DPLO
#Outside of the acquisition, it is absolutely, it is still the implied guidance for the full year.
It's actually not much more complicated than that, <UNK>.
In fact, in the last couple of years the impact on Diplomat has been the highest in those quarters.
Thanks.
We do see some significant opportunities.
I would say that both Diplomat physicians and particularly patients are in a win-win opportunity now, because existing drugs, like Imbruvica, and like so many of the other drugs we've talked about out there, are getting continued indications, and some of the newer drugs that are already blockbuster, there are drugs that $1 billion and $2 billion blockbusters today that by 2020 are expected to be $3 billion and $4 billion blockbusters, because they're going to get broader indications for larger patient populations.
Conversely, some of the brand-new drugs that are coming to market are going to stand on their own for patients.
Remember, I talked about first-in-class drugs, but there were 21 drugs in that list that were orphan therapies, and many times in an orphan therapy, it is also first in class, and sometimes it's the only available treatment.
So, I think that you're going to see the best of all worlds.
New drugs coming to market are going to replace some of the older drugs, and some of the older drugs that are already on the market are going to receive additional indications.
There's times that's going to be a crossover, like we talked about with Revlimid and Ninlaro where you're going to see more than one direction that a doctor will have a chance to treat a therapy.
And that's a win for patients, because we're seeing some dramatic improved results when we can tackle a drug ---+ a disease from more than one direction.
Yes.
Hi, <UNK>.
We've certainly quantified the impact on revenue, and kind of a percentage contribution.
So, it contributed 6% of our revenue in the quarter, or 10% year over year.
On the gross profit line, it's really about the same, about 10% gross profit year over year, and obviously, it all drops down to EBITDA, so a little higher there.
So, just to clarify why it changed and why it was a benefit to the quarter, I hate to get too technical on something tax-related, but we have always had cash tax benefits from anyone who exercises in the money stock options.
Those have never shown up on the income statement.
There is an accounting guidance change happening in the first quarter of 2016.
So, we now actually see the benefit in the effective tax rate, and that's essentially what took us down from maybe your expectations to 36%, and that is reflected in the guidance.
Sorry, just to be crystal clear, <UNK>, we didn't update any guidance for rest of the year, which means we expect that same 40% rest of year.
The 36% was a very specific impact of option redemptions in the quarter.
To the extent they happen in the future, they would bring down our effective tax rate in the quarter they take place.
But we do not expect them within the guidance.
Yes, it's something we've broken out specifically in the past, <UNK>.
I can tell you, though, if you look at versus a year ago, it's obviously helped by both the BioRx and Burman's acquisitions, and of course as you pointed out, hurt by the exiting of the compounding business.
We haven't necessarily quantified the impact of all those things.
I think one thing ---+ go ahead.
Yes, as it shouldn't surprise you, their revenue per prescription's going to be higher than the Diplomat average.
Very consistent on a like book of business, however, so their oncology prescriptions would yield very similar revenue prescriptions as ours.
But as you know, our average oncology prescription is somewhere in the $10,000 range versus our average Company, which is somewhere in the $4,000 range.
Sure.
Thank you.
