DexCom, Inc. (DXCM) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Hello. Everybody, hello. We are here for the afternoon session. This one is Dexcom, so it's where you want to be. Very pleased to have Sean Christensen with us. And in the front row is Matt Carey. He also has a variety of show and tell devices, the G7, the G6, the G5 and the applicator. So I think there is a difference. But anyway, thank you for joining us today.

I want to start with sort of a big picture question, which really has to do with -- so I hear you have this new device, and there was like this big football game that was advertised on. Can you catch us up on the G7 launch and the early feedback? And you may not know this, but there was a doctor right here a couple of hours ago who was saying that after that app, his phone lit up and his contacts went up.

That's great. Thanks for having us, Joanne. It's great to be here. Yes. So hopefully, you guys were able to see the G7 Super Bowl commercial. We thought out of the gate to have this product launch that we feel is the biggest launch in our company's history and then the timing relative to that game with the amount of people watching the Super Bowl unaware of CGM and likely to have coverage, we thought it was a no-brainer to get the message out there. And obviously, the commercial itself was very product-focused. So very much highlighting the G7 form factor, the simplicity of the application process, which has been made even easier now with a 30-minute warmup. So we really felt like it was a great opportunity to -- with 113 million people watching in the second quarter to highlight those features and continue to build brand awareness around Dexcom and the great product that we have.

So what did you see or hear in terms of people opening up some links of ad and calling the endocrinologists?

Yes. Excitement. A lot of it from our existing patients and I think even people curious as to what this device is, which is really the goal. Without any read-throughs to say our first quarter results, I think I would say we set out to accomplish something very specific in terms of really drawing awareness of this product and how great we think this product will be for the marketplace. And then we certainly took a lot of the learnings that we had from 2 years ago. Many of you remember, we had a Super Bowl ad 2 years ago with G6, also starring Nick Jonas. But we took a lot of the things that we learned from that process really in terms of drawing engagement, not just how many people can you drive to a Dexcom website, but how do you get them to engage while they're there and, ultimately, understand more about the products, see if they have coverage, see if they can start integrating with their doctors to get a script. So I would say we did an even better job, I think, at working to engage the users who were drawn based on that commercial.

So G7, if I walked into my endocrinologist's office, I would have access to it today?

So if you are having endocrinologist access, they would need to write a new script, and then access depending on the payer. Many would have access right away depending on -- Medicare is now covering it, which is great out of the gate. It's a stark contrast from G6. Some of the coverage will build over the next weeks and months, especially in the pharmacy channel, but that's why we also instituted what we call the bridge program, which is in a monthly out-of-pocket cost. It's quite reasonable for -- to accommodate that demand early on, obviously, and then they will ultimately shift to coverage once that coverage is in place for their specific formulary.

So can we hit pause on the bridge program? Because are you paying for people ordering G7 out of pocket in case they don't have insurance yet? Or are you just helping someone who has a big supply of G6 in the [indiscernible] bridge program?

Yes. So the bridge program is in the absence of insurance being established. So in this interim period of weeks, maybe a couple of months before those plans actually are kicked in and to lower the out-of-pocket cost for a customer. Somebody who is interested who says I want G7 now, can come and purchase the product for an out-of-pocket cost that's reasonable on a monthly basis. This is not something we plan to have in perpetuity. This is not something we deem as sustainable. Ultimately, we are driving for coverage because that will further lower the out-of-pocket cost for our customers. But it's an interim truly a bridge for the customer who spurred on by the demand and really wanting to have this product now, wanting to make it available for them.

So on the fourth quarter call, you lowered expectations, if I get the numbers right, from $20 million to $30 million for the bridge program in the first quarter to $15 million. What was the catalyst that had you lower that? And quite frankly, you introduced the concept of the $20 million to $30 million bridge at JPMorgan in the first week and then 35 days later or something like that, [ not so much ].

