Adam Schechter: Thanks for that clarification, we’re seeing a similar thing that primarily with NHP trials that were, when there was supply issues, people started to get in line much earlier than they typically would to ensure that they could run their trials as fast as they could. Now that we have supply and so forth, as those clients studies are ready to go, they’re not necessarily ready to go. Or they’re thinking about their pipeline and other priorities, and so forth, because they booked these spots so far ago. So, that’s the primary reason that we believe we’re seeing these cancellations in early development.
Eric Coldwell: And then can you talk at all about gross awards in early development was that book-to-bill above one or below one this quarter?
Adam Schechter: So, if you look, overall, if you just look at the quarter would have been below one. But as again, with early development, I don’t think book-to-bill is really a good way to look at that business. Because when it comes to early development, they’re one month trial, three months trials, maybe six-month trial, so you can burn through those in the same year. Very quickly, I look at the book-to-bill, you know, because I think it’s a historical way to look at the business. But EPS is very small compared to Central Laboratory and the vast majority of our Accentual laboratory work remains very strong. So, that’s why I feel confident, as I look at the numbers of the future, because of the size of our Central Laboratory, the mix of customers and Central Laboratories more towards pharma, and big biotech and the book-to-bill it remains pretty good.
Eric Coldwell: Okay, thank you for that, Adam. And I was just hoping you could talk a bit about the FDAs LDT proposal here and maybe help us with some quantification of what your LDT mix looks like by revenue or volume or any color, commentary on what you see progressing with the proposed rule at the FDA. Thank you.
Adam Schechter: Yep, absolutely. So, you know, we were supportive of legislation called valid last year that would have given FDA oversight for laboratory developed tests. And it was unfortunate that it didn’t get passed last year, had bipartisan support, we were supportive. It’s disappointing that legislation didn’t go through. So, we’re supportive of working with the FDA to find ways for them to give appropriate oversight. We think that our science or innovation or technology capabilities actually differentiate us. And if you look at the rigor that we go through with our laboratory developed tests, we think we do the vast majority of what they would be asking for anyway. Working with ACLA, our trade organization, what we’re worried about is if you take legislation that had an intended purpose, for one thing, and then you try to apply it to another thing, you have to be very thoughtful about that.
The good news is the FDA has asked for comments, and we’re going to provide comments and thoughts. At the end of the day, if it’s fairly done, meaning that all laboratory developed tests have to do the same thing across big labs, small labs and everything else, as long as they can get these filings done quickly so that people have access to new innovations in a timely manner, like they do today. We believe that it will be minimal impact to us in terms of the amount of money or spend because we do a lot of that work anyway. With that said, it’s less than 10% of our volume. So, laboratory developed tests are not a significant portion of our volume. But sometimes they are the most important test for new specialty areas. And trying to get those to patients quickly is what’s most important for them.
Eric Coldwell: Adam with less than 10% of volume, I would assume the revenue contribution would be higher because they are as you just stated, a bit unique at the testing so could you talk —
Adam Schechter: It’s less than 10% of the dollars to when I say less than 100% of the value is. It’s less than 5%, frankly. And then the dollar is less than 10%.
Eric Coldwell: Perfect. Thank you so much.
Operator: And our next question comes from the line of Tim Daley from Wells Fargo, your question please.
Tim Daley: So, first one on diagnostics, I think organic bass, this price mix, excluding Ascension was roughly 320 bits, if I just kind of back out the numbers. You know, if you break that out from like, like-for-like price versus mix impact for us in the quarter? And how is, standalone price been trending versus last quarter last year? I mean, healthcare would be great.
Glenn Eisenberg: Sure. Hey Tim, this is Glenn. That’s right, we would agree that your 320 is in line with the, call it the organic price mix favorability excluding the impact that we would get from Ascension. You know, from a pricing standpoint, we continue to say pricing is kind of flat, maybe a little bit of a headwind. You heard Adam earlier in the future with the renewals of the managed care contracts, you know, that actually is a positive for us. But most of the time that favorability in our price mix continues to be on the mix side, we continue to see favorability in our tests per session, you know, whether the payer mix test mix with a lot of things esoteric relative to routine. So, we continue to experience good favorable price mix, but more on the mix side.
Tim Daley: Appreciate that. And then my second question is on the direct consumer, so good to see a continued menu and expansion. This quarter with the announcement, just can you update us on the revenue mix within consumer? Where was it this quarter? What are you expecting, as a piece of that ‘23 guidance? Thank you.
