Pacific Edge Limited

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Pacific Edge 1H financial results presentation. I'm Pacific Edge's CEO, Dr. Peter Matius, and with me today is Grant Gibson, our CFO, and available online for questions is our chairman, Chris Gallagher. Just an important notice to take notice of when considering the information in today's presentation. So our financial results for this half are below our expectations. We ran fewer tests than we had desired. We ran fewer commercial tests than desired, and our operating revenue is down. However, we maintain that we are in the strongest strategic position yet, and despite a net loss of $19.1 billion and cash of $22.1 million in the bank, We want to highlight for investors the importance of the strategic milestones that we have managed to achieve through this hunt. And we've managed to do this maintaining a US market presence to position ourselves to successfully appeal Medicare tests and commercial tests. And so while there have been some challenges associated with non-coverage determination being the predominant feature of operating the market, and we have had to migrate our customers from triage to detect, Our US sales per FTE, you know, has maintained its... Our sales force efficiency has been maintained, and we are operating as well as we can under the circumstances. Most importantly, though, we have an expert contractor advisory committee, a CAC, or a CAC, that has been convened by Novitas for February 19 in 2026. And this acknowledges the weight of the evidence behind urine-based biomarkers for hematuria evaluation in general, of course driven by the evidence portfolio of CX bladder. We also in the half achieved an absolutely critical milestone with longer-term economics for TriagePlus being locked in at US$1,328 per test, a significant uplift from our previous US$760 per test for the prior generation. Given this market position, though, we are considering capital alternatives to meet longer than expected Medicare pre-coverage timeline. We wanted to remind all our investors of how Pacific Edge creates value and specifically with adoption, retention and revenue generation, evidence coverage and guidelines and research and development. Because while our adoption, revenue and retention and revenue generation is somewhat down, We continue to be market leading in the performance of our evidence coverage and guidelines, and we maintain our strength in development of new products within our research, development and innovation. In fact, we have the strongest position we have ever had. We are in the strongest position we have ever been in to drive Medicare policy change. The importance of the Contractor Advisory Committee cannot be understated. We currently have, since 2020, or between 2020 and April 2025, Pacific Edge had reliable reimbursement from Medicare, but no coverage policy with coverage policy language explicitly documented at Novitas. And while that was good for revenue growth in our business and the subsequent non-coverage determination has obviously been a challenging headwind for us to navigate, it will become a defining change for Pacific Edge to have positive coverage language and actual positive Medicare policy change as a consequence of the Contractor Advisory Committee. And so these contractor advisory committees are generally convened ahead of developing new or substantially revised Medicare medical policy, an LCD. And it's worth noting, given that our current status is non-covered, we expect that a substantially revised medical policy would lead to a medical coverage policy after considering all of the evidence. Of course, this has been precipitated by two things. One, the strength of our evidence from our strata study, but two, that the strata study has already been recognised as something sufficient to drive policy change with the AUA guidelines, and that allowed biomarkers for the first time to be used for micro-edematuria evaluation. The purpose of a CAC is us evidence for the use of urine-based biomarkers in patients with micro-aematuria. And given the recent published evidence for TriagePlus, we expect that TriagePlus will also be considered as part of that contractor advisory committee in February. The people who make up a contractor advisory committee, and I look forward to questions on this later, are healthcare professionals, beneficiary representatives, and representatives of medical organizations. And Pacific Edge has been given the opportunity by engaging with Novotax to nominate urologists that we believe are familiar with the latest evidence for urine-based biomarker testing for patients with hematuria, and among those are many of our clinical advisors who are familiar with CX Bladder specifically. The meeting date is set for the 19th of February at 6 p.m. East Coast time, which will be noon on Friday, February the 20th in New Zealand. So as we look to our evidence roadmap, the evidence generation roadmap, The top four studies have been highlighted. That highlight represents that these are all new publications that have not previously been considered by Novitas, and we expect that all of these can be considered firstly by the CAC in the creation of draft policy, but ultimately in the final policy as it is developed. One thing that has changed is we've historically reported in this view the study from Kaiser Permanente, but we have separated out the publication timelines for our core evidence that's internally developed and independent studies like the Kaiser study, and so you'll see that on a later slide in this presentation. Looking at the