It’s been part of what’s starting to drive the growth in our European business has been having that approval already over there. So feeling really good, as well as, frankly, the reduction of the false negatives. So it’s just that much more accurate. And going forward. So I think it’s going to breed, we think it’s going to breed some new life. Particularly, it’s been the excitement from our customers that I think has been the galvanizing part for us.
Puneet Souda: Got it. That’s super helpful. And then the Karleen on, I wanted to ask about the tax rate. How are you thinking about the net result of the 15% global tax rate, if that was implemented, and then R&D tax credit that just sort of came through with the tax bill passing in the house, netting those effects, how should we think about the tax rate longer term for Hologic?
Karleen Oberton: Yes, so let me first frame that to extent the global minimum tax rate is in fact good for us. It doesn’t impact us till fiscal ‘26. So we’ve got some time before we have to deal with that I would say, given this lack of legislation here in the US, it’s really hard to say what the impact is. But I would tend to think it’d be more on the middle side, given that our tax rate is already over the 15%. In regard to the change in the amortization for R&D expense, probably minimally favorable for us, but really minimal impact given us just a timing issue, really, in any event.
Operator: We’ll take our next question from Ryan Zimmerman with BTIG.
Ryan Zimmerman: Hey, thanks for taking the questions this evening. I want to start with Breast health, had an opportunity to spend some time with Eric and the team at RSNA. And I just curious because you mentioned the increase in gantries and just help us understand kind of where we’re at, in the placement of gantries relative to sockets and just how much of the growth is coming from, new software like Genius AI detection, and things like that. And as we normalize for comps, what the right way to think about the growth of the Breast health businesses, given this mix now that’s moving maybe away from equipment to more software.
Steve MacMillan: You’re right, I wouldn’t underestimate that there’s still going to be continued gantry placement. So a lot of the core is actually still the gantry placements. And then it’s the service and the revenue and the additional AI and other things that we sell underneath it. But I think we continue to feel very good about the gantry placements, really from a couple of standpoints. First off, there’s still kind of the tail end of going from 2D to 3D. But we’re really into the mode now of also the early adopters of 3D. Their machines are now need to be upgraded. And with all the additional enhancements we’ve made to the system, we continue to place those gantries, so I think it’s and we’ve turned it into certainly a much more diversified business. But at the core the gantries are still a very key foundational component of the strength of our business.
Ryan Zimmerman: Okay, that’s helpful, Steve, and then just piggybacking off that, I mean, I’d love to get your assessment on the CapEx environment we’ve heard from, some of your peers already, we have some 340B money that’s kind of making its way back to hospitals, which may or may not be making its way in the capital equipment demand. But I’d love to get your view of kind of the year ahead on the CapEx demand from a logic perspective.
Steve MacMillan: Yes, I think we continue to feel pretty good from, most of our customers around the CapEx side, I think when people were more fearful year, year and a half ago, we kind of felt like it was still okay, if there’s little bits that dribble back in that’s fine, too. But I think overall, we think we’re in reasonable position and not seeing any dramatic changes one way or the other, least affecting our business. And again, we’re not the biggest capital component for the hospitals, as are the ERP systems or the certainly the big iron pieces, we continue to feel like, regardless, we’re in a good position.
Operator: We’ll take our next question from Casey Woodring with JPMorgan.
Casey Woodring: Great, thank you for taking my questions. Maybe one for Karleen on the other income line, can you please be specific on what you’re assuming for non-GAAP interest income, interest expense and other income for 2Q and the full year, by my math, I’m getting the $6 million of net interest and other income for 1Q and you’re getting to $30 million to $50 million of other expense for the year. So just trying to bridge 1Q through the rest of the year?
Karleen Oberton: Yes, so 1Q was a little unique in that and two pieces, our interest income was actually higher than our interest expense. Given that we still had a favorable interest rate hedging place which actually expired at the end of December. So moving forward, our interest expense, our weighted average cost of debt will increase about 100 basis points through the balance of the year, which really drives that flip and that interest expense will be higher than interest income, to the tune of roughly that $30 million to $50 million. Also in Q1 is we had about $4 million to $5 million of benefit below the line from our mark-to-market investments which really our EPS mutual they offset mark-to-market liability on deferred compensation.
So we really don’t forecast any benefit or expense related to that because again, this offset and operating expenses so it’s really maintaining a high cash balance and I’m assuming some deployment as we exit the year. But it’s really that exploration of that interest rate hedge contract that drives higher interest expense.
