管理層發言
Good morning, and welcome to the Lucid Diagnostics First Quarter 2026 Business Update Conference Call. Please note that this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Matt Reilly, Lucid Diagnostics Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for participating in today's business update call. Joining me today on the call are Dr. Lishan Aklog, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucid Diagnostics; along with Dennis McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of Lucid Diagnostics. The press release announcing our business update and financial results is available on Lucid's website. Please take a moment to read the disclaimers and forward-looking statements in the press release. The business update press release and the conference call all include forward-looking statements, and these forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from statements made. Factors that could cause actual results to differ are described in the disclaimer and in our filings with the SEC. For a list and description of these and other important risks and uncertainties that may affect future operations, see Part 1, Item 1A entitled Risk Factors in Lucid's most recent annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC and any subsequent updates filed in the quarterly reports on Forms 10-Q and subsequent Forms 8-K. Except as required by law, Lucid disclaims any intentions or obligations to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect changes in expectations or in events, conditions or circumstances on which the expectations may be based or that may affect the likelihood that actual results would differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. I would now like to turn the call over to Dr. Lishan Aklog, Chairman and CEO of Lucid Diagnostics.
Thank you, Matt, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today and for your continued engagement and support. Let's begin with some key highlights from the first quarter and recently. We performed 3,177 EsoGuard tests in the first quarter of this year and generated revenue of $1.3 million. The revenue was down slightly, but proportional to volume, which received a bit but remained above our target range of 2,500 to 3,000 tests and preserved our average sale price. We also importantly strengthened our balance sheet with an underwritten public offering of common stock that had approximately $16.8 million in proceeds. This significantly bolstered our balance sheet, as Dennis will describe in more detail, to approximately $45 million in pro forma cash at the end of Q1. This extends our runway well into 2027, where we're encouraged by the participation of long-term institutional investors exhibiting confidence in our strategic opportunities. This also mitigated the financing overhang and provides us with the resources that we'll need to accelerate commercial efforts after we receive Medicare approval. At each of these individual test patients to endoscopy, those outcomes of this will be peer-reviewed publications that demonstrate the health care economic value of EsoGuard. So overall, in summary, a lot's going on, particularly on the market access and the commercial side. Obviously, all focus is on Medicare, and we acknowledge the joint frustration of some of the delays within the Medicare LCD process. Overall, we believe this is really at the end of the day, systematic, and we continue to have our confidence that this is the near-term result really hasn't wavered at all. But as we've discussed before, we're not idle as we're awaiting Medicare. The commercial team continues to drive its activities to drive patients and to increase the proportion of our patients that are Medicare. The VA activities are really off to a good start, strong engagements with our early targets of the VA centers, and we hope to be starting testing and generating revenue from that in the very near future. And in addition, as I already outlined, lots of activity that allows us to aggressively build the infrastructure necessary to accelerate our health care system adoption, EHR, coding, health care economics and such, and our direct engagements with multiple health systems across the country continues to accelerate, and we think will accelerate further once we secure Medicare coverage. So with that, I'll let Dennis take over and provide an update on our financials. EGD only upon a positive EsoGuard test is very attractive to both the clinical team as well as the centers as a whole. And many VAs operate rural satellite VAs that are quite removed from the main centers and EsoGuard is a very attractive option to avoid patients having to travel for EGD if they have a negative EsoGuard test. So overall, lots of activity here. We're seeing progress. We really look forward to further engagement across the entire VA system. GI meeting, major annual meeting of gastroenterologists under the auspices of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), we had multiple abstracts in the near term following the successful public meeting that was held in September of last year. We continue to have ongoing engagement with leadership and other folks who are engaged in this space, and there clearly remain logistical delays with regard to putting out local coverage determinations, and we have expectations that will pick up in the near future and statements in the press release. The business update press release and the conference call all include forward-looking statements, and these forward-looking statements are subject to...