The following slide, this is one of key significance to many investors. This is management's best understanding of the timelines that Novitas is operating under, given the information that we have. Of course, acknowledging first that we have had a Medicare non-coverage determination for triage, monitor, detect, and triage plus since April 24 this year. But that was on an evidence review that was limited to evidence published prior to the 9th of September 2023, which at this stage is very stale evidence on which to have faced a decision. Positivage has submitted reconsideration requests of what's known as genetic testing for oncology-specific tests, L39365, for triage and for monitor. Pacific Edge has submitted a new LCD request for hematuria evaluation for triage and triage plus. This is important regardless of whether Novotas elects to make a change to 39365 or establish a new LCD. The critical distinction between prior reliable reimbursement with the absence of any positive policy and what we are trying to achieve through a CAC and articulated language that supports the appropriate use of non-invasive urine-based biomarkers, for example, Triage and Triage Plus, in the evaluation of hematuria patients. No prior policy exists for that, and that is one of the reasons that Novitas is following this robust approach in using a contractor advisory committee. So Novitas controls all the timings of these events, and while from our perspective, Announcing a CAC to convene on the 19th of February is a delay from our prior expectations. Given the robustness of the process, this is something that we see as tremendously positive because of the increased certainty in medical policy change that we expect to come from convening a CAC. Furthermore, evidence published after the Contractor Advisory Committee, they can also be submitted during the comment period. So those studies highlighted in yellow, that's not the limit of what can be considered for the coverage policy. That's just the limit of what can be considered during the Contractor Advisory Committee. Our independent studies also supplement our utility study of triage and micro hematuria patients at Kaiser Permanente. But we also wanted to highlight that some of our investigator-initiated trials that have been part of a program of work for the last two or three years, the first one of those is reaching maturity. It's going through peer review at the moment, and we are optimistic that it will publish in Q1 2026. This is evidence that is not necessarily, well, I'll retract that. In the first of these, the one from Kaiser Permanente is extremely relevant in the changing of medical policy for an organization like Novotans. The patient preference, for example, is less likely to sway organizations like Novotans that are extremely influential in helping physicians adopt our tests for our very clear that patients actually prefer to use our test when offered the alternative. And that is somewhat of a no-brainer. The difference between an invasive procedure and a non-invasive procedure, patients typically prefer non-invasive to actually show will be a first-of-kind study, and that has been developed under the banner of our investigator-initiated trials, and what you can see in the bullet points below, 74.2% preferred monitor versus cystoscopy. And comparable diagnostic performance is shown, and we expect this research to be published as an abstract for AUA 2026, and possibly before that will even come out in print. Importantly, our budget impact models continue to demonstrate the economic value for CX-GLADAR. We've updated this slide to highlight the value proposition when performing this, when running a budget impact model using TriagePlus. And so where with Triage, you were able to rule out, I believe, 78% of micro-inmateria patients, With TRIAC+, we're able to rule out 85% of hematuria patients. And the greater number of patients that you can rule out, the greater value you are creating for hospital systems that deploy this kind of testing across the patient population that they serve. Again, importantly, this is not the end of the road for Pacific Edge in terms of developing budget impact models, and we are targeting a publication for TriagePlus in FY27, and we are targeting a publication, or sorry, we are targeting commencing work for a budget impact model for SurveillancePlus in FY28. And also, Along the general theme of health economics and sustainability, there is also a publication that we are working on with collaborators at the Canterbury Health System in New Zealand about the carbon footprint impact of implementing CX bladder at primary care, and draft presentations of that at conferences have already been communicated. Talking about some of the numbers explicitly here, global commercial test volumes of 13,191 for 1H26 were down 10% on the 2H figures, amid the challenges of selling a test that is not covered by Medicare. The reduced reach of our sales force, as our sales force continues to shrink, but that has been partially offset by a 5.4% uplift in APAC. Our response to the Medicare non-coverage has been a very important focus for us in this half. See if that a detect is something that has not had new evidence generated for it for some time and is not included in the guidelines. Consequently, all the tech customers were migrated over to Triage. Accelerating a plan we had hoped to implement at the time of launching Triage Plus with coverage, and that has created some operational challenges as we do that. But nonetheless, that allows us to collect revenue on the Triage tests through the appeals