Greetings, and welcome to Surgery Partners' First Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Dave Doherty, CFO. Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning, and thank you for joining Surgery Partners' First Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. My name is Dave Doherty, CFO of Surgery Partners. I am joined today by Eric Evans, our CEO. During this call, we will make forward-looking statements. There are risk factors that could cause future results to be materially different from these statements that are described in this morning's press release and the reports we filed with the SEC, each of which are available on our corporate website. The company does not undertake any duty to update these forward-looking statements. In addition, we reference certain financial measures that are non-GAAP, which we believe can be useful in evaluating our performance. We reconcile these measures to the most applicable GAAP measure in this morning's press release. With that, I will turn the call over to Eric Evans, our CEO. Eric?

Thank you, Dave. Good morning, and thank you all for joining us today. My opening comments will briefly highlight our first quarter results and the consistency of our long-term growth algorithm. Then I will provide additional color on the strong business execution and underpinning of each of the three pillars of our growth algorithm: organic growth, margin improvement and deploying capital for M&A. I will also provide our views on how our business is positioned in the current regulatory environment as well as our outlook for the remainder of the year. We are pleased to report Surgery Partners' first quarter net revenue of $776 million and adjusted EBITDA of $103.9 million, both in line with our expectations. The financial results announced this morning are a testament to the focus of our colleagues and physician partners who serve our communities with valuable, high quality and convenient care. Our team continues to deliver on our mission to enhance patient quality of life through partnership. Compared to the prior year's first quarter, adjusted EBITDA grew nearly 7% and net revenue grew 8%, with contributions from each pillar of our long-term growth algorithm. Our growth in 2025 is attributed to continued strong organic results including same-facility revenue growth of over 5%. Revenue growth was comprised of 6.5% surgical case growth, offset by a decline in rates of approximately 1%, driven primarily by robust growth in lower acuity specialties in the quarter, including growth from recently open de novos as well as a very strong prior year comp. These components of our same-facility revenue growth are consistent with our internal expectations that we shared on our fourth quarter earnings call in March. We continue to expect full year 2025 same-facility growth to be at or above the high end of our growth algorithm target of…

Thanks, Eric. Starting with the top line, we performed over 160,000 surgical cases in our consolidated facilities in the first quarter, 4.5% higher than 2024. These cases spanned across all our specialties with higher relative growth in gastrointestinal and MSK procedures, including continued growth in orthopedic cases. This case growth drove our first quarter revenue to $776 million, 8.2% higher than the first quarter of 2024. Our same-facility total revenue increased 5.2% in the first quarter, consistent with our growth algorithm target of 4% to 6% and in line with our expectations for the quarter. Adjusted EBITDA was $103.9 million for the first quarter, giving us a margin of 13.4%. We ended the quarter with $229 million in cash. When combined with the available revolver capacity, we have over $615 million in total liquidity. We reported operating cash flows of $6 million in the first quarter of 2025, distributed $62 million to our physician partners and incurred $6 million in maintenance-related capital expenditures. As a reminder, operating cash flows are typically lower in the first quarter of the year due primarily to quarterly earnings patterns, but these results can also be impacted by the timing of working capital activities. For example, accounts payable were processed at a significantly faster clip in the first quarter versus at year-end as a result of payment schedules related to the holidays at the end of December. Also, we are pleased that our first quarter distributions to our partners were higher than the prior year based on facility level timing of certain distributions that effectively doubled the impact in the first quarter, as well as higher distributions related to stronger results in the fourth quarter. We are committed to providing transparency into the drivers of our cash flow generation. We are seeing incremental improvements in…

Thank you. We will now conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Brian Tanquilut with Jefferies. Please proceed.

Hey, good morning, guys. Eric, congrats on the strong volume quarter. So just curious how you're thinking about current utilization trends and the sustainability of that? And then maybe the other side of this question would just be the same-store revenue per procedure, obviously, a little softer this past quarter. I mean, is that just a tough comp? Or is there anything we should be thinking about as we model out same-store going forward?