Good morning, everyone. Obviously, we had a glitch in the prerecorded prepared remarks, but the transition was at the appropriate time. So I'll pick up from there. The summary financial results for the first quarter were reported in our press release that has been distributed. On the next three slides, I'll emphasize a few key financial highlights from the first quarter. I'd encourage you to consider these remarks in the context of the full disclosures covered in our quarterly report on Form 10-Q. With regard to the balance sheet, cash at quarter end March 31 was $27.9 million. On a pro forma basis, including the recent April 24 financing, pro forma cash equals $44.8 million. The average burn rate for the last four quarters including cash interest on the debt was $11.3 million per quarter with the first quarter a bit higher at $12.1 million as we made investments in our commercial teams, including sales, clinical services and market access. You'll recall at the end of 2024, we refinanced our convertible debt into a $22 million five-year note, interest only at 12% with a $1 conversion price, which is held by long-term shareholders. The fair value of the convertible notes in the amount of $25.2 million at quarter end is really the only other substantive change from the previously reported balances at the end of the fourth quarter. The fair value increase of $1.2 million in the quarter reflects a mark-to-market quarterly adjustment in parallel with the common stock price changes between the periods. The fair value increase is also a substantial part of the first quarter expense charge of $1.9 million reflected in other income in the P&L. Shares outstanding, including unvested restricted stock awards and conversion of the remainder of the preferred shares as of last week are approximately 203 million. After the conversion of the preferred Series B1 on May 6, there are approximately 22.3 million common shares held in advance due to the 4.99% ownership blockers in the Series B and B1 certificate of designation. If these advance shares had been issued, common shares outstanding would be around 225 million. The GAAP outstanding shares as of March 31 of 164.9 million are reflected on the slide as well as on the face of the balance sheet in the 10-Q. GAAP shares do not reflect unvested RSA amounts, and there are no longer any preferred shares outstanding. At present, PAVmed continues to be the single largest common shareholder of Lucid Diagnostics with ownership of approximately 15% of the common shares outstanding. Although PAVmed no longer has voting control of Lucid, PAVmed together with the Board and management still have considerable influence over Lucid with approximately 25% voting interest. Next slide. With regards to the P&L, this slide compares this year's first quarter to last year's first quarter. I trust you'll review the information in my comments in light of the cautionary disclosure at the bottom of the slide about supplemental information, particularly non-GAAP information. Our sales team sold almost 3,200 tests, 3,177 to be exact for the first quarter with a billable value over $8.7 million, resulting in recognized revenue of $1.3 million. The test volume for the quarter is above the upper end of the range that we've been targeting in this pre-Medicare time period. The fourth quarter sequential comparative period of 3,664 tests had an unusually high number of one-time firefighter testing events towards the end of the period, which pushed last quarter's target range well above the norm. With new investors once again joining us for this call, it's worth repeating what we've communicated in the past quarters about revenue recognition. A key determinant of how revenue is recognized at this point in the reimbursement journey is the probability of collection. Therefore, due to the fact that we are in these transitional stages of our reimbursement process, revenue recognition for the majority of our claims submitted to traditional government or private health insurers will be recognized when the claim is actually collected versus when the patient report is delivered, invoiced and submitted for reimbursement. As you'll see in our 10-Q, this is called variable consideration under GAAP ASC 606 revenue recognition guidelines. Presently, there is insufficient predictive data to reflect revenue from all of our quarterly test volume at the point where the test report is delivered to the referring physician. For billable amounts contracted directly with employers, including the VA, and that are fixed and determinable, revenue will be recognized as revenue when our contracted service is delivered. Generally, that means when the report is delivered to the referring physician. It is important to note that a pending Medicare approval decision impacts 40% to 50% of our addressable patient population and therefore will have a significant impact on our future revenue recognition analysis. Furthermore, for tests performed on Medicare patients with dates of service within 12 months of the final Medicare policy, those tests will also get paid within a reasonable time frame after the policy is issued. With regard to the remainder of the P&L, the first quarter's total OpEx on both a GAAP and a non-GAAP basis is generally flat year-over-year, but as expected, there will be increases in sales team costs, which are substantially offset by decreases in G&A expenses. The sequential decrease in total OpEx expense from the fourth quarter of about $2 million is mostly in G&A costs and one-time expenses in last quarter. The non-GAAP net loss per share of $0.07 in the first quarter is better by about $0.03 versus each of the previous three quarters. Next slide. With regard to the operating expenses, this slide is a graphic illustration of the operating expenses after eliminating noncash expenses for the periods reflected. Non-GAAP operating expenses of $11.7 million are basically in line with the average non-GAAP OpEx for the previous five quarters, $11.7 million versus an average of $12 million. Let me close with a few reimbursement highlights for the first quarter. In the first quarter, we sold almost 3,200 tests, reflecting about just under $9 million in pro forma revenue at our list price of $27.49. During the first quarter, we recognized revenue of about 14% of that, another $1.3 million. Recognized revenue included about 72% from insurance claims submitted in prior quarters, the longest dated item almost two years ago. Of the claims submitted in the first quarter, about 77% have been adjudicated, 23% are pending. And out of that 77% that have been adjudicated, about 31% resulted in an allowable amount by the insurance company with an average of $1,646 per test, which bumps up against the Medicare rate. Of those denied, most fit into one of three buckets: deemed not medically necessary or investigational, require prior authorization or require additional medical records. The balance are deemed to be noncovered. So with that, operator, let's open it up for questions.
