Moshe Mizrahy: Well, I will answer that. I will answer that. This is Moshe. Definitely, we want to go to some indication that we can use reimbursement. But it’s a process. The reason why we’re doing, we’re trying to do, but it’s a long process to get FDA approval for you and Incontinence. When all the companies until now failed, including Viviv, after $250 million of spending, they bankrupt and we are buying, we just bought their IP. The reason why we’re doing it is because this is the first stage toward getting a reimbursement code. In order to get a reimbursement code, you need to be FDA approved. You need to wait, you need to publish five studies, five independent studies, and you need to go and negotiate with the insurance companies. We’re in the early stage of that, but that’s one of our, I would say, strategic goal long-term.
Jeff Johnson: Moshe, just to follow up there, the $250 million that Viviv spent, I mean, again, you’re spending, I don’t have your model in front of me, but like $15 million a year on R&D. Is there a number that has to be a heck of a lot bigger than $15 million, even if it’s not 250 [ph] to go after SUI, or can this be done somewhere in that low to mid-single-digit percentage of revenue for R&D spend over the next few years?
Moshe Mizrahy: We do not save money on R&D. We do not save money on R&D. We spend as much as needed. Hiring another 25 engineers will not give us more productivity. We have a great engineering team in Israel covering electronic engineering, software engineering, clinical engineering, mechanical engineering, regulation, etcetera and, you can judge by yourself. In the last two years, we have launched to the market more than the entire industry altogether and we’re coming with two platforms every year and as I stated in my speech in the next 12 months, we will come up with four new technologies on existing technologies upgrade or some new. And we will continue to do it. I do not understand why people measuring R&D by spending or percentage of sales.
That’s not the right measurement. The measurement of R&D should be on the productivity of R&D. And I think that the aim on the profit itself in the last I would say four, five years, coming to the market with the best product, we did not fail even with one of them in the market successfully without indeed that we have. So just to say, please increase your R&D from 3% of revenue to 7% of revenue will not make it different. It will create some kind of a mess. We know how to manage R&D. It’s done in Israel. I believe we have the best R&D team in this industry worldwide, worldwide. And the profit in the pudding, look at the products that were coming with every year, look at the success of them, look how a people are happy with them. For example, fortune are our wealth, both use, for years in the market, 270,000 disposable in the last quarter.
It will not happen unless you have good R&D team productive and the definition of what do you want to develop is right. I mean not just develop something. I’m looking on our competitors. And I see that the new products that they claim to the market, some of them are buying products from Korea just give it the new name and bring it to the United States. And some of them are repackaging all technologies in a nice box as a new product. We are coming with new indication, year-over-year, either a platform, a hand piece, a combination, etcetera and that’s the competitive advantage of InMode.
Jeff Johnson: Understood, Moshe. I don’t mean to get you on your soapbox and that is a critique. I’m trying to understand where R&D is going long term and then how you can continue to innovate at these levels. And so it’s more understanding that and a plotting that not critiquing that, but thank you for coming.
