RxSight, Inc. Common Stock Wells Fargo 21st Annual Healthcare Conference

Yeah. Well, first off, thanks for having us, and delighted to give an update on how things have been going. As you highlighted, the last handful of weeks since I have started, I have spent a lot of time out in the field talking to customers. It is probably where I spent most of my time really understanding the business and understanding what is working and what is not. I think I always start with everyone wants to talk about what is wrong. I think there are a lot of things that are going right as well, and I maybe start there. When we talk to customers and clinicians that are using our Light Adjustable Lens technology, what we hear pretty clearly, almost every single physician I talk to talks about the outcomes, and the fact that this device, this lens, gets outcomes that they cannot get anywhere else.

That is really the foundation of where we believe the long-term success of adjustability lies is the fact that it consistently delivers great outcomes. The other thing we hear is that they see an opportunity to continue to expand the types of patients that can benefit from Light Adjustable Lenses. We know that cataract surgery is the number one surgical procedure in the United States. It continues to grow, and we believe that patients are becoming more and more discerning. That is what we are hearing from clinicians, that the patients are more demanding, and they are going to want even better outcomes. That is where they see the opportunity for adjustable lenses. So that gives us a great foundation to think about where we want to take things long term. Now, obviously, we are not where we want to be.

As you highlighted, there are some opportunities there, and I think they really lie in a few areas. One is when we look at the company as a whole, I do not think we were fully resourced to shift from this early trial of adjustable lenses into deep adoption. So one big focus is going to be orient the organization commercial footprint to driving depth of utilization with our almost 3,000 surgeon user base. Secondly, I think there is a bigger opportunity for education around how adjustable lenses get really unique and differentiated outcomes versus any other premium lens that is out there. So there is a big platform for education. Third, there is an opportunity for practice integration, talking about how you manage patient counseling, how you manage cost and economics. This would address maybe some of the barriers or perceived barriers that you hear out there.

The last thing we hear is that if I can magnify what I hear from doctors, their personal experience, if we can take that peer to peer and get that out there and being shared on the podium at conferences more broadly, I think that would have a huge impact on the utilization. We said it on the earnings call a couple of weeks in, the most profound thing I find, and what's really intriguing to me as I've moved in the seat is when you talk to surgeons, they say if they were going to get a cataract surgery, they'd get LAL. If they were doing it on their mom, their dad, or their friend, they'd do LAL. That perception is real. However, it doesn't play out as well in the marketplace, and that disconnect is something that's really intriguing and an opportunity for us to uncover.

Yeah. In actuality, some of the early accounts are doing still quite well. Right? Obviously, you can imagine the first people you talk to are some of your heavy users and early adopters, and I would say that many of them are actually still growing. I think when you take a step back, I think the impression that people have is when we look at the overall utilization across the base that we have, I've seen some flattening and some decline year-over-year. I think that's more sort of in that middle-of-the-pack user where we haven't really solidified the true patient opportunity. I'd say almost every user is going to use it in the most obvious patient, say, like a post-refractive patient, someone that's had, like, a LASIK or PRK surgery earlier, now they're coming in for cataract surgery.

A lot of folks use that, but then they think about who is the incremental patient. Our early adopters actually have expanded beyond that. They're thinking of patients that would otherwise not convert to premium. They've got a great system to convert them to premium with LAL. They might think about LAL versus, say, potentially a patient that might be otherwise a candidate for an EDOF lens, or maybe somebody that maybe came in thinking about a multifocal, but they're actually a better candidate for LAL.

We see those patient types and that pattern really nicely applied in our heavy user base. I think the opportunity is actually to take the experience where we're still seeing growth and upside in our early adopters, heavy users, and translate that into the next stage of users and almost create a playbook for the early users so we don't get that stalling effect from that early trial where people get excited, use it in some of the most obvious patients, and then sort of plateau. That's really the crux of what we said earlier, which is the company did a good job at getting that early foothold, but we really didn't have a plan on taking it from the early foothold to the broader patient opportunity. That's where we're going to spend a lot of our time going forward.

It's one of those yes, and opportunities, meaning, yes, we should absolutely own the post-refractive patient. We're the only IOL that actually has no contraindication for that. It doesn't necessarily hold physicians back, but when you look at the actual labeling, we've actually had that removed as a restriction. That gives us an opportunity to own that segment for sure. I think that in talking to some of the clinicians I've talked to, speaking to a colleague that I've known for a long time in Florida recently said, "Well, if I'm using it there in that post-refractive patient, which would otherwise be a challenging patient for a multifocal EDOF, why wouldn't I use it on maybe a more straightforward patient?" Right? I'm getting great outcomes in a difficult patient. Why not get even better outcomes in a patient that's not as difficult?

Why only reserve this for these patient types? There's a huge educational opportunity there. We've got evidence that supports it. I give the other example is we're seeing a lot of uptake on EDOF lenses, and when you actually look at the visual performance of an LAL, it performs as well, if not better in some regards in terms of distance vision, and you can adjust for that near vision. So you actually can yield potential higher rate of spectacle independence, meaning lower percentage of patients having to wear glasses post-surgery. That's an example where you can translate what works in a very specific segment, like post-refractive, which is technically a more difficult case to maybe a broader patient opportunity.

We talked about earlier, one of the areas of focus is what we call practice integration, which is essentially addressing these two perceived challenges. When we talk to early adopters and some of our heaviest users, they do not see these as barriers, right? They have optimized for the chair time. They have got an optometrist on staff that can do the adjustments, that can do a lot of these things. They can schedule this in clinic blocks where it is not interfering with surgical consults. It is obviously, if the surgeon is not doing it, the optometrist is doing it. It is not taking away from surgical time. So there are ways to optimize the practice to really manage the patient flow. From a patient's perspective, if they can get a tailored outcome, they are more than willing to come back and make the visits to get exactly what they want.