I think that the key takeaway there, and as it relates to primary care and insulin pumping, is that insulin pumps before the iLet have been comparing themselves with 1 another on metrics that, frankly, I'm not sure the patients ultimately really care that much about. Yes, time and range and A1c matters, but really, patients want to understand how this device fits into their life and how it makes their life easier. And that's the unlocking mechanism for diabetes devices. We're the first company that just like any great innovation has changed the metrics. From again, just caring about A1c and time and range to how does this thing any easier to use. We're the only pump position to do that and hence, why we've had a lot of success.

So it's a great point, Stephen. If you look back, every single innovation, every single intervention in diabetes has always had 1 thing in common, and that's the more you engage with it, the better your outcome always. Whether it's BG checks per day, CGM checks per day, injections per day or both they don't care more engagement, better outcome into the iLet. And we have data showing that our outcomes are independent of engagement. That's absolutely first. It's absolutely innovative. Then it really puts a point on what Stephen is talking about. You want easier, then you got to get a product that actually doesn't need you to engage with it all that much.

Could that be a subset within Type 1s because there's some -- unlike yourself, there are some, who developed very, very young, and they've been doing MDI an incredibly long time. And maybe now they're relatively older. Like there's a trust that you're giving up to an algorithm. And there might be good clinical data things, but is there a subset they just kind of need to age out of the pool, which is -- another out -- is that a subset that's just going to be really difficult to convert or just the need proof.

With diabetes, there's -- it's very hard to talk about the patient profile because there's a gazillion of them. It's absolutely a spectrum from this to that. And maybe it's even in 3 dimensions. So yes, there's always going to be that. We know people like that. But what I think we are seeing is that there are people who don't necessarily trust it, but there's nobody who really likes it, meaning there's nobody that gets up in the morning rare and go saying today, I get to manage my diabetes. It's not fun, right? And over time, as we build trust and what our algorithm does and how it works, you will convert people like that. You won't convert everybody but you will convert a number of them. But we don't have to, right? If we go back to my argument from earlier, roughly 80% of patients at least 2 have attended an endocrinologists have accepted the fact that pumps are a better way to go. And that's growing over time, even in the endocrinology space. If we do the exact same thing in the primary space, and that's not the only place we're going, of course, but then there's a long way to run before we start to run into what's clearly that, I don't know, late adopter, they're laggards, I guess they call them.

Another PCP discussion. You go in, you just like, look, you don't really need to call count here. Like how do you communicate because they don't want to see trials I'm guessing?

Yes. PCPs are definitely different. And I want to be clear that we're at the very infancy of penetration in the primary care market at this point. And the reason is that what I don't think works is just showing up with doubling of your sales force calling on every primary care doctor and existence and explaining why iLet's better, is not going to have any success at all doing that. I mentioned the protocols earlier. When a new type 1 comes into a primary care's office, they put a piece of paper and say, "Okay, start them on 0.5 units per kilogram per day. So is it right here?" That protocol needs to say right iLet. In order to do that, it's not a one-to-one with the health care provider. It's going to be with clinic. It's going to be with the ADA, things like that, the larger bodies. We're generating the data now that shows that we should be that -- but the work to actually get that done is still, to some extent, coming. But I do think that the iLet is in a unique position to be able to do that. Because what I don't think is going to be useful is to protocolize exactly how 1 reviews spaghetti chart, which is our modal day glucose chart over time. And so, okay, based on this kind of trend, do you think you're seeing hit the change to the carb factor, for example. You just don't need to do any of that with our product. So it's a pretty unique greenfield opportunity for us. But it will take a little longer than converting a single doctor. But when you convert, for example, a health care system, the whole thing comes.

A lot of people I speak to when they hear about the algo and iLet jump to the conclusion that it's even better suited for Type 2 because the stereotypes that exist around Type 2 patients the management of their condition versus Type 1 -- is that serotype less true than people think that it is? And how do you view the Type 2 opportunity overall?