So it's not demand-driven. I wouldn't say it had anything to do with expectations around lower volume of demand going through the bridge, but really a function of the timing of the contracts being in a more favorable position 1 month prior -- or 1 month after the JPMorgan conference than we were in early January. So it's good news. And in terms of kind of pulling forward 1 of the key PBMs relative to our prior expectations to establish coverage and really minimize this window in which the bridge would be applied to that population.

And why [indiscernible]?

It's a good question. I think probably a function of demand that they were seeing, obviously, their base as well as your negotiations. We did not ask for a different price point with G7 despite this innovation that you guys can see upfront here on the table. We ask simply for the same G6 price generally. And so I think that was well received. We've been preparing them, knowing this product was on the way as well. And so we saw a little bit of favorability.

The G7 has a transmitter in it?

It does. Yes. It is built in. So all you do is you see the applicator that's on far right for me, far left for the audience, and you simply unscrew the cap, deploy it and then the transmitter is automatically built into the sensor with the push button, whereas with G6, it would deploy the sensor component, and then you have the durable transmitter you place on manually. So that's really -- we talk about simplifying, again, from G6 being certainly what we deem an easy product, but you start getting into the fringes of 1 or 2 simplification steps. That process of not having the manual deployment of the transmitter after the sensor is a nice step forward. And certainly, for people with any dexterity issues or the complications of just 2 steps versus that 1, it's a nice step for us.

Let's [indiscernible] a little bit more -- gets 1 step instead of 2. It's maybe less waste from an ESG perspective. Is that also a way to think about it?

Yes. So the applicator is significantly less waste. The product itself from a plastic utilization is about [ 50% ] less, and we can recycle all those applicators as well certainly internally. Next time you guys visit our headquarters, we have a table that shows the process of recycling that into reusable plastic and [indiscernible]. So...

But also with the transmitter on, is it less upfront cost for the patient or different reimbursement codes? Or how do I think about the economics?

Yes. So it's a great question. Generally, when we have been contracting really since the advent of [ CARE ] in the Medicare channel, reimbursement has largely been on a per member per month or per member per year basis. And so you're not necessarily pricing it by part and parcel with transmitter having separate economics as part of the overall value therapy that we provide. So really no difference in that perspective. That is from a doctor's perspective, you do generally have to have a separate process for sensor, transmitter and receiver. And so that would be a simplification of 1 process on that end, too.

Okay. So we're adding up all the benefits now for G7. Let's talk about COGS for you. One of the things I think that surprised investors when you gave 2023 gross margin guidance [indiscernible] that doesn't work right. And you clarified it on the fourth quarter call that the first quarter gross margin will start lower and ramp from there. How does think through -- what are the steps that allow you to ramp? And then does that become the jumping off pint to next year?

Yes. It's a great point. So Joanne's correct. So when we laid out the gross margin guidance, 62% to 63% is the 2023 guide. That is coming back off of 64.8% is where we closed last year. So a little bit -- certainly a step back, entirely related to the G7 dynamic of really initially manufacturing lower volumes, and therefore, less fixed overhead leverage there. So we're scaling very quickly. We talked about already being at manufacturing about 100,000 sensors per day on our call last month. That number is going up. And then what we have midyear is our Malaysia facility, which is the next big opportunity that we have to drive greater capacity, will come online, that becomes another advantage for us from a scaling perspective. So I think certainly, the first half of the year relative to where we plan to end this year, exiting the year much more closely approaching that mid-60s level that aligns to our LRP right now. So we're really tied to kind of that initial process of getting these G7 lines manufacturing and going.

Anything else you want to share about G7?

We're excited. We'll have a lot more to come over the course of this year, but we're excited. Our customers are excited. Just even having a great time touching base people here who are excited for it themselves.

G8?

G8. We haven't discussed a G8 yet, but I would say with the G7 platform that you see there from a hardware perspective, I think we feel like this form factor is compelling. And certainly, there's very -- I don't know if there's as much hardware iteration here. But certainly, what we have in the G7 side as well that you can't see right now is fully redefined software. And so we have the ability to iterate on that software platform very quickly, and we'll continue to do that to create differentiated experiences. So whether that's a G8 or G9 or some other products, I think we're talking about iteration and creating different experiences for different people with diabetes.

