Jamie Samath: Thanks, Rick. It was largely implemented in Q2, Rick. It wasn’t effective at the beginning of the quarter. I’d say roughly half of the quarter benefited from the price increase. Our estimate for the impact of the price increase is consistent with what we said last quarter, roughly about $100 million impact to revenue and profit for the year. Again, you get kind of half an impact in Q2 and the full impact in Q3 and Q4.
Rick Wise: Great. Thank you.
Gary Guthart: A reminder of our motivations on that. We’ve been quite conservative on pricing. Our input pricing the last few years has gone up in terms of raw material and labor content. We have offset most of that through efficiency and scale advantages, but we felt like it was time to share some of that with our customers and that was the motive behind the price increase.
Rick Wise: Thanks again.
Operator: We’ll go to the next line. I have Richard of Truist Securities. Please pronounce your last name, sir.
Richard Newitter: All right. Thank you. Richard Newitter here. And thank you for taking the questions. Jamie, maybe for you on the guidance, 20% to 22%, very healthy. I’m just curious on thinking about the low end of the range there, you specifically mentioned you contemplate bariatric surgery growth trends eroding a little bit from the 2Q levels. What’s the pace of erosion there that you’re thinking about that would get you to the low end? Like, how much erosion? How did you how did you establish a baseline for yourself?
Jamie Samath: Yeah, I don’t want to get too specific there, Rich, given just the relative size of bariatrics in the US to our overall procedures. We can obviously see the progression between Q1 and Q2. I’d call it a moderate steady progression in the model in Q3 and Q4. The overall impact on that is obviously a function of the size of the bariatric business for us. It’s not some dramatic fall-off.
Richard Newitter: Okay. That’s helpful. And just maybe sticking on that — the same topic here on bariatrics. Just thinking about the areas that you could offset that as we think of procedure categories geographically or by category that that could be nearing an inflection point like bariatric got you several years ago. What procedure categories or geographies would you call out that you think could lead to overage there to offset any potential incremental slowdown in bariatrics if any?
Jamie Samath: I’m not going to answer that in terms of overage, but I’ll say where we’re seeing healthy growth. If you take our largest seven markets, which is a focus for us, so China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, UK and Italy, what you’re seeing in those markets is generally a progression beyond urology into the next set of cancer procedures. It’s market by market, but generally that’s hysterectomy, thoracic and colorectal procedures. And we’re seeing them on the early stages of an adoption curve. And that’s why we’ve talked about our OUS business now is about half outside of urology or beyond urology. This quarter we grew 35% that subset, that’s consistent with what we saw in Q1. That subset also grew 35%. So I think we’re excited in those larger markets where we have that focus and continue to drive the adoption curve in that set — next set of procedures.
If you look at market by market, you have some unique dynamics in China. You see liver and pancreas procedures doing well. In Japan, treatment of stomach cancer. In Korea, for example, you see thyroid. But it’s really that next step procedures.