process. The sales force continues to be focused on patients that are suitable for CF-bladder triage, which are younger patients with commercial insurance and typically with micro hematuria presentations. Our sales performance has been sustained from an efficiency standpoint in 1H26. The clinical commitment that we measure as tests per ordering clinician has fallen reflecting the disruption of transition from triage, sorry, the disruption to triage from detect and challenges of selling a test not covered by Medicare. But we are well ahead of the low point we had in Q3 2022 of 160, and we've largely been able to maintain our sales force efficiency at 403 for this quarter. Our sales FTE are down to an average of 12 in Q2 26 from greater than 30. As we continue to focus on cash conservation, we're proven. Importantly, foundations for growth. We have US cash elections and processes continue to improve. although it's a loss of Medicare coverage has impacted our testing volumes. Denied triage tests will be appealed to an administrative law judge, ALJ, and given the guideline inclusion, we expect we can successfully make the case that triage has been used in a medically reasonable and necessary fashion. Unfortunately, appealing takes time, but we are appealing over 2,000 tests to Medicare and commercial providers through external review. And for Medicare, it takes six to nine months. For commercial payers, it can take longer than that, in excess of a year. So Medicare tests completed in ways that have been denied for payment have had no revenue recognised in this half, but we expect to recognise some revenue in the second half when we have successfully appealed them. There are measures in place to mitigate the loss of Medicare coverage, including enhanced patient responsibility, increased utilization of appropriate patient types through EMR integration, and improving the medical necessity documentation to improve the payment success that we have during billing and appeals processes. And improved cash collections are typically permanent improvements, although we are in a situation with a non-coverage determination, so some of those things are challenging for the current half, but we expect a resumption of those improvements after we re-establish coverage. To consolidate in New Zealand and developing Australia and APAC, we continue to seek a national hematuria evaluation pathway in New Zealand, and we're working with local urologists and with Tafata Warren to effect that. In Australia and the Asia-Pacific regions, Southeast Asia is still in business development. We're planting early green shoots there. But we are also working on a number of contracting arrangements with Australian hospitals and we hope to have some non-material announcements about progress in that area in the coming months. We also continue to drive values for product innovation, and our next generation of tests is our major focus of the research, development, and innovation pillar, and specifically the development part of that. We've been working very hard on TriagePlus and SurveillancePlus. TriagePlus has been analytically validated and clinically validated for all hematuria patients, micro and gross hematuria patients. That's a broader indication than for triage and a broader indication than what the guidelines currently support. And this bodes well for an expanded patient population as and when TriagePlus complete, well, as and when we complete our credible study for the utility of TriagePlus. It also has a higher price. That price is still in draft, but it's expected to become final within the next few days and effective on January 1 next year. It is currently being run in early access with a select few customers, and we are leveraging the AUA guidelines for triage in appealing triage plus tests as well. With Surveillance Plus, we are looking at recurrent disease in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients. The product is still in development and is the improvement over the monitor product that we currently have. And SurveillancePlus has deviated from TriagePlus through the development process, and this is, of course, expected, that they serve a different patient population and different markers are informative, and the work that we've done internally has demonstrated to us that the DNA markers from the DD-PCR are more informative than the RNA markers that we historically used in CX-bladder monitor. to the point that we can actually exclude the RNA markers from the final product. And we have taken that product through a freedom to operate, which has been completed satisfactorily and gives us the freedom to operate. And we are taking it through a provisional patenting process. We are also seeking a technology crosswalk for Surveillance Plus to a test that has an $1,800 price point in the Medicare fee schedule and are hopeful for a claim-by-claim reimbursement because there is no non-coverage determination for Surveillance Plus. And so our expected path is to get it coded get it priced by crosswalk to the candidate mentioned here, and then to initiate claim-by-claim reimbursement until the local coverage determination incorporating Surveillance Plus is developed. That we expect to take a number of years. We have not put specific timings on that, but that is the future state that we imagine for our business, with triage plus for the risk stratification of hematuria patients. and Surveillance Plus for the surveillance of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients for occurrence. I wanted to also highlight the importance of the DRIVE study. So the DRIVE study