Well, we don't have an indication in type 2, not -- so I think it's -- we'll be a little careful on saying what isn't true. We don't know. I understand the stereotype, I can understand why somebody might say that about our algorithm. Certainly, over 25% of our users are coming to us with Type 2. There's something that's clearly resonating there. It's important to state that we don't push in Type 2. So that's just what's happening in the market. I don't know if I can go into all that much more detail on that.

Yes. What I can say about the Type 2 market is that that particular segment of the market is growing in its insulin pump adoption at an unprecedented level. And so I think you won't find an analyst model out there that predicted the uptick that we would have seen in Type 2 insulin pumping in the first half of the year, and we don't really see that stopping. But again, we can't be advertising for marketing what the product -- how the product is doing on type 2 because we don't have the indication.

The people would feel tied to a slow to engage with the health. And so, I think people just assume that to your point, the curve was very aggressive?

And it's really Beta Bionics and our tube pump competitors that are driving that. I would illustrate that when you look at our clinical data, we have quite a bit of data in a very high A1c segment. These are people with A1c 14 to 17 when they came to us and they end up with a GMI, I think, in that group of 7.7%, if I'm remembering correctly. That's just an astounding difference. And I'm not familiar with another intervention that they've been able to take something from 14 to 17 out of 7.7% whatever kind of diabetes you have at 14 to 17, that's a disengaged population. Clearly, whatever we're doing is able to have some level of success without that engagement because the patient didn't change we had in iLet. So I think that's the point on what you're saying.

I also realize I just misspoke. I meant to say our tubeless pump competitor and I'll start the reasons for the -- they go from Type 2. I said 2, but I'm saying the name. Tubeless. Sorry, go ahead.

Yes. I mean, that is also 1 of the distinct things like even within Type 1, if I could stop carb counting, is that just better? Is the 1 fewer thing that I happy to do? Or is it you find versus a subset of people who just do so eventually prone to doing it that they -- there's a control thing there or something?

So there is a segment of people that will continue to carb count in their head and then convert that to a usual meal. You don't need to do that turns out, like I do it at some level. I'm in I see it in carb. I'm really bad at that. So as everybody else, we know that. That's the reason that usual works. It's because somebody might say 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 that's all kind of usual like they're not getting that right exactly. That happens at some level. What's really interesting though is that I think this even surprised us at some level. We didn't appreciate the number of our users that we're going to not touch it at all. Forget about carb counting, just don't even call a meal. I think we shared this data at ADA, where check me on this, something like 15% or 16% of our users call less than 1 meal per day. And of that group, it's 1 every 3 days on average, which we would define as large as fully close with mode. And they're going from roughly an A1c of 9.4% to a GMI of 7.4%. 7.4% in a fully closed of mode. It's unbelievable. But again, we don't have an indication for that, but that's what's happening in the real world.

Yes. Super interesting. And then on the topic of form factor, you guys obviously are going for a multiform-factor approach ultimately. How do you think -- so I know you're agnostic between them long term, how do you think it ends up on overall market?

Yes, in terms of split between durable disposal.

You're waiting for that 1.

So that's our mint product right there, the tubeless version that Stephen alluded to earlier. So what do we think the ultimate split between the 2 is hard to say. I think today, you guys probably know those numbers even better than we do. We can look at Omnipod new starts is as everybody else is added up, and there you have it. There probably additional drivers that move that over time. But what I would say is if you want to fulfill our goal of being able to move the entire population health, and you really have to provide both. I don't see a world where either form factors, just the absolute dominant form factor, nobody wants the other one. There's good reasons to want both. So we should offer both. And we feel strong about that. But is right here, probably a size you're sort of familiar with -- we're pretty proud of the sucker.

Do you want to walk through some of the features that I don't know how familiar?