So it's so typical of the investors, sell side [indiscernible]. What's next? What else do you have? You just launched this.

Completely understand. We've been getting that question a lot. I think, one, that we have talked about, and certainly, we've talked about our ambitions to elongate the sensor duration, this is a 10-day sensor. Technically, it's 10.5 because we built in a 12-hour grace period to allow people to seamlessly transition their sensors at a time that's convenient. But moving that to a -- potentially a 15-day sensor duration would be -- really drive a lot of flexibility for us on the financial side. And as we look to maximize our growth opportunity and certainly become a much more globally present company, that's a nice lever that we have in the pipeline as well. So that's a key focus for our teams. Even as we're launching G7 is a wonderful product as is, we're certainly looking at ways that we can make it even better.

What's the price difference right now between the G7 and Libre?

So it always depends on the channel. I would say in the Medicare channel, Medicare has always reimbursed the category. So they are the same. In the pharmacy channel, in general, if we're talking costs to a patient. Overall, our coverage is such that we think our product is even less than theirs in the pharmacy channel. In terms of what we recognize from a revenue perspective from the payer, it is still a slight premium to Libre, and we think that has to do certainly with the health outcomes that we've generated as well as some of the premium features on the G series product. Outside the U.S., it depends a little bit on the country and the dynamics of reimbursement and what product we're looking at of G series versus Dexcom ONE and some other factors. So happy to dive into more of those as well if you think that would be helpful, but maybe I'll pause there, and that's kind of U.S-focused.

Okay. Well, we actually opened up the conversation I wanted to go to you anyway, which is international. And you're selling right now G6, G7, Dexcom ONE. And how you define -- in Germany, this product gets this or in the pharmacy this gets that. I mean how do you think about that metrics? And then I'm going to ask at the same time, how do you coordinate all of that because it's a lot?

Yes. No, it's a great question. It's funny because we often talk U.S., OUS, I mean it's a very simplified process. But as you guys are very familiar, OUS is not homogenous by any means. Every single country is very different in terms of even the evidence that they need to see or -- and kind of the dynamics of their reimbursement. So what we have created with our portfolio approach is really responding to what has already been created in many of these markets. So I'll start, for example, with the U.K. where they have tiered their reimbursement structure. So you have -- where we've historically competed with our G series product, limited to a subset of people with diabetes, generally people on pumps or children or people with hypoglycemia unawareness, but the broader population has a lower price point and really had been allocated primarily for our competitor. So we actually created a product that meets the needs at Dexcom ONE, slots into those existing reimbursement structures with a margin profile for us that's certainly neutral to accretive to our operating margin structure and think it's a really good growth opportunity for us. Italy, Spain market is very similar in terms of that bifurcation of reimbursement. And then you have market like the U.S. or Germany or, say, Japan, where recognizing the value of the complete system and the fact that we have outcomes tied to every feature in our G series device, they've opened up broader access just with the 1 tier product. And so there really isn't a need for a second product in those markets. So it really is the dynamics of the individual country and their health systems that we've created a portfolio to meet those needs and slot into existing structures.

So with -- do you continue to sell all 3 or at some stage does the G6 go away? You have G7 or [indiscernible] Dexcom ONE on a G7 [ booking ]?

Yes. So let me break that into -- to your first question, think of it -- to simplify it a little bit more, think of it as 2 products, more G series and Dexcom ONE. So we expect our existing G6 users to transition over to the G7 platform. Many of those will happen very quickly. The others will likely happen certainly for our AID users as our pump partners establish integration with G7 instead of G6. Most of those users who are on the integrated G6 systems, obviously, will want to wait so they can get their pump functionality at that time. Then in terms of -- the latter question, Joanne, was on Dexcom ONE on the G7 form factor. That for us -- once we have that G6 transition to G7 predominant, I think we will certainly want to move Dexcom ONE to the G7 form factor as quickly as possible, mostly to maximize the economies of scale from a manufacturing perspective and get those volumes up.

