“as this all sits today, as I talked about, it will mean very meaningful benefit reductions and will once again need to take a hard look at our geographic footprint, our product footprint.”

In context

“s, while, they're a little north of, what we were talking about, earlier, really kinda sit within our internal planning range. So I can I think about that all as a real solid foundation that we're setting for 2026 as we then head into 2027? So moving into 2027, the news that we received last night in the advance notice was disappointing. And it was because it's a further for a program that is experienced $130 billion in funding reductions over the last three years under the prior administration. Which is particularly concerning for a program that provides excellent choice access, and affordability for America's seniors. And does so with satisfaction rates north of 95%. While saving money for taxpayers. the rates are finalized. So we're going to, of course, work with CMS from now until But as this all sits today, as I talked about, it will mean very meaningful benefit reductions and will once again need to take a hard look at our geographic footprint, our product footprint. Across the country. And, you know, has the likelihood to play out not dissimilar to how 2026 did in terms of modifications to plan footprint and benefits. We don't see this to be something that's going to be broadly disproportionate payer by payer. Therefore seniors kind of across the sector are going to experience this implications of reduced choice, reduced access, and affordability challenges. Given all of this and kind of where we sit, too early to talk point estimates around margin or membership for 2027. But I will say this that over the long term, given the actions that we have taken in 2026, and our integrated business model that as Steve alluded to, really focuses on value based care Those things having a strong foundation focusing on value based models, are going to be even more”