分析師問答
Your first question comes from Mark with BTIG.
I figured I would start with a reimbursement question. Just curious if you would love just an update as far as what you might be hearing from MolDX. As someone who covers the industry, it was nice to see Medicare coverage decision come into the space yesterday. So we know that they're still open for business. But can you just give us a sense for what you're hearing, maybe any back and forth? Would love to hear any color on that topic.
Thanks, Mark. So we do continue to have ongoing dialogue with leadership. There is no sort of concrete or specific information with regard to where things stand, but we remain confident based on the results of the CAC meeting, and we've had follow-up conversations with regard to the CAC meeting that this remains a logistical issue with regards to delays more broadly with LCDs coming through as you sort of hinted. I believe the LCD you're referring to is the Novitas LCD that published recently. But our conversations with them as well as with others who are knowledgeable and follow the space, there is a sense, I think, which is what you're hinting at that some of the backlog with LCDs is likely to start clearing in the near term. But just to be very, very clear about the fact that nothing in our conversations has raised any concerns with regard to the substantive nature of our expectations with regard to the likelihood of the draft coming out in a positive direction. And all of that confidence is anchored in the substance of the CAC meeting, which as we all know, is a public record of commentary that's very important in this process by physician experts across the country. So we continue to view this as a logistical delay and one that we still are highly confident will result in a positive outcome in the near future.
Okay. Perfect. It was nice to hear you talk about the VA activities being off to a good start. Can you give us a sense, since there are a lot of VA systems, of what types of dialogues you're having at the national level versus the local level? And can you speak to EHR integration? I think sometimes VAs have separate systems; can you give us an update on whether they are starting to unify their systems integration?
Yes. Great question. Let me walk through systematically how the VA works, particularly as it relates to molecular diagnostics like ours. As we noted in our previous announcement, we are now on the federal supply schedule. The contracted payment rate under that schedule is the Medicare rate of $1,938. There are a couple hundred VA centers across the country, and being on the FSS gives our team the opportunity to engage with individual centers. Generally, engagement with the VA starts on a center-by-center basis. Our team has a very deep pipeline and has done extensive outreach to VA systems nationwide. As I mentioned on our last call, our internal process includes our entire sales team generating leads and making connections with clinical champions in their regions. We have also centralized efforts with two senior members focused nationally in a strategic accounts role with individual VAs. Those conversations and engagements are going very well. The pipeline is robust, and several centers are working through the process. Ultimately, the way this works is you generate a purchase order for a number of tests and then work out logistics with the clinical team at the center for the cell collection. We have received our first PO, which is great, and we look forward to beginning testing at our first target, with many more opportunities in the pipeline. VAs operate within the overall federal budget, and each has its own budget, so when we work with them we need to do so within those constraints. Between now and the end of the federal fiscal year, our opportunity is to generate POs that are off budget. In parallel, we are having conversations to be included in the full budget for the next fiscal year. The federal fiscal year starts on October 1. Overall engagement has been very positive. Discussions with clinical champions have been excellent. There are unique aspects of the VA that enhance our ability to engage clinicians. The VA population tends to be higher risk for these conditions and is often resource constrained with regard to the number of EGDs. The clinical utility and economic value of EsoGuard as a triage test to avoid more expensive and invasive endoscopic procedures is a very attractive value proposition. Many VAs operate rural centers that are remote from the main facility, which is another clear opportunity for a noninvasive test to prevent patients from having to travel long distances. VAs are also often partnered with academic medical centers, so many of the same physicians we are in discussions with at those health systems also partner with or operate at the VA. That has been a useful aspect of these relationships and will help us within the broader health system as well. Integration with the VA is not a major hurdle. While there is work to integrate systems, in individual health systems it is much less of a factor than it is outside the VA system in our traditional commercial engagements. Happy to talk more about that.
