But it’s an area that we’re focused on and there will obviously be improvement opportunities for 2024. So, all in, we are very pleased with our performance and very bullish on our expectations for the rest of the year.
Gail Boudreaux: Yeah. Thanks, John, and thanks for the questions, Justin. I think it’s important we’ve been very consistent all year. We haven’t changed our view of how we see MLR and feel very comfortable as John said in the guidance that we gave and where we’re heading on margins. So thanks again for the question and opportunity to comment. Next question please.
Operator: Next, we’ll go to the line of Michael Ha from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Michael Ha: All right. Thank you. Regarding Medicaid redetermination, fully appreciate — understand how it’s too early to really extrapolate any current results. But thus far, number one, how’s the acuity mix shift tracking relative to your expectations? Number two, how do you view this enrollment so far? Florida looks positive, but the recent Texas data, does that concern you at all? Number three, with the number of states going through mid-year rate renewals, are you seeing acuity adjustments in these draft rates and would that represent upside to your guidance? Thank you.
Gail Boudreaux: I’m going to ask Felicia Norwood, who leads our Government business to comment on Medicaid. Thanks.
Felicia Norwood: So, Michael, good morning. Appreciate the opportunity to talk about redeterminations where our teams have certainly spent quite a bit of time trying to make sure that individuals who are eligible for Medicaid continue to maintain their eligibility. So it is still very early. And it’s important that we don’t draw conclusions based on a few months in, because the redetermination cycle is going to extend well into 2024. And with that said, I will say what we have seen so far is certainly relative — consistent with our expectations, albeit with a great deal of variability as you go from state to state. At the end of the day, however, we still believe that the guidance that we provided is certainly appropriate. As you know, CMS gave states guidelines to really do this over a 14-month period.
But at the end of the day, states are taking their own approach, and some of those have certainly front-loaded or accelerated the redetermination process based on members that they believe are no longer eligible. As we take a look at this today, we do expect that many of these members will return to Medicaid once we continue our outreach, and they’re able to provide the documentation to the states that they need. So when we look at where we are today, those members could come back over a 30 or 90-day period and we are very much focused on advocacy with our community-based organizations, our care provider partners, the federally qualified health centers, all of those entities that impact our members every single day. With that said, I will say that some of the front-loading that occurred, has happened in some of the states where we don’t have Elevance Health in terms of a Blue state platform.
And so we haven’t fully seen the appreciation of our catcher’s mitt, but we are fully prepared in collaboration with our commercial partners to be able to do that. In terms of your question with respect to rates, we are always fully engaged with our state partners in terms of the rate setting process. At this point, we have visibility into almost all of our rates for 2023 and many of them for ‘24. What we are seeing so far is in line with our expectations. States are certainly taking acuity into the rate setting process that we see. And certainly they have the ability to work collaboratively with us if we see things that they don’t see. But our early reads on acuity for our kind of leavers versus our stayers is in line with the expectations that we’ve seen so far.
