That’ll also continue to drive not only increased awareness, but hopefully it helps drive broader adoption of nodule management clinics, screening programs. So, for us, as you referenced, the expansion of our sales force is not just about hiring new sales professionals. It’s empowering them to partner with those healthcare professionals and clinicians to work on nodule management programs. And so, we spend a lot of time in peer-to-peer education where some physicians will share their experiences on nodule management programs, their experiences with patients that have been identified through a screening program. So, we’re collaborating across this entire care continuum. And we think that’s one of the ways that not only will we become a trusted partner, but that this becomes sustainable, right?
It’s not just about driving test volume adoption. It’s about building relationships and partnering to make the biggest impact we can in the deadliest of all cancers.
Andrew Brackmann: All right. Thank you. I’ll leave it there. Thanks, Scott. Thanks, Robin.
Scott Hutton: Thanks, Andrew.
Operator: Our next question will come from the line of Kyle Mikson with Canaccord Genuity.
Kyle Mikson: Hi, thanks. Congrats on the year. Robin, two questions for you to start on financials. On working capital, I think like current assets, such as a constituent will set materially in 4Q. Just wondering why that was and anything to read into in terms of how networking capital and cash conversion cycle could kind of progress in the near term. And then secondly, could you – you probably did this, but could you quantify the MA backlog in terms of revenue? Like, you know, either revenue or volume, I guess. That’d be helpful just to kind of understand how to, you know, establish comparison in this guidance, sir. Thanks.
Robin Harper Cowie: Yeah, absolutely. And good morning, Kyle. Thanks for the question. Working capital did see a step up towards the end of the year. We do typically see that in fourth quarter just from timing and holidays. We see insurance companies slow down a little bit towards the end of the year. But also with the increase in test volumes, we do expect an increase in AR. There are no delays or anything of concern to be aware of. About the Med Advantage backlog, it’s really just a couple of Medicare Advantage companies. The rest are paying quite well and on time. It is now about $3 to $3.5 million worth of backlog. That’s about a half a million from the fourth quarter – or sorry, from the end of the third quarter, so that increase in the fourth quarter.
And we removed all of that from our guidance for 2024. So, we do not have any anticipated collections on the backlog included in our guidance. We also removed any anticipated collections from current claims from those impacted health plans from the guidance as well to try and minimize any sort of variability that you see in our revenue. Now, obviously, that means if we’re able to get to rapid resolution there, that we should see some upside. And we are working diligently with those plans to get these administrative hurdles resolved. So, once we have anything more to share on that, we will be very happy to share it.
Kyle Mikson: Yeah, that was great. Thanks so much, Robin. And then, Scott, one for you on, I guess, kind of some of the legislation kind of guideline stuff out there. The first is on the biomarker legislation. Obviously, expanding private-payer, commercial-payer coverage has been kind of an ongoing effort for you. You have these biomarker laws that could really kind of deepen your penetration possibly in that segment, produce the heavy lifting for you. So, is that fair to say? I mean, I think Colorado is going to be evaluating that legislation this year, I believe. So, is that a tailwind or not, I guess? And then, just secondly, I think NCCN has this new concurrent tissue and blood-based testing, you know, guidelines for lung cancer. I mean, does that affect you at all? I’m just wondering if these things are maybe like drivers of performance like in this year that wouldn’t be affected or included, I mean, in this guidance range.
Scott Hutton: Yeah. Good morning, Kyle. Great questions. You know, I’ll start with the last. Definitely, there is an opportunity for us there in the tailwind, especially on our IQLung portfolio of the franchise, where we offer two genomic blood-based tests and then our proprietary VeriStrat test where we measure a patient’s immune system status or ability for the immune system to respond to that tumor. You know, for us, it does create increased awareness. We have the most rapid turnaround times for those tests. And I think some aren’t quite aware, we actually do offer tissue testing to our biopharma partners. So, that fits squarely kind of in our wheelhouse. I think on the individual state biomarker bills, I think Robin may be the best to provide an update on that, and I’ll turn it over to her.
Robin Harper Cowie: Yeah, it’s a great question. There have been a lot of biomarker bills passed over the last couple of years, Louisiana, Arizona, Illinois leading the way. You’re right, Colorado is considering it in this legislative session. We really look at this as maybe a door opener. They are focused on the payers and trying to help get more rapid payer coverage for tests that have been proven and have Medicare coverage or other reviews that prove that the test has clinical utility. Our team are actively working with health plans in the states that the bills have already gone live. And we’ll see how that turns out. The big question is, most of the states have not yet implemented the regulations that will dictate how they will require the coverage and how it will be enforced. So, it’s really a work in progress, but it’s something we’re tracking very, very closely.
Kyle Mikson: Okay. Actually, on that note, since NCCN guidelines are so important for the private payer, commercial payer segment, would this reduce the need to get into guidelines or even negate that push by you?
