Thomas Freeman: Yes, Michael, this is Thomas. I think what you’re describing is definitely an interesting dynamic that we’re contemplating as we look out to 2024. I don’t think we’re going to comment too specifically on our bid strategies or our product strategies with respect to how we think that impacts the whole growth versus margin conversation today. And just being very thoughtful about not sharing too much that could adversely impact us from a strategic and competitive standpoint in this next upcoming bid cycle. But all that being said, I think you’re exactly right. We certainly know there are some competitors in our markets who have benefited from COVID protections around star ratings. They benefited from higher-than-average benchmark increases the last couple of years.
And in certain cases, I think have been able to manage some of their benefit offerings in part because they’ve done a nice job with risk adjustment. And as some of those things change in the future, and as CMS continues to try to tighten the dial around risk adjustment, I think the overall impact for some of our competitors could be worse than the impact on us. And it’s that relative dynamic that I think is most important in terms of our ability to compete and, as John said, win in every market we’re in, not just in ’24, but really over the long term. So as John said, it will be an interesting bid cycle coming up, but I think we feel optimistic as to what this means for the industry and our relative positioning in the years to come.
Michael Ha: That makes sense. Maybe just 1 more question. Looking at California, a great rebound in Southern California, regained your competitive positioning. I’m seeing SCAN, Kaiser, Centene a few top players really taking their foot off the gas pedal in terms of benefit investment. But also now, the competitive dynamics seems to have flipped in Central and North Cal, where you’ve seen some plans offering really aggressive Part B rebates. So looking forward, how do you view the competitive marketplace in both SoCal and NorCal? Do you think SoCal is back to being fully rational marketplace? And do you think the aggressive offerings in NorCal are sustainable? And also 1 more question on this. The membership headwind in Central Northern California, how much of that was driven by existing member attrition versus lower-than-expected new members?
Thomas Freeman: So in terms of the — kind of Southern California versus Northern California dynamics, what I would say is, really, from a macro standpoint or from a kind of portfolio management standpoint across our geographies, I think there will always be different competitors who are more aggressive and are kind of more focused on growth in certain years, and other competitors who are less focused on growth and are more focused on margin in certain years. I think that’s just the reality of the business, and we’ve sort of seen this dynamic play out time and time again, really, over the last 8, 9, 10-plus years that we’ve been operating here in California. So I think, to a certain extent, our belief is that we should expect it.
We should expect there’s always going to be someone who might be bidding more aggressively than we view is sustainable in the long run. But it’s on us to make sure that we have the right product strategies, the right market management strategies, the right broker and distribution and provider relationships, such that we have insulated ourselves from some of those anomalies in any given year to still get to our 20% top line growth target on a consistent basis. So I don’t think it’s as simple as 1 competitor in 1 market that’s going to kind of dictate our future performance. I think we have to continue to take control of our own destiny, and that’s what you’ll see from us in the future. I think your second part of your question was just in terms of specifically in some of the counties in Northern California where we didn’t quite see the growth we had hoped for.
