David Cordani : Lisa, good morning. So to your first question, the co-preferred position that we have taken on our national preferred formulary is a mechanism to aid the transition, preserve and expand choice with aligned economics back to our clients and for the benefit of our customers and patients. I’d also note that that’s our National Preferred Formulary, which is our largest single formulary. We support and administer multiple formularies that are customized for individual clients from that standpoint and avail choice. I’d also suggest that this will be fluid. It will flex over time. Third, as we’ve demonstrated within our PBM and our broad pharmacy portfolio services, we have the tools to align the incentives whereby when we enable choice and create value.
Meaningful portion of that value are passed back to clients, customers and patients and a sustainable portion of the value is retained by us and the current position that we have taken aligns in that way. So it’s not — we have to have a reason of our brand drug versus the biosimilar, we have the mechanisms to afford additional choice, additional flexibility and to align the incentives. As it relates to the second part of your question, I would just give you by way of trend as opposed to an individual benefit design configuration or change, buyers in the space, be they corporate buyers, health plan buyers, et cetera, are seeking to push for more what we talk about internally all the time, coordination of services and continue to challenge point solutions.
That plays very well for us. So when you think about an illustration of that, the Pathwell program around biosimilars, the Pathwell programs around biologics, the Pathwell programs around injectables is a way to further coordinate services with precision or a subset of patients and deliver more value from that standpoint, you have to harness data, you have to harness clinical capabilities, you have to harness digital capabilities. You have to harness network and benefit management capabilities. And again, the combined organization is well positioned for that. So I would say more precision in benefit programs on a go-forward basis that bring more targeted coordination, harnessing data and harnessing specific sub-segments. And again, we are well positioned for that and Pathwell is an illustration of that direction.
Operator: Our next question comes from Mr. Josh Raskin with Nephron Research.
Joshua Raskin : I want to go back to Village and the partnership there. And I’m just trying to think about how Village and Cigna Healthcare work together and sort of how you have impact on their strategy? And are there targeted growth strategies in markets that may be stronger than, say, your MA book? And then, Dave, I think you said 75% of the Medicare Advantage business is in some sort of value-based care. How much of that is actually full risk or full capitation relationships?
David Cordani : Josh, good morning, good to chat with you this morning. So let me take your second question first. In aggregate, a small proportion is in full cap. As we’ve discussed before, our preferred approach typically has a shared risk relationship. Some of it is in global cap for sure, but a minority of it is in global cap, a majority of it is in a shared risk, longstanding shared risk program. And then another minority would be an upside only P4P in terms of new relationship pay-for-performance. So if you think about it in terms of a suite of capabilities, our sweet spot and our preferred approach is a shared alignment program, not a global cap program, but we have some global cap. To the first part of your question, you came back to the Village and CHE side of the equation.