Yes, sure. Again, it should sound reasonably familiar. It's a 200-unit insulin capacity. The size is as you're familiar with. We have made 1 design decision that's a little different or atypical, and it's just right here. It's a 2-part durable disposable product. That was done for very good reasons. It's done for user experience reasons. This is a durable product. It's paired to your phone all the time. I'll get to the importance of that. This is a disposal. This is what -- more what you're familiar with build this up every 3 days. So the user experience of this, you're wearing it, right? You take it off. Take this off, discard this part. You didn't have to go into your phone and stop a sensor session or a pump session, right? Because you pulled this apart there you go. So that's all it costs you. Take a new 1 out, fill it up, you no longer have to wait for your phone to pair with it because this is already paired, another step you've eliminated, still haven't gone into your phone. Put these together, that took me all of 1 second. That just started the thing up, primed it, flow got into your phone, put that on yourself, pull up the safety lock and hit the button and you're done. And you still haven't gone into your phone. So that is differentiated from some other experiences you may be familiar with and that we've done away with the need to interact in the phone in any way. And the cannula insertion experience is a little bit different, which we feel will have some advantages as well, but time will tell on that one. In short, the experience generally is the same, but with fewer steps and hopefully less discomfort.

What not the unit economics relative to doing it that way rather than checking everything?

Yes. So at any level of scale, meaning a couple of years after we launched this thing commercially, the design decisions that we've chosen with the durable component lasting 2 years an indisposable having all the inexpensive components, will have the gross margins at above the level of the tubeless pump competitor. So very advantaged on gross margin, assuming the same price point, which we don't expect to be a problem.

In this durable, we have a PCB, a processor, memory, radio, speaker, motor, gear train very, very expensive components, right? Things you don't throw every 3 days and you can avoid it. In this guy, we have a couple of injection molded plastic components, 2 batteries and the patch that fits in your body, comparatively inexpensive component, so you don't mind turning away every 3 days. So that's why it's comparatively easy to do what Stephen just explained.

I remember chatting with you guys [indiscernible], I think it was [indiscernible] '24. And it's part of the bigger picture thing, like you moved pretty quickly on that. CGM integration, you ended up moving faster than some of your peers. And you still have that kind of like speedy small company energy. How important do you think that is for how you've been competitively? How do you keep that because -- some of your peers are won't be...

It's central to what we are as a company and how we'll be successful. Yes, I don't think anybody should ever lose that. But if you lose it before you're successful, good luck, it can be natural in the long run, but we'll sure fight it as long as we possibly can. Both Stephen and I are engaged in the business on a daily basis, exception factor we're here and we're still trying to keep up with things in between our meetings upstairs. We try -- for example, we don't have the word committee at Beta Bionics. It's just not a thing. You need a decision boom come to me and you'll have it or make it and we'll back you on it. We move very quickly because of the way we trust our employees and the way when people are uncomfortable, we'll help them out. That's not in and of itself going to mean much today. But I think the proof is in the pudding, frankly. And CGM is a great example. We were absolutely at the forefront of every 1 of the integrations that we did. Interesting side note to this architecture here. This guy again is a durable. So it's analogous to the iLet in that it's paired with your phone. Let's just say we were to launch a new CGM with this then you would go to your phone and hit update, and we would update the software on this, and you have it the next day, right? That's a major competitive advantage compared to a situation where you might have to build your entire inventory that's in the field with Fed new software. We can over-the-air update this one, so continue advantages like that.