has been, you know, referred to for a number of years. It was started as far back as 2019 and began enrolling and enrolled largely, well, entirely from the veterans population. And the study confirmed the superior performance characteristics in both grossing material and microdermaturia for TriagePlus over our existing tests. And it also works on a broader range of hematuria patients as established in the clinical validity. So hopefully we make clear in the diagram on the left that while the AUA guidelines recommends triage for a narrow patient population, and that's based on the strata evidence, the strata evidence itself actually covers patients that were in the low-risk group, intermediate-risk group, and the high-risk group And the STRATA study can be used to justify using triage in any of those risk categories for micro-hematuria. But the DRIVE study has validated CFS triage plus for all of the risk categories of micro-hematuria and the gross hematuria patients, so the broadest range of patients in hematuria evaluation. We remind our investors of the opportunity that we are chasing here. So with the increase of our test price to $13.28, we've increased our estimate of the term in the US while maintaining the terms for APAC and Europe. And it is a substantial TAM at full volume of 10.8 billion. And specifically, we are targeting the patients that are referred for clinical workup. That's how we determine our TAM. that using TriagePlus for the intended use at the point of being referred for clinical workup gets us the largest possible TAM, and the evidence we are generating is for that. We're also looking to expand our market opportunities with innovation at the product level. And for this, we have made clear for investors that we are pursuing an IBD product that is a simplified version of the assay that we currently run as a service. And over time, we will be able to simplify the service to the point of being able to put it in a kit and allow labs other than Pacific Edge in appropriate jurisdictions where we have sought. We've completed all the product registration and market access initiatives to be able to run that test in clinical routine. So the benefits of this approach are that IDEs can be run by any accredited lab partner in any geography, that customer-side logistics are easier, faster, and customer service is local. Land partners make a margin by running the IED test, which increases their enthusiasm and motivation for sales and marketing efforts in their territory. It is a decentralized deployment, which allows faster scalability, and we need to focus on scaling our logistics, but the clinical operations can be scaled very dramatically by working with established partners in the region as they focus on customer acquisition. So the work that we're doing, Pacific Edge is simplifying the tests and accelerating the development of an IBD called TRIAC Plus IBD. for decentralized app employment and international market expansion with the key objectives of, one, establishing an IBE regulatory framework for our next-generation tests that include Europe, FDA, and ISO 3485 for the rest of the world. And then we're targeting prototypes by the end of FY26, manufacture and commencement of clinical and analytical validation commencing in FY27. We'll now turn to Grant for our financial performance for the half. Great, thanks Peter. So the first half our operating revenue was down to $5.9 million from $10.9 million in the second half of 25. So all that reduction post-24th of April, have not been accrued or included in revenue, and will only recognise revenue if we're successful at the ARJ appeal level, which, as Peter noted, it's going to take six to nine months for us to be able to recognise those tests that we're successful. Audience have also been impacted by the disruption caused by the loss of coverage and transitioning clinicians from the previously dominant test in the US market to triage. We've also had reduced sales every year as we've looked to manage our costs through this time. So with the drop in the EUS revenue, APAC's contributed 15% of the revenue for the half, up from 8% in the second half with FY25. So we continue to maintain EUS positions for an affirmation of Medicaid coverage, where reducing operating expenses So in the second half of 25 we actually dropped our cost base by 5.9 in the first half of this year. As we continue to focus on expenses where we can reduce them where possible. Our operating cash flows of 19 mil were higher than 12.3 mil in the second half of 25, but we do note that cash outflow in the first half of the year was generally higher than the second half and we expect to receive revenue for tests that we performed in the first half, six to nine months after, as we take them through the ALJ field level. Cash at the end of the half was $22.1 million, and we did a capital raise of $20.7 million in August 2025. As Piers noted, though, with the delay of the re-coverage, we expect that we will need to complete capital initiatives and or reduce cash burial, and we're in the process of considering options Our operating expenses were down 5.9% on the second half. So of those, the lab costs were down approximately 10% based on low ITS volumes. Our research costs were also down 4.5%. Some of the clinical studies come to an end on the costs related to those start to reduce. Our sales and marketing were down 9% as we managed our FTE in the US market to Generally, admin costs are up 3.4%. We had some late legal fees relating to efforts to overturn the Medicare loss of coverage in late FY25 that come into this first half.

