Helen Giza: Yeah. Great question. And that’s actually maybe a little bit of a bright spot for us because historically we were sitting around 17% through COVID. It went up to around 20%. And now we’re seeing that come back down quite quickly actually to around 18%. So I think that’s what also gives us the confidence on the growth recovery in the short term as well. So — and that was obviously the numbers I’m giving you kind of more US numbers, but international normalized even quicker I would say because obviously we didn’t have the same impact from COVID that we did in the US. So I think that’s really encouraging for us that these — the underlying business fundamentals that we speak about with the kind of the patients — new patients coming in and the growth is somewhat normalizing post-COVID. I guess, it all took longer than we all ever imagined.
Lisa Clive: Yes. Great. And I know you guys have done an incredible job keeping your patients as safe as you can. So thank you for that detail. That’s super helpful.
Helen Giza: Thanks, Lisa.
Operator: The next question is coming from James Vane-Tempest. Please go ahead.
James Vane-Tempest: Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. It’s James Vane-Tempest from Jefferies. Just coming back to 2025. Outside of your own execution and numbers, I’m just curious what you’re assuming for any industry changes for your projections. So for example value-based care is progression to ESRD being delayed? So, are patients essentially joining that sicker and missing treatments. So are business models increasingly stretched over time for value-based care — that risk models? And secondly on volumes, I’m curious, if patients flow may slow if drugs are more effective in CKD 304 is happening and or getting better overtime. And then thirdly, apologies as I mentioned earlier about DaVita reading, given we’re talking about 2025, just wondering, if you are assuming in your assumptions any impact on commercial mix in 2024.
Helen Giza: Thanks, James. So, yes, we’re not really assuming anything different in the underlying fundamentals in our market situation due to the ESRD or CKD. What we are doing of course with our value-based care efforts is moving more into managing that CKD population, which we feel is an important part of our strategy that ultimately we should get healthier patients coming in into the funnel. So that feels kind of all aligned with the strategy there. In terms of the — what we are feeling there is that, if we are getting a healthier patient coming in then that means that, they would be on dialysis for longer. It’s an interesting question on the drug piece because, obviously, we’re watching SGLT2s closely. And what we see there is a cardiovascular benefit and kind of a diabetes benefit.
So that means that we should — ultimately they may still, kind of — as it will still end up on the SRD, but again, we’ll have a healthier patient for longer. But we see that impact is maybe what six, eight years away. But obviously, if we can get benefits on the CKD population, that will ultimately benefit us there. And then, we have say, just healthier patients for longer. On the Marietta situation, we’re still assuming that that will have a positive ruling and there is no impact negative assumed in this outlook. Obviously, we’re just waiting to get that resolved with the MSP language.
James Vane-Tempest: Thank you. And just a quick follow-up on one of your slides on for ’23 guidance, on treatment growth of minus 1% to plus 1%. Is that all in, or is there any impact on clinic closures that we have to consider that separately? Thank you.
Helen Giza: That does include clear closures.
James Vane-Tempest: That’s great. Thank you.
Operator: The next question is coming from Victoria Lambert from Berenberg. Please go ahead.
Victoria Lambert: Thanks for taking my question. I just had one on your home treatment strategy. Is the target still to reach 25% of treatments are formed by 2025. Yes, just an update on the progress of that would be useful. Thank you.