Brian, thank you. Appreciate the question. I would say, obviously, there's a tough comp associated with the pricing, but let me give you a little bit more detail. I think first quarter same-store revenue growth was very much in line with where we thought it would be. The case growth is a reflection of some stronger de novos that are coming online and some MSK growth that I think is pushing that up because you think about this, as I mentioned in my comments, higher volume, lower revenue. It's really just a mix and a little bit of a comp as you point out. As a reminder, our same-facility metric is based on the number of operating days per quarter, which was 63 in the first quarter. And in our business, the days of the week matter for certain volumes. Internally, as we've talked about in the past, we don't place a lot of stock in kind of any given quarter. We talked about this metric we would expect by the end of the year to be at the high end or above our long-term range with balance between volume and growth. And so we -- this is very much in line with where we thought we'd be. We did have very strong growth across all our core service lines, particularly in GI and MSK, both of which were kind of growing at rates that are above our long-term assumptions. In addition to the typical growth expected in our portfolio, we also experienced, as I mentioned, this growth in de novos, that opened in late '23. De novos ramped up to full run rate typically over a couple of years, and that time to breakeven is with an initial 6 to 12 months. So these de novos are performing very well out of the gate, and they're kind of on their way to their full run rate. And that is having an effect on this mix, which you're seeing show up in rate. Again, GI, really, really happy with the GI growth in the first quarter. It has a lot to do with the calendar and the way these cases tend to fall. But the rate pressure really is just a matter of the underlying commercial and government mix, nothing there to really read into. And I would just point you back to, we expect to be kind of more balanced between rate and volume, much like we finished last year over the course of the year.

No, it makes sense. And then maybe, Dave, as a follow-up, as I think about your comments on free cash flow generation. Obviously, Q1 is seasonally weaker. It sounds like there were a few kind of like timing issues there, but curious how we should be thinking about the seasonality of free cash flow generation over the course of the year?

Yes. For sure, the view that we have on forward-looking operating cash flows is we should see some overall improvement as the earnings growth manifested as you look at our earnings growth guidance that we have out there should be translating nicely over the course of the year. And much like we've seen in the past, it tends to skew better as the year progresses, second quarter being relatively strong and fourth quarter being our strongest quarter from a cash flow generation perspective. So we do believe, as we think and as we've talked about, I think, on the call a little bit earlier and as we talked about in the fourth quarter, distributions, which is an offset to cash as you kind of look at this from a free cash flow perspective, distribution should also grow as we go throughout the course of the year. Now we did effectively double up on our distributions inside the first quarter, which did create that little bit of a pressure point. That should normalize as we go throughout the year. The only watch out on cash flows as we look at the year that is kind of unrelated to the underlying strength of our operating performance and better working capital management would be related to our interest cost. As you know, we were protected by an interest rate swap on our $1.4 billion term loan. That swap expired at the end of the first quarter is being replaced by an interest rate cap, that caps our interest rate exposure at 5%. We feel really good about that over the life of the term loan. However, that will create a headwind for us as we go into the balance of this year. The math that we look at this does create some exposure based on where we think SOFR rates currently are, which is at roughly 4.4%. That would be compared to effectively a 2.2% interest rate cap that we had through the swap that just expired. So you have about 220 basis point exposure that will be a headwind on cash flows for the last 9 months of the year.

Yes. Brian, I might add to that, though, just big picture, stepping back a little bit. The business continues to produce a lot of strong cash flow, right? We know it's a big focus of investors. And when we reiterate our long-term growth algorithm, we do rely on investing in M&A. So we appreciate there's a sensitivity of equity holders on leverage. But I would just reiterate that we have no concerns with the generation of sufficient free cash flow, given our current liquidity to fund our short- and long-term growth without needing to go back to the equity or debt market. So we feel good of where it's going. We do expect that to strengthen throughout the year and to continue to grow with the company as we move forward.

The next question comes from Joanna Gajuk with Bank of America. Please proceed.

Hi, good morning. Thanks so much for taking the question. So I guess a little bit of a follow-up on the pricing discussion. So on the Q4 call, I think you alluded to a slight pressure on payer mix. So have you actually seen that in '25? So is it essentially alluding to the idea of Medicare cases growing faster?