And I'll pass you back to Peter.

Thanks very much, Grant. As we look forward, From my perspective, it's extremely important for investors to understand that this is, you know, Pacific Edge is in the strongest strategic position that we ever have been. And my conviction is underpinned by a number of long-term value creation notes here, medium-term value creation, and near-term. And so in the long term, provides us with extraordinarily improved economics. And so as that test becomes our dominant test, when it has successfully achieved coverage, we are in a vastly different operating position than we are today and than we were when we had a $760 price with increased margin and margin percentage. Surveillance Plus, while in development, is also seeking a direct technology crosswalk to an $1,800 price point based on its final product configuration. And that, we think, is a very important long-term consideration for generating value for investors. So our continued investment in innovation and product development for IVE kits supports our ambitions to enter international markets and to adopt a decentralized deployment model, and that remains a focus of us in a sort of capacity, but is something we continue to try to activate. In the medium term, the draft publication provides the clinical validation of TriagePlus that we believe is sufficient for inclusion alongside other tests in the AUA guidelines and is sufficient for Novotas to make a positive coverage determination. So we are delighted that that has been published in time to be considered firstly by the CAC and secondly when Novotas begins to draft a policy. Our clinical evidence generation program is scheduled out for over four years to deliver strategic milestones that will deliver a sustained value creation for shareholders with multiple catalyzing events. And AUA guideline inclusion demonstrates that the success of this strategy can be repeated to expand the indications for existing products and establish new indications for new products. In short, we know what it takes to get a product included in guidelines, and we expect of ourselves to be able to do it again. Commercial headwinds. Acknowledging that there remain some commercial headwinds is important. There remains a non-coverage determination for Triage Detect, Monitor, and TriagePlus, and it creates challenges for our sales and marketing teams in their operating environment. and additional challenges for reimbursement. But we are doing everything that we can from an appeals standpoint and doing everything that we can to convince customers of the value of the test despite the Medicare not coverage determination given the AWA guideline inclusion. The convening of the Contract Advisory Committee is a major catalyst for forward-looking policy and specifically, as I mentioned before, it'll be the first time that there will be coverage policy language that would be proposed by Novitas, not just paying for our tests on a claim-by-claim basis. And that provides us with the greatest certainty of enduring coverage from Novitas, but also the greatest ability to... improve the success percentage of being paid on Medicare Advantage tests and for commercial payers. So the commercial catalysts for new term value creation, the AUM micro-inventory guidelines are an enabler of sales, marketing and reimbursement activities. But because of the language associated with triage, and the language associated with intermediate-risk patients. We have to re-educate our customer base, and that has proved to be challenging, at least initially, and we are continuing to work on that. We are continuing to seek payment from Medicare for all triage tests performed on Medicare patients through the Medicare appeals process relying on the AUA guideline, and we are doing the same through the external review process for commercial insurers. But we also expect, through the efforts that we've made in digital development, to increase the percentage of electronically ordered tests. And that, of course, is expected to lead to stickier customers and more reliable payment over time. We are, as mentioned earlier, CX Platter is under consideration by Te Whātua for a national pathway in New Zealand, and we're optimistic that we will learn something in FY27 about the status of implementing CX Platter in that national pathway. We thank you for your time, and we look forward to taking your questions.

Thank you. And at this time, I would like to remind everyone on the phones, in order to ask a question, please press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. To remove your question, press the star one again. If you were called upon to ask your question, please pick up your handset and remember to unmute your device. Today, we do ask you please limit yourself to two questions and then rejoin the queue to accommodate as many questioners as possible. And your first question comes from the line of Rob Morrison of Craig's Investment Partners. Please go ahead.

