But if you compare the kind of core operational aspects of ACO reach versus MA, we don’t have to do claims payment. We don’t have to do member services, sales and marketing, commissions, UM credentialing, the list goes on. So all these things that we have to do for MA that are obviously capital intensive in terms of SG&A, we really don’t have to do for ACO reach, and that’s why we’re able to grow it in such a capital-efficient manner.
Operator: This question comes from the line of Nathan Rich of Goldman Sachs.
Nathan Rich: Thomas, I wanted to follow up on the MBR comments that you made in response to Kevin’s question. I guess what I wanted to try to get at is, I think if we make the adjustments for all of the year-over-year items that you mentioned, it seems like it’s implying that MBR for returning members is going to be roughly flat year-over-year. I guess, is that roughly right? And if so, are there any factors that you kind of highlight in driving that? I guess I would have thought you’d maybe see some improvement on the MBR for this membership base. So I’d just be curious to get your thoughts there.
Thomas Freeman: Nathan, Thomas here. So I think we might look at that a little bit differently to the way you described it. So I think we do expect improvement on our returning members or our loyal members. And that’s pretty consistent with what we’ve shared in terms of our historical cohort data. We’re not seeing anything today that would cause us to deviate from our prior experience. So I think when you kind of think about the bridge we shared earlier, what — again, what we’re saying with the new members is that the new members in ’22 and the impact of those members on ’22 is consistent with the impact on ’23, plus an additional 55 basis points on top of that. If you were to actually kind of take that ’23 number and we were to break it down between all the loyal and new members, you would see an expectation of the loyal or the returning members improving in ’23 versus ’22.
I think we feel pretty good about how those trends are shaping up, both from a revenue standpoint as well as from a medical cost standpoint.
Nathan Rich: Okay. Great. And then just a quick follow-up. I guess, for ’23, is there anything from an EBITDA cadence standpoint that we should be aware of? And I guess, it seemed like the 1Q EBITDA guidance was maybe a little bit lower than we would have expected relative to the full year. So I just wanted to ask if there’s anything from a cadence standpoint?
Thomas Freeman: Yes. So I think in terms of MBR, our guidance for Q1 reflects what we saw in January utilization, where similar to prior experience, it typically is a higher utilization month, and that was very much the case this past January, though we’re pleased to share that the February utilization has come back down relative to January. And so I think if you’re looking at our guidance for the first quarter of last year in terms of the implied MBR, it would actually look pretty similar to the guidance that we put out today in terms of the MBR. That being said, I recognize we, of course, beat our guidance last year in MBR, and we’ll see how this quarter plays out. But I think the seasonality we’re contemplating around MBR is fairly consistent with how we might think about a normal operating environment.