Manufacturing now, new manufacturing...

We have -- we do in -- still in San Diego and Mesa, so our U.S.-based manufacturing footprint. The new manufacturing that Joanne is referencing is really our Malaysia facility, which will be our largest facility, really our opportunity to scale G7 production really to the next level. And that facility is built. We have equipment there for lines already. It will be midyear when we start producing commercially viable products.

And that will lay out gross margins or...

It's part of what we've contemplated in the guide, initially right out the gate. Certainly, if you turn those lines on, they'll grow in their efficiency, but it will enable us to get to scale much faster so that we're at that point, exiting the year that we feel like a much more sustainable [indiscernible].

So usually, [indiscernible] So usually, when companies open a manufacturing facility outside United States, they also start selling product in that region. So how do we think about Malaysia opening or your OUS market opportunity?

Yes. It's a good question. So I think for us, given the scale of what we can build in Malaysia, we do plan on servicing more than just, say, the Asia Pacific region, where, frankly, our footprint right now is still relatively small but building. I think we saw even in the past week announcement going into Singapore. And we've established a regional hub in Singapore for our General Manager of the region. So we're still relatively early in our kind of global growth in the Asia Pacific region. But I think certainly, leveraging the product portfolio approach, some of these markets, probably opportunities for Dexcom ONE, some to the G series building from our existing footprint where we're largely focused in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and then starting to bring in much more of the Asia Pacific region, specifically. We have a lot of growth focus there. But Malaysia will serve more than just Asia Pacific region there.

Okay. And I assume served more than Singapore.

Yes. Yes. That's...

So are you in a position you can share how you think about branching out to the Asia Pacific...

Yes. I mean I think you've already seen it a little bit. So let's go back for the last couple of years in terms of where we progress. Australia and New Zealand, we bought our distributor back in -- that was 2021, right around the August time frame. So we've talked strategically as we kind of build out our global commercial infrastructure. One of the ways we can do that is we start in a market with a distributor, and then over time, we shift to direct, often acquiring those distributors. So we did that in Australia and New Zealand, have had great success, a great team there now, Team Dexcom but -- in the region. And we did all that during a pandemic. So we finally got to meet many of them last year, which was fun. In Japan, we've launched the broad coverage open with the recent approval there all the way through basal coverage, and we have a partnership with Terumo as our distributor end market, very early-stage CGM market there. Where we have an opportunity, we hope to do something great over the next several years. South Korea as well, some decent funding on the CGM side, and we have a distributor there working with us. So there's opportunities, I think, in the region as we look and think about broadening through more distributors, potentially converting some more markets to direct and even thinking about additional markets where we're not at now, not only obvious ones, obviously, people ask about China, ask about others in the region, but several Malaysia, Philippines, others that we can look at. It's a broader footprint base.

But are those more distributors? Or are they more -- are you hiring -- is that your SG&A line expansion? How do...

Not at this point. So there's ways -- we have to think of commercially, we look at each market. And in some cases, if a distributor can bring to us market knowledge, even knowledge on the local regulatory process, things of that nature, we will look at a distributor as a viable option. We can build out a direct footprint if we need to. I would say the returns on that -- obviously, you have to look at the individual marketplace and tie it in with kind of where are you at in CGM access in the market, things of that nature. We also started in several markets with Dexcom ONE. We've established an e-commerce platform. So the Eastern European countries that we launched that in, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, we sold via e-commerce only. We didn't have an on-site field team, for example, really selling that. So thinking creatively around how we can leverage several different opportunities to take advantage of this really inflection in global CGM demand and maximize the timing in terms of building out that commercial footprint.

