Vidyun Bais: Good. Thanks for taking the questions. I’ll actually maybe just keep it to one. So just as far as ASP, we’ve talked about a history of denials and appeals we needed to kind of lay the groundwork for commercial pay. Could you just reiterate some of your comments on the progress that you’re seeing there? I think you also called out for the first time, prior auth being somewhat of a hurdle. So just how you’re thinking about some of the puts and takes to ASP? Thanks.
Lishan Aklog: All right. So let me just jump in a bit on the process side and maybe Dennis has some additional comments. So the prior auth issue is simply one of when you look at the denials and the percentage, the breakdown Dennis mentioned, about 50% of those are informational or medical necessity. Those are – there’s an appeals process for that. But some about 18% are prior auth. And remember, this has nothing to do with our — it’s not directly related to our efforts to impact medical policy, is through the out-of-network process. So we figured there are — there’s enough of a percentage on the denial, about 18%, that it was worthwhile to put a streamlined prior auth process together so that physicians can easily see the prior auth for what is typically a non-urgent test.
So that’s just simply a way to have access to the 18% of denials that are related to the lack of a prior authorization. That’s different than I think what the first part of your question was, I think, which is around the engagement with commercial payers on medical policy, which is something that’s now starting to accelerate now that we have what we believe is sufficient CV and CU data to have those conversations. We just up until three, four months ago, we didn’t really have enough data to be legitimately involved in those conversations. So as I mentioned earlier, we’ve actually started directly making inquiries and requests for changes in medical policy with some of the brand name larger payers with the hope that if it doesn’t lead to an immediate change then we can engage in pilot programs and so forth.
So I would see that as – I would consider that as somewhat different than what we’re doing on the prior auth side, which is really a revenue cycle management process. Dennis, did you want to add anything to that?
Dennis McGrath: Yes. Just — Vivian, just go back through the stats in case that’s what you were looking at, 54% of those adjudicated were denied. And I gave some color on what half of them — the reasons for half of them, and there were three buckets, right? 7% just needed additional information, 26% were deemed not medically necessary. And the question you asked about prior auth, authorization, was 18%. That said, they would like prior authorization before reviewing the claim. So it was a smaller portion of the total, but nonetheless, it is showing up as one of the reasons for initial denial.
Vidyun Bais: Okay, perfect. Understood. Thanks for taking the question.
Lishan Aklog: Great. Thanks, Vidyun.
Dennis McGrath: Thanks Vidyun.
Operator: And your next question comes from Ed Wood from Ascendiant Capital. Your line is open.
Lishan Aklog: Hi Ed.
Dennis McGrath: Good morning, Ed.
Edward Woo: Yes, thank you for taking my question. On the high-volume CheckYourFoodTube type events, have you gone to any event more than one? Do you anticipate being some of these events being annual events? Or what’s your time period for going back to these events?
Lishan Aklog: That’s a great question, Ed. And yes, we definitely have gone back. Like, for example, the original San Antonio firefighter event that we did almost exactly a year ago, we went back and retested because the logistics, if you set up, let’s say, three or four days, you’re not going to necessarily get 100% of those who are interested in getting tested and are qualified or recommended for testing based on the risk factors. So we definitely have gone back. We even had ties where we’ve gone back and focused on retirees or different shifts and so forth. So that’s – we’ve done that. What I may just again use this opportunity to emphasize, which is that one of the aspects of this that we’re starting to push a lot harder on is as we get started to talk about how we can enter into a contractual arrangement for further testing after the inaugural event.
So to your point, and we do see that as something that could be on a regular periodic basis. Certainly, some of the conversations we’re having on the direct contracting side are – would be periodic.
Edward Woo: Great. Well, thank you for answering my questions, and I wish you guys good luck. Thank you.
Lishan Aklog: Thanks, Ed. Take care.
Operator: There are no further questions at this time. I would like to hand it over to Dr. Lishan Aklog for closing comments.