Hey, morning, guys. Congratulations on getting Novitas to open that committee. Looking forward to a positive result from that. So on the call and in the documentation, you speak about, you know, the options available to you include raising capital and or burn reduction. Have you reduced your burn so far in the second half?

We have made modest reductions to our burn, and I think as Grant highlighted, we actually do expect that there are a number of expenses that are front-loaded for the year, and we expect the second half to have a lower burn rate than the first half, yes.

Okay, but it won't be something like, so the cost base in the first half is 26 mil. You wouldn't expect that to half. It might be down, you know, I don't know, like low tens of percentages.

We would not expect it to half, yes.

Okay. Cool. So you've given best and worst case scenarios for recoverage, which look to be between June and September quarter on 2027. Could you give us a bit of a flavour for the assumptions behind that?

Yeah, absolutely. So from our perspective, it always feels like Novitas is acting, you know, very slowly. But the reality is, In March 2025, they had a change in personnel. A new person joined in May, which was a month after we lost coverage. And so since being newly appointed in the role and with the, you know, it's been less than six months of non-coverage and less than six months of a new medical director at Novitas to actually get Novitas to initiate a CAC. Well, it would have been great if they could have scheduled that cap for November, but they didn't. They scheduled it for February. And so while that is a prima facie delay in timelines, that's the greatest level of confidence that we have ever had in forward-looking policy. So I think from Novitas' perspective, they would consider how quickly they're acting to be very quick, whereas from our perspective, it feels very slow, particularly since we have a high burn rate. Ask the CAC, there is no commitment to the timeline, and so we're clear that these are management estimates, but the assumptions in why we think it might be on the shorter side are, that they have restricted the contractor advisory committee to the micro-immaturity guideline and tests that fit into that, which is very narrow. And so consequently, the policy that they could develop would also be narrow, and the number of products that they would have to consider would be relatively narrow. And the AOA research team have already done the research and created the guidelines, so they have a step up. So from the 20th of February, we estimate it would be around three months for them to develop draft policy and publish it because of the narrow scope. If it was a broader scope, we think they would take longer. So that's one of the main assumptions. We also believe that there is a lot of pressure from the AUA, and that pressure from the AUA will also encourage Novotas to act quickly, but within the bounds of the process they are obligated to follow, as outlined by the Program Integrity Manual. But once draft policy is published, it would then be 60 days of notice and comment, and any time after they have successfully considered all of the comments, they could then publish with 45 days of becoming effective. And we think that they are motivated because of the aforementioned factors, the narrow scope, pressure from the AUA and ongoing dialogue that we have with them in formal situations that we think that they could act quickly. Nonetheless, we paint the worst case scenario for our investors out of an abundance of caution and acknowledge also that Even after the CAG, there is a non-zero chance that they don't develop policy at all. We consider that to be extremely unlikely, but no test does control it.

Okay, and just to read that back to you, so the committee will happen in Feb, three months to draft the policy and publish it, but then there's kind of a year in there for various other processes that need to occur based on your conversations with Novitas.

Yes, I would point you to slide seven of our deck, the Medicare Recoverage and Estimated Timelines. And so, you know, we are estimating Q3 to Q4 of 2026, but we are highlighting that the, and that's based on, that's based on those assumptions that Novitas is under pressure to act quickly and has the information they need to act quickly, given the cat formation and the narrow scope. But we also note for investors that it could be between Q2 and Q3 that they are given that it is 12 months after when they open.

Okay, okay. Thanks, guys. I'll jump back in the queue.

And before we move on to the next question, a reminder, if you would like to join the queue, please press star 1 now. And your next question comes from the line of Matt Montgomery of Foresight Bar. Your line is open.

Hi, guys. Good morning. Just on your language, Pete, in terms of the CAC meeting, it's coming across, extremely positive in terms of the likelihood that you think there will be a re-coverage decision. I'm keen to double click on that a little bit around is that extreme positivity coming from precedent around CAC meetings or is it coming from direct conversations that are being had between you and others in the industry?