So today, if you have -- I'm making up numbers, but I just expect I'm in the ballpark, 85% of the sales are G6, 15% is Dexcom ONE, and G7 [indiscernible]?

You're probably in the right ballpark.

In the right ballpark?

Yes. Maybe -- Dexcom ONE is still early, maybe a little less than this.

A little less than 15%. Okay. On a global basis, you picked the time frame, how does that shift?

Yes. That's a great question. I will say directionally from that footprint, Dexcom ONE will be -- we've already talked about this year, the contribution from a new patient perspective, OUS, 1/3 of new patients are expected to be Dexcom ONE. So naturally, relative to what Joanne just laid out and the fact that historically, we've been kind of a G series focused company with 1 product, that mix is going to go up. G7, obviously, will take over the majority of that G6 demand relatively quickly, although you have some markets that sometimes can be a little slower. So G6 will still be around in certain regions. But overall, we've said that OUS, 1/3; Dexcom ONE, 2/3; G series this year is an interesting barometer. And over time, we'll evaluate it to see if that mix shifts as we add more countries.

Okay. But I mean 3, 4, 5 years [indiscernible] time line, are we 50-50?

Potentially. Yes. I think it depends on some of the markets that are still in evaluation phase and how we approach them. So I would say, absolutely, there's potential, but wait and see.

From a financial standpoint, [indiscernible]?

Like I said, with Dexcom ONE, the way we approached it was, as we slotted into these existing reimbursement structures, is we wanted a product that was going to be accelerate growth. So keep in mind, in a lot of these regions, we did not have an opportunity to even be considered for some of these populations based on the tiered reimbursement. So this is incremental to us. So it's a growth opportunity. And then we wanted to ensure that whatever markets we serve with Dexcom ONE was going to be operating margin-accretive, neutral to accretive to where we're at now. So from that perspective, I think that gives us -- we're essentially ambivalent, although it's ultimately about the needs of the patient and the needs of the market that we're serving.

Did you want to ask something?

Yes, I'm going to ask a manufacturing question. I'm just curious -- I mean, obviously, as you ramp up, what's your mix of in-sourced components versus [indiscernible] obviously ramping up as quickly as you hope to be, are there components you're thinking offering in-house or vice versa or something that you might be taking outside of your manufacturing to third parties...

Sure. And that's a great question. So currently, the majority of kind of final assembly and anything having to do with the sensor itself, which is kind of core to our technology, core to our intellectual property, is handled in-house. I don't foresee any change to that anytime soon. We do leverage contract manufacturers for certain components that are even in the manufacturing process, certain elements that we found contract manufacturers to do things incredibly efficient. And it's been 1 of the helpful areas for us to drive savings on the COGS line and certainly having a diverse base on that side. So it's a little bit of a mixed answer, but there's elements that I would say are certainly not in focus for potential outsourcing and things -- I think we've kind of optimized the areas that we do have less proprietary opportunity to do that and generate good cost savings.

When you think about [indiscernible] integration, obviously, the G series, as we'll call it, is the static choice. That may not always be [indiscernible]. In fact, I don't think it will [indiscernible]. How do you think about the market -- the AID market evolving [indiscernible] compared with other [indiscernible] call it Libre?

Yes. So I think we do feel like Dexcom has established itself, and our reputation as being really the premium sensor and one that can be relied upon through where we're at almost 4 years now of AID systems. If you go back to Basal-IQ with Tandem and really things that are automated. So I think we feel like we are truly a leader in the AID field and really a central component in the connected development that's happened both on the pump side and the pen side. If the question then is, as you envision greater competition on the sensor side, how do we think about this market? And how do we continue to evolve and build out our own presence? I think for us, it really goes back to the customer, and I'll frame the customers, but the user of these devices as well as doctors like [ Dr. Pajvani ] who is in here earlier, right? It's about the experience we provide to them. And I would lean on those years of experience and say, we have given users of the systems and doctors who prescribe them zero reason to introduce incremental risk because with a new system where they haven't seen the outcomes. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We provided years of great outcomes. And I would just say, I don't know if we should assume that -- because our sensor is different than others that you would necessarily get the same outcome. So I think -- and then we'll continue to iterate around that customer experience, make sure -- iterate on our algorithm and think of ways that we can continue to develop there. We talked about that at ATTD a little bit last week, some ongoing research that our team is doing. So I think there's ways certainly that we can continue to evolve, but it's a really exciting time in the industry when you think of the patients that are benefiting from these systems and really the outcomes that we're seeing that only stand to get better as we can really minimize interaction with these systems to -- you hear about diabetes distress. And if we can just make somebody's life a lot easier with more automation and greater tools, it's going to be that much better.