Joanna, I'm not sure -- I don't recall us talking about that, but I would say that there's been no change in payer mix. Actually, it's been quite strong commercially. We continue to feel good about our growth in Medicare and commercial, but no real mix changes other than what might happen with a given acquisition timing. But in general, no pressure on payer mix.

Okay. Glad we clarified that. And then I guess related to that, my question on commercial rates for this year. I guess, where are you tracking, I guess, for this year? And I guess, how are the negotiations for the upcoming cycle? And have you seen any change in contracting with these commercial payers or maybe MA payers for that matter because obviously, there's a lot of pressure on these guys on higher trends. So I just want to check if there's anything that's changing. And maybe I can throw in there, any change to denials and things like that?

Joanna, thanks for the questions. So I'll just start with, it's always nice to be in a business where your three major constituents are -- prefer you, right? So patients prefer us because of their experience and their outcomes. Doctors prefer us because of our efficiency and they can be at the table. And of course, payers prefer us because we are the low-cost alternative. They continue to be very constructive with us. I think we continue to find ways to try to work with them to move patients to the right side of care. There's nothing that's really changed in those negotiations. I think there's, again, a pretty warm reception for us trying to work together to create value for those companies and move patients to the right site of care. So I think the trends you've seen over the last couple of years are still holding true. As we've mentioned, we're pretty much fully contracted for this year. If you think about where we start the year. So those -- we have really good visibility in our outlook and guidance as far as rate goes. And with MA, I mean, MA, obviously, there's some challenges -- your hear about some challenges with MA. We obviously have great MA relationships. We're a value provider, don't see that changing. And then I think you had one other question at the end. I'm going to let Dave answer that.

Yes, it's a rev cycle question. And it's a good one because in the third quarter last year, we did talk about changing dynamic in the way payers were processing medical necessity and denial charges. We did see it. We talked a little bit about that pressure in the fourth quarter call. You may recall, Joanna, we did talk about the adjustments that we put in place on our rev cycle as part of our standardization journey that we're taking inside that world. I'm pleased to say, inside the first quarter, that continued. So we did not see any adverse change in our denial patterns. To the contrary, rather, we're now seeing a little bit more on the positive side. Again, the nature of our business almost entirely across the platform is scheduled procedures. That enables us to do a lot of work on a preservice basis to get in front of many medical necessity or any changing requirements from the payer community. And I'm pleased to say that we've implemented that, and you can see that in our days sales outstanding, that metric continues to improve. I think we improved 2 days inside the quarter, so a really positive trend for us.

The next question comes from Ben Rossi with JPMorgan. Please proceed.

Great. Thanks for the question. Just turning to expenses on professional fees that came in a little high here versus expectations. Just given some of the broader industry pressure here, how would you describe current labor dynamics for specialty areas like anesthesia during 1Q? And then are there any particular specialties or geographies where this growth has been noticeably accelerating in that over the quarter?

Yes, Ben, thanks for the question. I'll just take one exception to the way you -- the preamble to your question there. This was actually in line with our expectations from a pro fee perspective. Pro fees, the driver behind that is primarily associated with two of the significant acquisitions that we did last year. At the beginning of the year, we acquired Key-Whitman that came with several practices. That's an ophthalmology book of business, couple ASCs, several practices. And in the middle of the year as we talked about we did an acquisition, a pretty significant acquisition up in Milwaukee, that too came with Associated Physician Practices, which carry some costs that kind of sit inside there. . The anesthesia pressure for us, although we have seen that anesthesia cost marginally being affected, is across some of our facilities. Most of our facilities still are not being affected by adversity in either the availability of anesthesia or the revenue guarantees required for them. And I think that goes -- that speaks to the nature of our business. I think, as Eric and I have talked about in prior meetings. So we see no notable change inside the first quarter. And at this point, we're not seeing that being a major headwind for us in 2025 or beyond.

Great. I appreciate the clarification there. I guess just as a follow-up, just on the physician recruiting, it sounds like this year's 150-person cohort has come together nicely across specialties and you're getting maybe some of the compounding growth potential from last year's class. I guess what is the percentage of doctors from this class coming from higher acuity service lines? Is it north of 50%?