Oh, it's coming from multiple sources, but probably the most relevant one is just the facts that are specific to this situation. So the facts in this situation are that there is a guideline that recommends the use of our products and others for hematuria evaluation, and there is no policy at Novotax for hematuria evaluation. This has, you know, practicing neurologists and the entirety of the AUA quite frustrated, confused, annoyed, insert your preference there, that they are unable to use guideline recommended testing on their Medicare patients without having to go through extra administrative procedures, etc. They basically believe that Medicare with what urologists have recommended. So when we think about, and so that's one set of facts, is that there is a guideline. There's also the evidence for triage plus as well. And then there is the non-coverage determination. So if you've got a non-coverage determination, and the purpose of a contractor advisory committee is to make changes to policy, you're going to be changing it from a non-coverage determination to something else. And while we cannot rule out that it will just change the language and still be a non-coverage determination, the overwhelming odds are that when you have clinical utility data, guidelines, and physician opinion in a contract advisory committee saying, we want this test, we need this test, this is how we want to practice medicine, that's what the result needs to be from no test. No. No test's job is to figure out the appropriate policy so that only the appropriate patients are getting the testing and they are only paying for when appropriate patients are getting the test. So it moves from an if to a how. Does that make sense?

And does that answer your question, Philip? Yeah. No, that's a good response, thank you. And then secondly, going back to one of Rob's questions, I was wondering Grant if you could give us guidance for second half OPEX. Presumably you've got pretty good foresight on it, given that the CMS changes won't be coming through in the second half. You know, clearly the rope for cash is relatively limited at the present time, so I assume you've got quite structured plans in place for the second half.

Yeah, we do. We've got to continually balance that, though, with the expectation of re-information of media coverage. So if we do cut too deep, it'll take a long time to get us back, and we don't believe that that's going to benefit us in the long term. value of the shareholders so it is a continual balance you will see though that if you look at our ft numbers in the us we have reduced our sales presence in the us we are looking at other areas where we can continue to reduce costs but i won't actually put a figure on that um but it'd be fair to assume that yes it'd be fair to assume

the decline will be relatively small then on that basis.

Yeah, as Peter mentioned before, it won't be halving everything at the first place. We need to maintain a strong presence in the US ready for recovery. Yeah, a lot of the support that we get from on maintaining a presence in the market commercially and fighting the fight together.

Yeah. And then one more on sort of the non-CMS US price. Yeah, it looks like it collapsed or fell quite meaningfully in the half. Could you just sort of talk through this and then... what the CMS contribution was in the half in that very short period in April that you had coverage?

Yeah, I wouldn't... I don't think your classification is actually correct. The median year dropped to basically zero from 24th of April, so it was like the tab got turned off when the non-coverage come through. and continuing to increase. As Peter mentioned, we are focusing more on commercial payers as that patient mix moves more towards the triage of media risk. And we are working on growing the retinue from those commercial payers as well. So Medicare is the big story in our reimbursement mix. That has dropped basically zero until we go through these ALJ appeals. The last thing that Grant said there, it's like it has dropped to zero. We cannot confidently accrue until we have developed a pattern with the ALJ, and we are yet to have an ALJ scheduled. The government shutdown, we do believe, has delayed some of the scheduling here, but we have probably half a dozen or a dozen tests that are ready for scheduling. We don't have that yet. So we... that we can point at. And while we have modeled for ourselves zero success at the ALJ, as we believe it is responsible to do so, we actually expect on the basis of the fact pattern that evidence up until 2023 was the only thing that was considered in policy that went into effect in 2025 when in 2024 there was a randomized control trial that was ignored, there was an additional analytical validation that was ignored, and then earlier in 2025 there was a guideline that was created on the basis of those pieces of evidence. We think that an administrative law judge is going to understand that fact pattern and find in our favour. Now, is that more work for us? Yes, it is. But we are up for that challenge because we think we should have that revenue. Notwithstanding, even if we are successful at that, that does not ameliorate the operating challenges that we that we have in driving volume when physicians um you know have to have to go to extra administrative leads to manage patients when there is a non-coverage determination it's just more admin basically but um it's just on the cms mix like i appreciate it's gone to zero since

late April, but if we sort of pro-rata the revenue from the first half of last year within CMS on the 24 days that you had coverage, it implies, and then do the same for volumes, it implies that non-CMS US revenue was sort of flat on the second half of last year. Strong volume growth, but I suppose The math is the math. The missing piece that I don't have is what the CMS revenue contribution was in 1H26 to then sort of work it out. Like, my estimate here is sort of a shade under a million.

