PACE is a unique population and with the impact that COVID has had on the population, you see a much accelerated acuity, these individuals. And so we want to make sure that recent experience is really captured in the rate setting process. And then lastly, I would say, we want to make sure that we’re really caring for the inflationary factors that we in all pace programs are dealing with, whether it’s supply, salaries, wages and benefits, gas costs from transportation. I mean, you know this well, there’s a lot of inflationary factors that we need to have the dialogue about how those factored into our rates. And based on some conversations I’ve had with some state officials, they’re very interested in understanding what those inflation factors are.
So, I think all-in, we got to get a lot better at this. It’s very actuarially driven and we’re going to put our best foot forward here in this next rate cycle.
Jason Cassorla: Got it. Great. Thanks for all the color.
Operator: Thank you. Please standby for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Lisa Gill with J.P. Morgan. Your line is open.
Lisa Gill: Thanks very much. Good afternoon and thanks for the commentary. Barb, I understand you’re not prepared at this time to give guidance, but as I think about the EBITDA loss in this quarter and then I think about the next several quarters. Can we maybe just maybe understand maybe some of the puts and takes? Patrick just talked about salary wages, you talked about that in your comments as well. Third party audit and support, I would think that that’s going to start to decline. You said fleet and contract transportation costs, it looks like gas prices have somewhat stabilized. Sales and marketing, I would expect that that’s probably going to ramp up as you start to go back out and put sales back out there in the Colorado market and hopefully in Sacramento as well?
And then lastly, you talked about de novo being $845,000 loss. So, just when I think about those kind of puts and takes this quarter, is that something similar to what we should see in the next several quarters? Is there something you would call out that would be higher or lower? Just any direction you can help us to think about this would be really helpful?
Barbara Gutierrez: Sure. I think there are several factors we say, you know obviously, growth in and of itself will be helpful to that. So, in and of itself growth will be helpful. It will also be helpful from the standpoint of improving our risk pool, you know just balancing our risk scores. So, they are an effect on those external provider costs, which have been running higher than historically for a couple of reasons. One, the long-term impact of the pandemic, the imbalance risk pool, etcetera. So, it will have an impact on that as well. As well as our clinical value initiatives are also targeted at those external provider costs. We’ve talked about the fact we have elevated SWB because we have invested, we filled critical gaps, and we’ve done investing at the center level and retained that staff, despite losing in Colorado on average 2% of the census a month.
So, it’ll have a disproportionate impact to the center level contribution margin and EBITDA once we can start adding some expenses there because we won’t have to add staff at that same rate. So, those would be some of the puts and takes. Yes, we’ll have more sales and marketing, but there’s a good correlation there to the revenue. And as Patrick said, we don’t anticipate having to ramp up G&A. We really just want to leverage the G&A structure. So, I would say those are the €“ there’s several puts and takes. Hopefully, that’s helpful.
Lisa Gill: So, if I think about the roughly 2 million adjusted EBITDA loss in this quarter was materially better than what I think we in the Street were looking for, is that kind of a good baseline to use over the next several quarters?