I'll take that question, by the way, but you I think that we do these like we're new to being a public company, Sean and I are like -- Sean and I used to -- we're new to operating a public company. And I'm kind of surprised at times not disappointed, but surprised that we do like conferences and various meetings with investors and very little time actually gets spent on talking about the management philosophy of the business and like the way work actually gets done. And I think that's a really core advantage to our company. And I think they're going to be like historically different capabilities and paces of innovation from 1 company to the next. And we have a lot of things that really work well for us in that regard, and we're proud of it, and I don't expect it will stop, especially not as while Sean and I are managing the company together. But 1 of the key things, and not to guess Sean up too much here, but actually having an engineer led company really does matter. Sean is like very close to this mint project. Everyone in our company shows up unless you're in the remote sales team, you show up to the office every day. That innovation is happening, like a couple of hundred feet from Sean's desk and the people, the team members that are involved in it, we've removed every decision cycle down to giving the right people the right authority. And if there's a decision that needs to be made, Sean makes it. And I think that's a part of the philosophy that just kind of maybe speaks to the time lines and the execution that you alluded to. So thanks for the compliment and -- there's more I could say, but anyways, we just think out of it.

I appreciate that. I want to say 1 thing. I'm not always right, not by a long shot, but far better to make that damn decision, find out that you're wrong and make a different 1 than to obsess over it for months on end and not make any decision at all. So hopefully, you didn't hear some Egomania, but Sean's always right because I get the case at all. But I can be wrong really fast.

There's a funny story recently of a decision I saw Sean make and it was it was the name of the product, which is called Mint. So Mint is I think a great name. You guys -- if you don't like it, don't tell me, but I think it's an awesome name it stands for mini insulin therapy. And it seems like people really like it. And so that product, how it got -- decisions like this typically get made in my corporate past life is that someone puts together a deck of a bunch of names like using -- hiring a consulting firm, which probably comes up with some really good ideas. And the rationale as to why there's a committee of people everyone wants to be involved in it because it's so crucial of a decision. And at least that's what we led to believe -- and then ultimately, it gets made over a period of time and you ask the employees what they think.

You've heard about the market research?

Market research is just crucial. In Mint's case, there are 3 names that would hit Sean's desk. I was there kind of standing by the door, not even sitting down. Sean looked at them. Somebody said, I kind of like Mint sounds good. I like it too, let's go with that. That's how you move fast.

It's better to move fast and be wrong or right?

The point is you can belabor all you want. It's a pretty good name.

It's kind of fresh.

What I -- what I feel like I remember from that meeting is it wasn't even really a naming meeting. This was more like a naming concept meeting. And we were like, well, for example, here's some, I like that one. Let's just be done. -- forget it. Let's just not name the product, it's fine. Mini insulin therapy.

Speaking of that maybe moving on -- we've gone on and on about company.

Now like I think they did it like that. [indiscernible] GLP-1s. 2023 callback going very retro. But I feel like we're kind of done with the panic and history associated with that. But -- how do you think about the combo with a product like iLet, particularly because you're already pretty good about getting people they want A1c to set it in the right place. And it's just another tool to kind of get them there within the type 2 community, which I know you don't have a label for, et cetera, but how do you think it yes.

Well, I mean, I think, look, it's a phenomenal class of drug, no question about that. On news flash, it's not getting Type 1 of insulin. That's certainly true. And in the Type 2 space, while it may prevent certain people from racing to insulin, it's also not getting your people who are on intensive insulin therapy is our target market back off either. So I think it can and does make it a little bit easier to control people but it's not going to fundamentally change the market. And I'll remind everybody, too, that it's expensive. It's really expensive. It's more expensive than insulin therapy. So I don't think we've seen a major impact. It's Mark. I mean the pump industry has outgrown its history here in the face of GLP-1. So asked and answered as far as I'm concerned, but that's not to say that I don't believe in them. I think they're a great class of drug they are.

The great for yoga structures NLA, I think, it seems to be a little mainline. The other 1 that's like been a little bit more topical currently, it's obviously compared to bidding. And then actually, the areas of reform that I was more interested in was the shift to more of a rental model, which you guys kind of you're already going in that direction. But my interpretation what I saw that was like, okay, well, the stated aim is to get people to be able to churn the system faster so that they can get access to your innovation faster. A, is that a good or a bad thing from your perspective? And b, does that increase the speed of the innovation cycle because now you don't have to wait for years or am I just reaching that?