Yes. I don't know if we've disclosed that. I'd start off with we're certainly proud of it. It's another strong start for the year for recruiting, definitely in line with our historical run rate and our expectations. We have a very diverse recruiting class. It spans all of our specialties. I don't know that I have that percentage breakdown as far as whether it's mostly high acuity. Although I think the mix of orthopedic continues to grow. Relative to '24, which was a record-setting year, this class really skews higher in revenue generated per doctor. So that net revenue per physician is up about 14% versus what we saw last year. We remain optimistic in our ability to recruit the 500 to 600 docs that we have built into our plan. We've been doing that consistently and I think become a lot more targeted. As a reminder, we've seen strong multiyear gains in our recruiting cohorts. For example, the doctors we recruited in Q1 of last year, they brought an additional 160% more cases in the first quarter of 2025 with 182% more revenue. So it's a compounding effect. You guys have heard us talk about this in that first year. You usually expect to see the second year double for each cohort. And so certainly a big focus area for us. We spend a lot of time on it, and we're constantly trying to refine the way we target the right doctors for our facilities.

The next question comes from Sarah James with Cantor Fitzgerald.

So you guys have been talking for a while about the GI mix. And I think the last data point that we have is that it was going up about 1% a year and it was 24% in '23. So what does it look like now? And can you give us a little context for every percent it goes up? What type of headwind is that on your revenue per case?

Yes. So we did experience growth in the GI portfolio, and I think it had a marginal impact on the relative share of GI cases in our mix, the total mix that we have. So I think that 24% I look at it, check your numbers there, Sarah, just because I don't have them handy in front of me. So if we did see some benefit that kind of sat inside there, it's going to be relatively minor, I would think in terms of basis points year-over-year. However, as Eric mentioned, it's all the nature of kind of the calendar. And you've heard me say this before, I really just like a quarterly view of same-store metrics because of the influence of the calendar that sits inside there 63 days. And depending on the day of the week and the days that happen inside any particular facility, you could have a large number of procedures that does adversely or in this case, positively affect the same-store case metrics, which cases look great, and the rate then will suffer just because on a relative basis, you have relatively low acuity GI procedures that sit in there. Great new story for us. We are experiencing -- I will say this, we are experiencing GI case volume over the last 6 months that is slightly higher than our long-term growth algorithm. We're really pleased about that. We do expect that to be a continuation as we go throughout the year. Nothing significantly out of the norm, but that volume increase, again, primarily related to the calendar inside the quarter did affect that rate pressure. And I'll remind you what Eric mentioned about their forward look on same-facility rate. Any given quarter is going to have some unusual variance just because of that calendar that normalizes. And as we project out, we do budget and our budget process does look at every single day of the week. So we have some pretty good visibility to it. We predicted that we were going to see rate pressure relative to case growth inside the first quarter. You might recall that from our fourth quarter call a few weeks ago, we will see this kind of return to somewhat more balanced growth, but still end the year at a same-facility revenue number that's above our growth algorithm of 4% to 6%. So I think it will look at the end of the year somewhat consistent with what we saw last year.

Yes. And Sarah, I would just reiterate the GI growth, we're really pleased with that service line. We have three businesses that make up the majority of our business. All three of them, ophthalmology, GI, MSK growing at nice clips. We talk a lot about orthopedics because it's one that drives tremendous value for payers and patients and it's moving so quickly, but we really like our GI and ophthalmology business and they continue to grow nicely.

The next question comes from Andrew Mok with Barclays.

Your projected confidence in the near to midterm tariff exposure in your prepared remarks. Can you elaborate on what's driving that confidence? Is that driven more by pricing protections built into your supply contracts or total exposure to countries with tariffs? Any detail there would be helpful.