So I have 2 questions. One is [indiscernible] which means does the CGM choose the pump or does the pump choose the CGM?

I would say -- it's a great question. I think -- and I want to speak with incredible respect from -- for our pump partners who, I think, have developed incredible systems. Obviously, I think, as a representative of a CGM company, I'm probably going to lean toward the latter. And I think that -- I think market research validates that, though. I think rather consistently when you look at certainly, our partners and great systems they've developed. I think you hear about Dexcom integration is a common theme that you hear. And so again, with great respect for our partners, they do incredible things. They've differentiated themselves from other pumps on the market as well. But I think our sensor is a key point of differentiation that has led to certainly helping those pump partners as well.

And for those who weren't at ATTD last week, what are you referring to that was particularly interesting?

Yes. So we have to go back to 2018 for this question. So come with me on a history journey. So in 2018, Dexcom purchased a small company out of Charlottesville, Virginia, TypeZero. The thesis of this acquisition, TypeZero is an algorithm company, responsible for the in-control algorithm that is a part of Tandem's control IQ system. TypeZero, we still have those algorithm scientists. They're among the best in the world. And what we're thinking of is really around that principle of user experience and how do we simplify further and how do we as a company -- again, our strategy here was always to have an algorithm that we could offer to our partners to expedite the process of development for AID systems, for example, and other ways that we can develop tools around algorithms. So what we present at ATTD last week was really some very early-stage discussion around us looking at a system that really requires no user input into the system, so toward more of the vision of a fully closed-loop opportunity, showed some preliminary outcomes around the testing of that system, really a nice time and range uplift while also decreasing risk in the hypoglycemia and -- excitedly in the hyperglycemia risk, too. So really a step -- potentially a step forward. A lot of work to do, though, Joanne, but just showing our interest in really developing simplified solutions even beyond where we're at on the AID side and things that can help hopefully be assets for partners in the future.

And this reminds me of 2 year -- 2 analyst meetings ago, I'm losing track of time -- where the possibility to use a CGM and G series for things like [indiscernible] that sort of quieted down. Is now the time to think about using that technology for those other metrics?

Yes. It's a good question. I think it's something we continue to look at. The question that we always come back to that Kevin will drill into our brands is what problem are we trying to solve? And so are we doing something like that simply as a marketing point? Or are we trying to settle legitimate unmet health need? And for us, I think 1 of the reasons, obviously, that you haven't heard too much discussion from us is that we got our hands full of glucose, which is a massive global problem that we are really trying to build controlled solutions around. But you're right that a lot of those other analytes do have pretty significant potential health benefits. And so there are things that we are looking at. Again, I think this is a more to come type of development. We obviously are -- we have teams dedicated to it but are kind of operating fairly under the radar at this point.

Okay. So maybe.

Maybe. Sure.

One of the things that sort of was -- I don't want to use the word [indiscernible], but I'm going to say, stuck in there with the G7 approval. Was it also a [indiscernible]?

Yes.

Do you want to talk about that market opportunity? And I don't think it was something, at least I realized that was going to be part of this supposed to be separate like a hospital application separate...