It's a very good thing. It's especially good if you believe in your products and you believe that you develop those products faster than anybody else, meaning you always have a technological lead, which we do. everybody has asked us in 1 form or another. Well, geez, moving to a pay-as-you-go model, doesn't that transfer the risk to you. But you don't get paid up front, you might not get the full payment over time. Sort -- our perspective is that if you get that payment upfront and then they don't like your product and they you attrit in 1 way or the other, then you're dead anyway, right? 4 years from now, they're sure not going to be getting a new product. They're certainly not telling their doctor that they love it, and the doctor is not writing them for their other patients. So if you believe in your product, you believe people are liking it, then pay-as-you-go model ought to be something you really -- is a benefit to you, especially, since you can also pull them from other people earlier. We do believe that. We think patient choice is a great thing, and we believe in our products. So we'll always -- the first time you tell me that we want to -- the first time I tell you, I want to pivot to a big upfront payment. It's probably when I lost confidence of product.

Yes. I mean, do you think like -- we don't know what the phase-in will look like, but could you get a bit of a churn in the entire -- it doesn't really affect you guys because you're still small in taking share. And amongst the big players, could you get a big churn and who's on what, if you know to mean we're just sticky?

Yes. I mean people tend to be reasonably sticky, I think. I mean you'll see some of it. But every year, you've got whatever it is 1/4 of people come up for renewal anyway. -- and making that decision as it is. So you have a few more, sure. But I don't think -- I think you would see more of a shift within that quarter if it's indicative of what you would see in that situation. What do you see? You see people with newer entrants or better technology taking share. So for us, moving to a pay-as-you-go type model is a huge benefit. If you have a massive installed base, and you want to hold on to that, it's probably not a good thing. 5 years from now, 10 years from now, ask me the same question. I hope my answer is, well, yes, it certainly benefits us with better technology that has always been us and it still is.

I hope -- and then the competitive bidding side of things, at least within the DME, -- is that a thing? Or is that not a thing?

Well, look, there wasn't a single proponent of it in the public comments of competitive bidding. That doesn't mean that it won't actually happen. But my perspective is that it's within a rental model, the competitive bidding as it's being proposed at the rate that is being proposed specific to Medicare fee-for-service, like only a small subset of people that it would be a bad thing. And again, I don't believe that it will actually end up going through. But if it did, at the particular rental rates that are being contemplated. Yes, I think it's -- it would be a bad thing. And frankly, our tolerance, and I think probably the other pump company that would be impacted, our tolerance for taking much price concession in that particular small component is already pretty minimal. And so it wouldn't really impact our business, if we frankly just walked away from it. And so there's -- I guess there's a world where we would do that. But really, to be -- I just wanted to add 1 clarification to Sean's point, which are well said. We are absolutely a huge advocate of pay-as-you-go. The rental model though, in our public statements, we thought we'd see some logistical problems with a rental model for insulin pumps. So you're getting a pump back kind of refurbishing it you'd have to sterilize it on a version of sterilization has to happen for blood-borne pathogens, and that has like some problems. Pumps don't just get hot swapped from 1 to the other. That doesn't really work like that. And that's kind of how the proposal is sort of implied.

Yes. Makes a lot of sense.

Yes. I think that the -- 1 of the stated goals you mentioned earlier is to increase choice this whole thing, right? And I think as Stephen was sort of implying there, it's a little bit antithetical choice to drive people out of that market. Because you just simply put too much price pressure on it and it's kind of already on the edge of that now.

This is probably a ridiculous comment. But 1 of the things I wondered about in the past is, does anybody end up making a durable pump that is so durable that you just don't end up to replace it just because it's like -- it doesn't -- it lasts for more than 4 years, and it can be remotely software updated, and it's just built like a tank. I sort of -- 1 of your peers had a smaller pump form factor that I sort of looked at that and wondered if that ended up that way because run it for 7 years. I know it's a weird statement, but...