Yes. I can't provide a whole lot more than what we talked about earlier. 70% of our spend right now goes through HealthTrust. And as you probably have heard from several of our peer groups, that relationship with HealthTrust is remarkable in terms of the contract protection that sits underneath it, but also good visibility as to where you could have tariff exposure going forward. This is what we like about that increased visibility to it. We know when contracts will expire and we know alternatives that we can start to talk to our physician partners about well in advance of any potential impact if the tariffs were to survive. But inside the year, we see very little exposure to any contract renewals that could ultimately take any tariff exposure that kind of sits inside there. We don't really see any material change in that in the -- even in the midterm forward-looking view. The remaining spend, so if you look at 70% of our spend going through HealthTrust, the remaining amount, majority -- a large majority of that is also under contract. This is just what our professional procurement team does. And likewise, we have good visibility to both the future state when you may be exposed by looking at the country of origin that sits there as well as when that could occur and what alternatives we may have available to us. So we feel pretty good. This is what a professional procurement team is responsible for doing. This is certainly our expectations of both that team as well as our relationship with HealthTrust. And they have helped us significantly, if you look back -- all the way back to COVID, just the way for us to navigate through disruptions that could occur either from a pricing perspective or from an availability perspective. At this point, we see no major headwinds that sit out there, but it's definitely something that we're paying very close attention to.

Great. And then maybe a follow-up on the cash flow. You talked about the timing impact on operating cash flows, but it also looks like the 1Q NCI payout is up meaningfully both year-over-year and relative to the 4Q NCI expense. Is there anything impacting the timing or payout to NCI partners in the quarter?

Yes. It's really just timing. I'll remind everybody about how the calendar looked. I hate to kind of always talk about the calendar, but the calendar at the end of the year had holidays kind of awkwardly in the middle of the weeks. Our distributions to our physician partners and to surgery partners happens at a facility level. It's not a centrally controlled process, although the formulas that sit behind that are largely the same, those checks are cut at the facility level. So what we experienced at the end of the fourth quarter was slightly lower distribution. Some of those, in many cases, some of the larger ones occurred in the first week of January. Normally, they will happen at the end of any given month. So you saw basically a double up. I think we were at $62 million or $63 million of distributions, that's about $22 million more than kind of what's typical. That's an unusual number for any given quarter. Again, we believe that's going to normalize back to traditional levels and relative to earnings growth should grow as the course of the year and a macro annual number.

Next question comes from A.J. Rice with UBS.

Just first, maybe on the comments about the balance sheet and leverage. How -- so I know you say that on your growth targets, you can do what you want to do in M&A and development with internal cash flow. Just to remind us what are the parameters as we think out over the next few years on what would be a normal year for M&A and development for you? And do you have an ultimate goal as to where you'd like to see those leverage levels get to?

Yes. Great question, A.J. Thank you so much for asking that again. So leverage, what we've talked about from a leverage perspective is really a factor of the growth -- the substantial growth and outsized growth that this company has experienced, right? Double-digit, mid-teens has been this company's story for the history. At least the past eight years, it's something that we do expect to see going forward. And a key element to that, of course, is deploying capital for M&A and de novo activities. We target around $200 million of M&A. Midyear convention, we assume kind of relatively stable pricing on that. We've experienced roughly 8x historical earnings. Again, for the past eight years, I think we've averaged something just slightly below that 8x. But for modeling purposes, we assume 8x going forward. And at that level of spend every single year with immediate accretion that comes from there, we do think it converts to cash flow quite nicely. So our models do suggest continued conversion of cash on both existing assets as well as newly acquired ones, coupled with that growth in the mid-teens level, will spit off cash sufficient for us to keep that overall leverage number going downwards. So whether you look at this on a credit agreement basis or use the face of the balance sheet, you see the slope of the line going down. Using credit agreement leverage what we have talked about is we target a sub-3 leverage number. I think we're at 4.1 at the end of the first. We do expect that number is going to come down to roughly around in the 3 range at the end of this year and will continue to go down over the next few years. So if your modeling does suggest anything different than that, it's a relatively simple model, then let's talk to the team about that because we do -- in every model that we've looked at, we do see that coming down over time.

Okay. And if I could just maybe have a follow-up. Talking about the same-store metrics, pricing and case volumes, you're just coming off a year of above-average M&A and development activity. Can you just remind us when those get into the same-store mix? And will those acquisitions and development be enough to skew either more positively or more negatively what we're likely to see on same-store pricing and same-store volumes?

