“That said, we did plan conservatively that it could be selected based on CMS spend, so its selection does not impact our long-term growth guidance at all.”

In context

“from Medicare on the therapeutic side, would you have to sort of carry that over to cosmetic care? Do you maybe have more flexibility in some way? In the future. And then my second question is back on the immunology franchise. And I caught them away. You said around 1Q pricing dynamic. But maybe you can just share your thinking around pricing overall on that market. First, I was in RINVOQ. First day this year and maybe over the next couple of years. Just how things evolve from a pricing perspective. Thank you. Robert Michael: Thanks, Vamil. It's Robert. Jeff and I will tag team your first question here. So as it relates to Botox being selected for Medicare negotiation, we're obviously disappointed that it was selected given that it's a plasma-derived product and should have been excluded. That said, we did plan conservatively that it could be selected based on CMS spend, so its selection does not impact our long-term growth guidance at all. Jeffrey Stewart: Yeah. And, also, in terms of the pricing separation, we're comfortable with how we understand that effectuation may ultimately take place if and when it does happen in 2028. Certainly, we did see that when the announcement was made, there were comments around Botox Cosmetic, but that's just more of a formulaic dynamic with the way the government looks at NDCs, but it's quite clear that, you know, there's a cash pay component. So we don't see a large or meaningful interaction between the two even if we do see the negotiation take place in twenty-eight. Scott Reents: Sure. And this is Scott. I'll address your question on pricing for SKYRIZI and RINVOQ. So we've talked about it, and we continue to expect low single-digit pricing headwinds for both of those products, both in”