Well, health care and reimbursement, so we are in animal and you have to design a product for the possible product and to fit into the reimbursement system that you have. At the moment, the DME Pix code-based system isn't every 4-year thing, no matter how long it lasts. But that being said, if you wanted to redefine that system, that's okay, that the product you just described sounds like it fits very well into a rental-based model, where you just keep being paid for as long as the users on it as long as that things still last -- and if it doesn't, it's on you to replace it. That would fit well, very well in the pharmacy channel.

Make sense. On the pharmacy channel, the -- no one's quite sure how the durable side is going to end up there. You guys have a vision for how that is -- there's some others where it's maybe not always clear which way around it is going to go? How do you think that model ends up landing?

Well, it's tough to call an exact shot on this one. especially from our position, which is as market leaders in the movement of durable pumps to pharmacy. -- certainly higher than we are now. But what's the terminal number? I don't really know. I think we see 2 things that are probably competing at some level. PBMs, I think, over time, see the other PBMs, putting these products on the menu, and they'll probably start to fall faster, right? Plans on the other hand, the ones that are still holding out become the laggards and maybe have a reason for not wanting to do it. I haven't been convinced. Those 2 things are competing. 1 is going to accelerate things on decelerate we just call our shot. But I think a very reasonable -- how do I put this? As we watch Beta Bionics over the next period of time, -- that will be our leading indicator of where this can go because we are by over nature leading at this. So we'll keep at it.

You guys have a slightly unique opportunity on the licensing side as it relates to dual hormone and that side of things. Maybe give the audience [ part members ] an idea of what that is, the opportunity there? And then also, can you be more aggressive in capping the highs, if you can protect the lows? Is that a thing?

Well, absolutely. I mean the idea of [ hormonal ] is that we can help you forget about having diabetes. And that was the best comment we ever heard in our formula clinical trials as I started out I had diabetes. At some level, a fully closed system takes care of insulin delivery completely. You'd think that would be forgetting about having diabetes, but it's not quite because you still have to worry about those lows, right? Every system iLet included has the occasional low you have to be aware, be ready to treat that. [indiscernible] eliminates that concern. With that, we can also then additionally eliminate the highs because we can be a little bit more aggressive as well. So where that ends up, how we tune that knob between lower the highs without increasing lows, we'll see, right? That's the clinical trial that has to happen. I assume you were talking over the licenses that we licensed glucagon, a shelf-stable human pumpable glucagon from Xeris, and that puts us in a unique position. It's an exclusive license to be able to provide it by hormonal system. And -- we think that if you truly want to forget about having diabetes, which I think is everybody's goal, bi-hormonal is really the only way to do that. We've never seen a system that really could eliminate lows without it. And the reason for that is insulins to darn slow. You can't -- you can turn off insulin, but you can't turn it off fast enough to prevent the insulin or your body from calling that low. If you do something like exercise or after reading or something like that, which is just no way to avoid. So yes, it's a very unique product that we think is going to be truly revolutionary when we get there.

Okay. Also on to both of you. I know that you try and eliminate as much waste time as possible internally. But what's your favorite meeting every month? Maybe you have like and friendly, like let's...

We have our 1 weekly project management meeting, which is my only real standing meeting a week and it's every week, and we all get together is not a whole company, but senior staff, and we talk about everything. It's not a better way to keep up on what's going on and keep the excitement going on the whole company, I don't know.

I take 15 minutes every Wednesday morning to tell about 25 people on my team what's going on in the business. So just to be radically transparent of what actually -- what's actually happening. And people, I think, with -- they feel like they're very connected to the business and it companies being honest with them, and they actually know what's going on. They know like what the A+ problems are. You have more people volunteering for the work. And I find that you have people that are like ready to run through a wall to try to help. So I think it's that. So just a 15-minute not written down just radical candor, what's going what's actually happening.

Sean and Stephen thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thanks, everybody.