Okay. That makes perfect sense. One last question for me. I believe you are coming up on your 1-year anniversary of signing Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield a year ago. And so in recent calls, you've had some really nice commentary about dialogue you're having with commercial payers. Can you just give us a sense for what that dialogue has been like the last number of weeks or so. I'd be curious if some of these commercial payers might be perhaps waiting for CMS to move first? Or do you think that you could sign some even without CMS?
Yes. So that actually has been our stance. And frankly, our position and our expectation was that really for us to get any meaningful traction within the commercial realm that we would have to wait for Medicare. And there certainly are a subset and maybe even the majority of payers where that is, we would need that as a catalyst or accelerant to advance our conversations and secure coverage. However, as we sort of introduced previously, that hasn't been the case for others. So one very interesting and potentially productive pathway that we are pursuing is engaging with certain payers who have published on their own EGD endoscopy policies that explicitly reference EsoGuard as an appropriate triage test that drives the indication for endoscopy. And so that activity, which we highlighted in the last couple of calls, is very active. There's a whole process that you go through. This is separate from the laboratory benefit manager process, which I'll touch on in a second. But that activity involves credentialing as well as engaging in contracting. And those are processes that we are actively pursuing with the payers that have published coverage policies that include EsoGuard as a triage test for endoscopy. With regard to the laboratory benefit manager side of things, again, as we've talked about before, we continue to have positive engagements with laboratory benefit managers, and as we previewed last time, and we'll reiterate today, we have secured our first coverage policy with a laboratory benefit manager. It is not public yet, but it will be public in the next couple of weeks. And we expect after that's public that plans under that LBM will also publish their own positive coverage policies. And again, I think I mentioned this last time, we've had very good conversations with one of the largest LBMs on a pathway forward for coverage.
Your next question comes from Kyle with Canaccord.
So I wanted to start where we typically start and ask about the percentage of claims represented by the Medicare segment. We think the portion of the test you report that is Medicare has been increasing but is still probably below 20% of total claims. Where does that stand now? And when you consider efforts to increase the sales team with more Medicare-focused reps, or to train or incentivize them to grow that segment of the market, how has that progressed, especially in light of the hopefully increased mix?
So, Kyle, the group I'll call the government group, which is predominantly Medicare and Medicare Advantage, was 13% in the first quarter. As you recall, in the fourth quarter it was around 15%. That 2% delta is about 60 tests. The compensation plans for the sales team, and Lishan will expand upon this, are focused predominantly on the revenue-generating components of the target population, namely contracted revenue as well as Medicare and VA. That's where their focus is for generating test volume. So we're in that transition phase.
Yes. As it relates to allocating resources, we've stated on several occasions our commitment to not add resources and not meaningfully increase our OpEx. Our team is balancing between a target of maintaining our test volume and slightly exceeding it, which is most efficiently done through increasingly contracted health care events, while positioning ourselves so that once we get Medicare we can aggressively drive up that percentage. So on a quarter-to-quarter basis until we get Medicare, we're not expecting that number to rise dramatically because the team is focused, with the same level of resources, on maintaining our overall test line.
Okay. That's interesting. That's good color, guys. Dennis, you provided a bunch of numbers and you do this every quarter around the percentage of claims you're recognizing as revenue, the percentage that's adjudicated and actually paid, and what the ASP is. How have some of those metrics changed over time? I don't have all that in front of me. I'm just curious — to the earlier point, are non-Medicare payers getting more comfortable with this product, or are they mostly waiting, and is that waiting causing payments to take longer than may have been communicated? If that makes sense, could you give a snapshot of how that's progressed?
Yes, it's still pretty volatile, and it's difficult to make sense on those that don't have a specific program or don't have consistency in payment. And the first quarter certainly clouds or increases that volatility because you have an increased amount of deductibles and co-pays where patient burden in the first quarter is heavier than it would be in the balance of the year, which influences what we get paid from some of those insurers. So even where we see some pluses and minuses in the first quarter versus, say, the third or fourth quarter, we still have to rely upon cash collection for the revenue recognition. And there is really not a sufficient pattern to give you an adequate answer to your question yet that those patterns are still developing.
Okay, fair enough. Finally, we see R&D spending each quarter has been fairly consistent at $1 million to $2 million. Are you still doing or considering generating clinical evidence, either in a worst-case MolDX scenario, which you indicated doesn't seem likely, or to pursue FDA approval or otherwise enhance acceptance? I'm curious whether that line item could expand over time.