Sure. Again, great question because this company rate, as we've talked about, can be significantly affected by the mix of business that you see. If you look at last year's acquisitions at the beginning of the year, Key-Whitman was an ophthalmology book of business. Middle of the year, and for the most part, the acquisitions that we completed in the balance were more orthopedic and MSK-related focus, which do tend to have a higher net revenue per case. So when they do come into our calculations, you should see some change that happens. We include them in our same facility calculation when they are in there at the beginning and the end of the period. So if you're doing a year-over-year comparison, any acquisition that we completed inside the second quarter last year would start to come into our same facility calculation in the third quarter of 2025.

The next question comes from William Spivack with TD Cowen.

Just a quick one. Any impact from weather in the first quarter? And if so, would you mind quantifying it? And then the second thing is, I know you don't guide to free cash flow anymore. But given the puts and takes on better RCM, improved earnings, offset by higher interest expense and transaction fees, do you think free cash flow in 2024 will be higher, lower or similar versus -- sorry, this year versus prior year?

William, probably I can knock both those out, I think, pretty quickly. So on the weather side, we did have weather in the first quarter. We never really fully recapture it. But honestly, we don't talk about it just because it was immaterial in the grand scheme of things. Certainly, it had some impact, but not worth talking about still had really strong case growth. And as you can see, we outran any kind of major impacts there. As far as free cash flow goes, we do expect -- and we talked about this, we expect the business to grow free cash flow with the business. And I think you should expect that this year even with timing, but more or less free cash flow to us is a metric. We understand everybody is focused on it. We have the liquidity we need, and we expect to continue to grow that as we grow our business.

The next question comes from Matthew Gillmor with KeyBanc.

Maybe following up on some of the margin comments. In the press release, there was a comment about ongoing operating system improvements that will help drive margin expansion. Maybe that was in reference to rev cycle, but just wanted to get a sense for what those efforts are focused on to drive margins higher?

Yes. So I'd say there's several things that go into our operating system, obviously. And a big part of that is rev cycle and Dave can talk about some specifics on that. Also, the supply chain, it's scheduling efficiency, all those things impact costs. The more efficient we are on scheduling, the better utilization we drive out of a given facility, the lower anesthesia costs because they're more efficient. There's just a bunch of things that are part of our operating system. But I think in relation to what was mentioned in the script, certainly, revenue cycle is a big part of that, and Dave can talk a little bit about that journey.

Yes. So rev cycle, for us is -- and as we've talked about this a lot last year, we embarked upon a multiyear journey to come up with one standardized rep cycle approach across the organization. This is after years of underlying IT integration, building a data warehouse that enables us to look across the platform and drive directly into billing systems. So we've made a lot of that investment in the early years, positioned ourselves nicely to start this journey last year that focuses not only on process but using better data to make informed decisions, which ultimately will turn right back around to higher revenue generation and greater use of the scale of the company. So we're awfully proud of that. It's a multiyear journey, as I mentioned. And as we go through that process, much like you saw in the fourth quarter and the first quarter, we should begin to see some benefits coming through how we manage receivables and the overall net revenue pull-through that we get from that. That will continue for a period of time. We'll talk about that as we go throughout the year and perhaps into 2026. I'll say this, the work that we do to integrate companies and the maintenance of that kind of process is critical to us. So for example, over the past several years, we've included some relatively larger acquisitions, including the one we did in the second quarter of last year that do require us to plug-and-play data from the revenue or billing systems from some of our facilities. The larger the facility, the more deliberate we have to be in terms of integrating or migrating to a common platform. At the end of the year last year and as we go into this year, we are completing three of those migrations. Those migrations much like every other integration that we do, will turn into an enhanced margin generation, again, for the same reasons that we talked about. Having common data platforms enables us to bring the scale of the company, not only from a revenue cycle perspective but also managed care, clinical variation, supply chain, all of that. So we're very excited about that. It does require some investment, ongoing focus in that space, and that's what you're seeing kind of happen this year. Thank you for the question.

Got it. And then one quick follow-up. Anything to call out in terms of how flu impacted volumes or even case mix in the quarter?

Yes. No, honestly, for us, scheduled surgical cases really doesn't have an impact. I mean actually, the only impact it could have for us is a negative one, which we didn't really see from an impact on staffing or canceled cases.