Yes. So I think we had an opportunity. Obviously, we had some data, and the FDA was open to it. I think just to -- for everyone who's unaware, so with our G7 approval, prior to that with G6, there had been a contraindication for use of the sensor during pregnancy, not really because of any specific concerns, but simply because there wasn't really a trial run with data on it. And so we had done some work certainly on the clinical side, and the FDA was comfortable with that with G7. So we are the only iCGM that is indicated for women who are pregnant, which is great news. Gestational diabetes, the next step then is obviously building out reimbursement for it and making the case to the payers. And so we do have several clinical trials that are planned -- that will be over the course of certainly this year and next, that will be tied to that effort. And there will be key trials needed to really show the difference in outcomes for women -- women and babies, both in terms of healthy pregnancies and healthy deliveries. So we think there's a really good option here. I mean the current standard of care is finger sticking. And so adding to a really challenging and potentially not very helpful clinical recommendation to already burdensome and stressful time in somebody's life, I think we really have an opportunity here to do something better.

So revenue starts to ramp up [indiscernible] this application?

I think we need to wait until we have the coverage to be more clear there. So I think we'll want to see the readout trials and get back to you on that. But I would say it wasn't factored really into our 2025 LRP. So if it's in that window, that would be upside to where we're at.

You have analyst meeting coming up. [indiscernible]

Yes. So we're a little far away to give too much at that point. So just for everyone's awareness, so ADA is in San Diego this year. And so San Diego, obviously, our hometown. And so rather than doing an investor update last December, which would have been kind of our biannual cycle, we just said everybody will probably be in San Diego at that time anyways. And so an opportunity for us to connect and really lead into the conference. So I think more to comment exactly what the plan is other than, hopefully, a nice connector into -- and leading into the ADA conference, an opportunity to showcase really our efforts in the community of San Diego and our presence there.

Maybe an update on outlook?

Potentially. I don't know if that would be a full update or kind of progress. We're about halfway into our current LRP. But certainly, Jereme will present.

Okay. I had to ask this question. Sorry in advance. [ It hit stock last week a watch ]. Why should I not be worried about it? Why should I be worried about it?

Yes. That's a great question. So Joanne is referencing a Bloomberg article, many of you probably saw. Look, I think iterations of that same article have been written about every year for the past probably 6 to 7 years. And certainly, like, nobody should be surprised. Big tech is interested in the possibility of glucose monitoring. Keep in mind, we partnered with Google on our G7 device. So I don't think anybody is surprised, except maybe the Bloomberg author. In terms of why not to be surprised, I think historically, there's a couple of things that are challenging with the method. One is miniaturization and the other is consistency across the population, navigating the fact that we're all very different. So I would just say the pursuit of noninvasive glucose monitoring is a multi-decade effort that we haven't seen this really solved to this point. I think the other thing I would just want to maybe clarify is a little bit of a misconception that we still hear pretty frequently, which is as you get outside of insulin use that somehow glucose accuracy and monitoring is less important. We feel almost the exact opposite of that because the fact is that as you get outside of insulin or you get even outside of diabetes, glucose variability is much less. And so you're operating in tighter windows, and greater inaccuracy or greater variability actually would cause a lot of either false distress or false complacency. So if you go back even to our Investor Day in 2020 with Peter Attia, he said as he thought of the use of CGM and his health and wellness and longevity clinic, he really emphasized the importance of accuracy utilizing our product there. So I think that's a little of a misconception that we fundamentally keep hearing and just think differently about.

So when we're together in the year, what do you think we're going to be talking about?

I think in a year, we are going to be talking about the ongoing rollout of G7. I think we'll continue to be talking about greater clinical acceptance and access and awareness for CGM than we even see today. Obviously, the basal news this year is a great one, and I think we'll be talking about our success in rolling out into that population. And then back to your question, Joanne, on what's next, I think we'll be thinking about that, not only from a product perspective, but how do we increase access for these devices for incrementally more people than just basal? And so there's a lot that we can talk about, and I have no doubt we'll have no shortage of information at that point.

Excellent. Sean, Matt, thank you so much for joining us.

Sure. Thank you.