Yeah. And that does conclude...

Yeah, I don't think there's anything additional we can really give you on that, Matt. Yeah. We don't break down... OK, all right.

But, yeah, we'll see if we can come with... We can take it offline.

We can take it offline. That's fine.

OK, thanks, Matt.

And that does conclude questions by the phone. I would like to hand over for any written questions.

Great. Okay. Okay. Andrew, the first question was about the Kaiser study. I believe that's been covered in slide eight. So that is going through the final stages prior to publication. So that should be later off the CAP meeting. Okay. Next question from Andrew. The Novitas CAC, while it's very disappointed that the meeting pushes out the potential timeline for reinstatement of Medicare, is it reasonable to actually feel optimistic that Medicare coverage will be obtained? I believe we've answered that one. And given the clinical evidence, will the CAC need to review their Kaiser study? So, yet again, we've answered that. Okay. Andrew, so Trina value-based pricing. Are you able to give any indication as to how long this initial technology and resource-based pricing will be in place and when the change to value-based pricing will occur? And has this changed some or phased in over a period of time? So great question. Track Plus is what's called a CDLT, a clinical diagnostic lab test, which means it is subject to PAMA review every three years. It's only subject to that review after it reaches a certain threshold. And so it will be a number of years before it crosses that threshold. But when it crosses that threshold, what we... that I can sort of describe in general terms, but it'll be imprecise. It is available for people to go and do their own research on. But it roughly approximates to the average of the private payers. It is also worth noting, though, so it doesn't include zeros. So if a private payer declines your test, that doesn't count towards your average. If a private payer pays for your test but pays you zero, it also doesn't count. But you take the average of what private payers pay you and then it becomes that. Now there is a theoretical situation in which it actually doesn't come down at all, particularly since our Medicare price is $13.28 and our commercial price is $3,995 a test. And what are colloquially termed Cadillac plans, they actually paid the full amount for that kind of test. So 1328 in the context of genomic test is not high. It is, we believe, a good price for the value that it delivers to the system based on the budget impact modelling that we have done. When we publish the budget impact model, we can be more precise... Sorry, when we publish the budget impact model for Triad Plus, we can be more precise about what value we deliver to the health system, but we actually expect that it could rise as a consequence of value-based practices as well, and that is totally possible. and within the rules of PAMA, but it only happens if private payers are paying more on average than less. But given the low technology resources pricing we have today, compared to other genomic tests, it is also possible that that number goes up. Nonetheless, it's a long way away, and I don't think that this should be a significant part of anybody's model at this time. Great, thank you. Okay, Adrian, I'm going to combine both your questions. So you did ask on the second half cash burn, and we provided answers that we came on that. Any capital initiative, is it likely to follow the tone of the CAC meeting in the 16th of February, and how much would you be looking to raise this $50 million reasonable for additional equity to get you through to So I don't think we can comment on any of the specifics that are noted in that question. But we do believe that the Contract Advisory Committee, that that will be open to the public. to dial in, the details will be on Novitas' website. When we have the details, we will likely make those available to our New Zealand audience, because it's actually geo-blocked, their website, and you might not be able to access it, but we will figure out a way to get those details through to our shareholders who would like to dial in. Again, we're anticipating an overwhelmingly positive Contractor Advisory Committee, but we will leave that to shareholders in the market to decide what they think from that language. Noting the timing, we will try to coalesce and condense everything that happens on that call and distill it down for our investors and our shareholders. and provide a market update after the Contract Advisory Committee summarising our view of that. But the other elements of your question, I can't comment on. Great. And that's the end of the online questions. Well, thank you very much, everybody. That's everything from me today. I appreciate your time. And thank you, Grant. Thank you, Chris.