The next question comes from Whit Mayo with Leerink Partners.

I think you said that you've closed 5 acquisitions or 5 facilities this year. Were those consolidated or unconsolidated, Dave? And then just remind me on the de novo targets for this year?

Yes. The 5 acquisitions that we did, 4 inside the first quarter, I think 1 slipped into the beginning of the second quarter, all consolidating assets, all ASCs that will provide immediate benefit to us. The de novos, we opened 10 last year. They're in various stages of development. As soon as they flip to breakeven, we'll start to see that benefit come through to our EBITDA line item. I think we have close to that number currently in development or under construction that we expect the number of them to open up in 2025, some of them flipping into 2026. And we have a handful, I think, north of or close to our annual target of 10 in the pipeline and under syndication opportunities right now. So we're really pleased, and thank you for asking that question. The de novo track for us is a very intentional focus for us as an organization where we target to have 10 under development every single year. So last year, a great year for us. This year is shaping up to be very good, and the pipeline looks good from an ongoing perspective going forward.

And on those de novos, are those consolidated or mostly unconsolidated? And then really my follow-up is just more around the portfolio refresh that you went through last year. Just wanted to get any more thoughts on additional activity.

Yes. Thanks, Whit. So most of those are going to be -- de novos are going to be unconsolidated at least at the beginning. Probably we expect that maybe half of those will end up being consolidating at some point in the future, but they start out as minority investments. And quite honestly, the one thing that I would just add on the de novo side, they're beneficial to us for lots of reasons. One of the big reasons is that they typically are set up in a place where you're pulling directly out of the traditional acute care system. And so it's a really opportunity to work with payers in a way that's different because you're creating a ton of value. So it gives us a reset there, and they tend to be really higher acuity as well. So there's so many angles to the de novos that we're excited about. As far as the refresh, as you know, we did do a fair amount of divestitures at the end of last year, don't expect any kind of near that size this year as far as kind of full divestiture. So that won't be an ongoing play.

Yes. Having said that, with managing a portfolio of over 160 facilities, we'll always have some degree of activity. But as Eric mentioned, last year was an unusually high year, relatively small impact to the company. That's why we're not talking about that as a major headwind this year, but we will constantly refresh that portfolio. We've got a team that's kind of dedicated to making sure that we're maximizing those -- the value that kind of sits inside there for the communities that they serve.

The last question will come from Ben Hendrix with RBC Capital.

Just wanted to follow up on your growth commentary around GI and MSK. I just wanted to see kind of where cardio procedures are fitting in on that. I know, in the past, you've talked about that being a longer ramp, but just wanted to see kind of how growth there is progressing and how that's fitting into your recruiting and development efforts?

Ben, thanks for the question. Yes, definitely, I talked about this in the past. Over the long run, we're quite excited about this moving over. But in the near term, there's still a lot of things that make it a slow growth kind of service line, just a number of states that still haven't actually caught up with Medicare on this. But I will say, we have a number of facilities that are adding cardiac, CRM, cardiac rhythm management procedures, EP. We did just -- I was just at a grand opening for our first cardiac cath lab-based ASC recently. So we're seeing those come into the platform. But I would just tell you that the end growth should be quite strong, I think, over the next few years, but again, it's a small end. We are excited about that, though, Ben, because I do think long term, it's much like ortho. It's one of those procedures where our savings in our side of care is five-figures-plus per case. And so I definitely think as you look at the cost pressures in the health system, I think it's one of those areas that we do expect over time. If ortho ever does slowdown, which is not anywhere near slowing down at this point, lots left to convert, but that one is a huge part of that kind of, let's call it, $100 billion that's going to transition out of traditional acute care system into our side of care over the next several years.

At this time, I would like to turn the floor back to Eric Evans for closing remarks.

Great. Thank you. I just want to -- before we conclude, I did want to just say thank you to my colleagues and physician partners who collaborate each and every day to deliver on our mission, which is to enhance patient quality of life through partnership. Thank you for joining our call this morning, and have a nice day.

Thank you. This does conclude today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation, and have a great day.