Brian Poff: Yes. And Tao real quick, I’ll just piggyback a little bit on that. Just keep in mind, obviously, Q1 comps back to last year, impacted by the Omicron wave, I think, just across the board, we probably expect some pretty robust same-store numbers. But again, that impact last year compared to this year is going to be a big part of that difference. But with some of the rate increases we got, particularly with 2 rate increases this year from Illinois, which is our largest personal care market is definitely going to be helpful, I think, on the personal care side from a rate perspective.
Operator: The next question comes from Brian Tanquilut with Jefferies.
Taji Phillips: It’s Taji on for Brian. Just a couple of questions for me this morning. So just going back to your discussion around contract negotiation for home health, right? So as you negotiate contract terms with Medicare Advantage payers, I’m curious what leverage points you’re employing to successfully get those rates. And also, what does appetite look like from the payers to secure the value-based contracts like the case rate you had mentioned previously?
Brad Bickham: Yes. We’ve actually — when you look at kind of from a leverage standpoint, I mean, these are the payers that are our largest payers on the home health side. They also tend to be in the markets where we have significant personal care presence as well. And so I think that is kind of a primary leverage point. These are also payers in certain instances where we have existing value-based arrangements or we’re talking with them about adding value-based arrangements. So that’s really kind of our leverage point when looking at can we get an episodic or case rates in place. I think there’s still a lot of appetite from payers to explore value-based arrangements. I think we’re starting to build a good track record around what we’ve accomplished.
And so there’s really no shortage of interest in those types of arrangements. I think it’s really a matter of making sure that we have the wherewithal to do good with those projects. So you definitely don’t want to stretch too far. So we’re just making sure that we’re building out some infrastructure relate it to value based, that should help us be able to take on more of those cases. And as Dirk alluded to in his comments, this is something that we think has a tremendous opportunity for us down the road, but it’s going to take a little while to get there, make it meaningful from a revenue standpoint.
Taji Phillips: Great. And then just one more follow-up. I think this is more so for Dirk. You had mentioned with the PHE, just the elimination of the enhanced federal Medicaid match. So what are the offsets that will create that stability, even though the enhanced federal Medicaid match programs ending in May, I think, Dirk, you had mentioned that in your commentary?
Brad Bickham: Yes. This is Brad, actually. I think when you look at those — the reduction in the match, I also think about redeterminations that were put on hold, which, again, we don’t feel like we will have much, if any, impact from redeterminations on the Medicaid roles. Just when you look at the patient population that we serve, elderly fixed income chances of them being bumped out the roles is probably negligible. However, there are individuals that were added to Medicaid that may not qualify now. And I think that’s in large case, why the match is being eliminated and lives being phased out as you see those redeterminations take place.
Operator: The next question comes from John Ransom with Raymond James.
John Ransom: Dirk, I know it’s a small piece of your business, but I’d be interested in your perspective on hospice, some of the cross currents we’re seeing. Do you think this is a temporary thing? Or do you think something structural has differed in that marketplace?
