Dave Sedgwick: Yeah, so I would expect of the four retenanted that are showing are supplemental at $825,000 for year one contractual rent, that we would see some of that this year and again, I’m sorry that we can’t be more clear on the timing of that. There’s some licensing requirements that need to get checked, and sometimes those things take some time. But, yeah, I would expect that we’ll get a chunk of that $825,000 this year. Then once all the redevelopment and retenanting transitions are complete, the properties will prevent use as it shows a full year one rent of 5.7%. Unfortunately, I can’t give you today the timing of when that 5.7% really starts; but that will be followed by a step up in year two to 6.7%. And you’ll have a better idea, I think, next quarter of the timing of when we’ll get all of that rent commenced.
Austin Wurschmidt: Helpful. Thanks for the time.
Operator: Our next question comes from Steven Valiquette with Barclays.
Steven Valiquette: Great. Thanks for taking the question. I guess first in the earnings release today, you guys went out of your way to sort of flag the official end of the PHE coming up in May, and you discussed how it could cause some additional displacement and lead to some property acquisition opportunities, which is obviously the positive side of the equation. I guess. On the risk side, I can’t remember if you guys shared any color around this previously, but knowing it’s a moving target, have you guys taken the time to determine internally what you think the average negative percent impact might be on EBITDAR for the average SNF provider? If we’re just losing some of the benefits related to the PHE, do you think it’s material or not material because you guys also talked about some states implementing some policies to support or make up for what’s going to be lost in the PHE.
I just want to get your thoughts around that as far as just the potential impact on either coverage ratios or just average EBITDAR in the back half of ’23 into ’24. Thanks.
Dave Sedgwick: Thanks for that question. It’s a good one. It’s a bit of a crystal ball question that’s hard to answer because there are so many levers at play and the answers it really depends on the state that you’re in. In some states, I think it’s going to be sort of a non-event, particularly for those operators who are already kind of operating at the historical skilled mix numbers. Those states have already put in Medicaid rate increases and so it really shouldn’t be that big of a deal in some states. In others it might be. So it’s hard to answer for the industry or on an average, some operators in some states will be negatively affected and I think others it won’t be that big of a deal for them.
Steven Valiquette: Okay, but for your portfolio though, do you think it will move the needle on the coverage ratios or do you think it could be absorbed and just offset by other factors? When we think about just forward progression of your reported coverage ratios for the next six to eight quarters, I guess give or take.
Dave Sedgwick: Yeah, I think on the whole net effect, it should have a negative effect on lease coverage just because there are going to be those who theoretically their skilled mix will probably come down a little bit. And if occupancy stays flat, then by definition, their margin is going to be eaten away a little bit. However, if occupancy continues to recover, which we’re seeing signs that while slow, it’s steady recovering, then that could offset it. So it’s a little bit tough to handicap, frankly.
Steven Valiquette: Yeah, no doubt about it. Okay. I appreciate the color, though, in the meantime, it’s definitely helpful. Thanks.
Operator: Our next question comes from Michael Carroll with RBC Capital Markets.