Yes. I'm glad you highlighted that; the answer is a definite yes. I want to emphasize that our commitment to ongoing data generation and clinical evidence is not tied to our belief that we have sufficient evidence to secure the LCD. We are a data-driven company and firmly believe in continually expanding our clinical evidence. There is a lot of activity that doesn't get much attention because everyone is focused on reimbursement. There are ongoing clinical studies, institutional clinical studies, and an active NIH study right now. We have a registry and have been collecting real-world evidence. It would be a long conversation, but now that the courts have vacated the FDA LDT rule, there is an interesting dynamic regarding the advantages of engaging with the FDA for single laboratory tests. We are aware of those considerations and are crafting our longer-term strategies as that landscape settles. Our longer-term goals for generating clinical evidence are fundamentally informed by this.
Great. And if I could just add on to that briefly. Years ago, I think your team's intention was to scale this test, the collection device and the test internationally and globally. They're both CE marked in Europe, obviously. So would you, I mean, how much additional clinical evidence would be needed for some kind of international expansion or a decentralized, distributed model with a partner? Is that part of the formula as you look over the medium to long term?
So maybe we could separate the clinical evidence question from the international market question. Clinical evidence is not a limiting factor for us to potentially expand internationally. We looked from day one at opportunities internationally, including Europe. As you noted, we obtained CE Mark right off the bat. The challenge is the U.S. is obviously the largest market opportunity where we remain a small company with limited resources, so we would expect to focus our resources in the near term. Europe is a very difficult market for screening tests because of the overall economics of their socialized health system, and when we looked at this in the past it simply has not made sense. I believe many of the larger companies have more limited traction in Europe in molecular diagnostics. That said, we regularly receive inbound inquiries from commercial entities in various outside-the-U.S. countries about partnering opportunities. We've had interest from Canada, South America and the U.K., and we engage in those conversations and explore whether, given our limited resources, we could operate in those markets with the help of a local partner. None of those have really come to fruition or made sense from an overall business strategy point of view, but it's something we're open to. Those activities are really related to the local economic dynamics in these regions and countries and do not inform our clinical evidence plan, which is really related to our U.S. activities.
Your next question comes from Mike with Needham.
I guess just the DDW presence that you guys had, can you maybe comment on kind of interest level you're seeing from physicians, any kind of feedback, et cetera?
Yes. Thanks, Mike. I'm just checking a little bit here. Thanks for bringing that up because that was the portion of our prerecorded remarks, so I'm happy to have the opportunity to fill that in. DDW went great. For those on the call who are not aware, DDW is the largest gastroenterology meeting in the country, one of the two or three major ones in the U.S. We had a very strong presence there from both our commercial and clinical teams, with lots of engagement with clinicians. It was frankly our best conference ever. There is a lot of generalized increased attention and buzz around esophageal precancer screening, and Barrett's esophagus in particular, and we very much benefited from that in our engagements, which were very positive. We had a significant academic presence. Multiple abstracts related to EsoGuard were very well received. One of the highlights was that the American Gastroenterological Association presented a preview of an upcoming draft of their updated clinical practice guidelines for Barrett's esophagus. In this preview they highlighted individual non-endoscopic tests, including EsoGuard and EsoCheck by name, and evaluated the clinical evidence for accuracy and the certainty of that evidence. EsoGuard and EsoCheck were presented as having high certainty of evidence; they were the only ones rated that highly, while other potential future modalities were rated lower. This is a draft preview, but it generated a lot of excitement and buzz. Guidelines are a very important driver, especially with commercial payers, and having this finalized in this form will be a real positive.
Okay. Great. And then just a few financial questions. So I guess, Dennis, the share count, what should we be modeling? I think you said post offering, it's $203 million, but there's $22 million in advance. I'm not sure if we should be including that in our share count or not for now.
Yes. The 203 million is the number you should model your EPS on. The remaining 22 million is the number that will be issued once the holders' 4.99% limitation is lowered either by distributing it to their members or if the share count goes up. So I think 203 million for the time being is probably the right number. But in the future, that additional 22 million that they're owed to those investors will be issued. These are long-term shareholders. So it may be a while before they get issued. But nonetheless, they're out there, but $203 million is probably the right number to use for your EPS modeling.
All right. And then the quarterly cash burn rate, given that you did raise some additional capital and you're getting closer to the Medicare coverage, is there any potential that that would go up? Or are you expecting to kind of hold it around recent levels?
I think the burn rate at where it is right now is probably the level it will stay. Yes, we will be making additional investments. We do think some of that cost, if not all of that cost will be offset by revenue opportunity, either collections or increased volume as we move forward with an improved reimbursement landscape.
Your next question comes from Jeremy with Maxim.
Just related to the VA, I think I inferred, correct me if I'm wrong, that in the first quarter there was no contribution to either volume or revenue from the VA opportunity under that contract?
Yes. The first quarter, you remember the announcement was in late January, and the first quarter was focused on pipeline metrics and building a pipeline, converting engagement into purchase orders. So you'll see more of that as the year unfolds, but that's correct in the first quarter.
Okay. Understood. And just to confirm, the reimbursement from the VA contract is completely separate from Medicare, right? You'll receive the $1,938 rate for the test and will be reimbursed through the VA system regardless of when you receive the CMS reimbursement. So you can go full steam ahead on that.
That's correct. Yes, it's direct payment through the VA. Obviously, we're appreciative that we were able to secure the same rate as Medicare, but the process is entirely separate from Medicare, and it's just directly through the VA through POs that invoice us.
Right. No, that's great. Maybe also — I don't know if you have this number — how many covered lives do you currently have after the VA? I think you mentioned on the last call that was roughly 9 million lives. And for the commercial payers you now have under contract, how many covered lives do those add, and if you get Medicare, what would that increase to?
Well, it's a multifaceted question. The VA, as you mentioned, covers 9 million patients, and that population is available to us now. Regarding Medicare, based on the epidemiology of the conditions that lead to a recommendation for testing, the target population is approximately 50% Medicare. Once we have Medicare coverage, there's no reason we can't, as others have done, expand beyond that number. Medicare, I believe, represents 60 to 80 million people overall. On the commercial side, we have not yet reached that level. We're still in the early stages with contracting and coverage, so we have not reported covered lives. Once this first LBM coverage policy is publicized, and we hear from the payers that operate under that LBM and outsource their technical assessments to it, we'll be able to start discussing covered lives. But it's a little premature to do that on the commercial side.
Okay, understood. One last question: how should we view your sales force productivity now compared with a year ago in the sales cycle, especially since your entire sales team is engaging with the VA and has new job descriptions?
Yes. I think productivity is solid. It's gone up over the years. We have an increasingly tenured and increasingly experienced staff. But what we're asking them to do is sort of juggle multiple things at the same time, right, to maintain their test volume to drive to find opportunities within the VA system that they can hand over to our national director on that. And so yes, productivity as a whole is great. And I think as we mentioned, we have positioned ourselves with regard to the composition of our team to have some more senior level folks so that when the time comes to expand the team that we'll be able to do so and sort of the most efficient way to maintain that productivity as we expand our team.
Your next question comes from Ed Woo with Ascendiant Capital.
My question is on the Medicare reimbursement rate. Is there any opportunity to increase it over time?
We have no plans to do so. The whole Medicare fee schedule process is a complex one, but we have no particular plans to pursue that. We're quite happy with that rate, and we feel we can build a very robust business under these rates.
There are no further questions at this time. I'll turn the call back over to Dr. Lishan Aklog.
Great. Thanks, operator, and thank you all for taking the time and for your attention this morning. Again, apologies for the technical glitch that led to me being cut off. I appreciate the opportunity. Obviously, great questions as always from our analysts and appreciate the opportunity to fill in some of those gaps. I hope you all found this dialogue informative. So again, just obviously, we're acknowledging and sharing some of the frustrations with regard to the logistics around the LCD process, but just continue to reiterate our confidence has not wavered that this is a near-term positive outcome. Again, as we've said repeatedly, as we await the draft LCD, we're not resting on our laurels. We are very encouraged by our efforts on multiple fronts, our engagements with the VA, our securing of our first positive coverage policy from a laboratory benefit manager and great opportunities on the commercial payer side as well as something we didn't spend as much time on today, but is progressing very nicely, which is our engagement with a series of major health systems. And obviously, we came out of the DDW meeting very energized and feeling very positive about the prospects of an updated guideline that enhances our position within this field. So thanks again. As always, we encourage you to keep abreast of our progress. Please follow our news releases, the investor calls and our website and social media and feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions. So thanks again, everybody, and have a great day.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.