George Hill: Hey, good morning, guys. And thanks for taking the question. I guess with respect to the retrospective rate adjustments that you guys talked about, is there any way to quantify both how far you guys are through the process? And simplistically speaking, I guess, how much money you guys think you might be owed from rate adjustments that kind of didn’t – that need to be trued up historically?
Mark Keim: I’ll take that. Obviously, I’m in no position to comment on retro rates that haven’t been contractually committed to by our state partners. But with our actuarial team and our data-driven process, we’re in there working with them. And I’d say there’s a handful right now where the data is compelling. The state is receptive to the discussion. We’ll let that play out. And of course, I’ll book those benefits if and when they come.
George Hill: Okay, thank you.
Operator: The next question comes from Gary Taylor from Cowen. Please go ahead.
Gary Taylor: Hi, good morning. I had two questions. One was just on the $5.50 of embedded earnings, which I think you reiterated I think a portion of that historically was Indiana that might have only been sort of $0.15 or $0.20. So I just wanted to make sure understanding what sort of backfilling that to keep the embedded earnings at $5.50. And also, if you would agree, it sounds like maybe just the Bright year one profitability is the biggest I guess, question mark right now in terms of how much of that embedded earnings will get realized in 2024. Is that fair?
Joe Zubretsky: First question, Gary, this is Joe. Yes, as embedded earnings, you’re absolutely right. We removed Indiana from embedded earnings but replaced it with New Mexico and an expansion in Texas now that the contract is finalized. And yes, as I said, we’re very confident that we can get Bright to target margins after a two-year period and achieve the $1 earnings per share accretion number. And again, we’re just saying that we just don’t know what we’re going to inherit in terms of earnings per share closing to forecast the first year.
Mark Keim: And given that company is going into OEP themselves, they’re probably still working through what their outlook is for next year. So it’s definitely too early given the situation for us to comment on that one.
Gary Taylor: Thank you.
Operator: The last question comes from Sarah James from Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead.
Sarah James: Thank you. One clarification on the rejoiners, can you give us a split of what’s coming back in exchanges versus coming back on Medicaid? And then in the two of the 12 states that didn’t put in the acuity adjustments, are you able to see any pattern there, either in how the cost that is coming in, maybe the timing that they started redeterminations or how the rate is structured with risk corridors that you’re able to determine maybe why those two were outliers?
Joe Zubretsky: I’ll kick it to Mark for the cover on these, but the first point I’ll make is on your second question. I think we appropriately need to include the word yet in the two that haven’t. Bear in mind, some of our rate cycle actually incepts only as the redetermination process starting even before it started, which makes it not possible for any Medicaid department to project what the acuity shift would be. So I would introduce the word yet. And who knows, maybe we’ll get a retro or a mid-cycle adjustment on those two states. Mark?
Mark Keim: Hey Sarah, on the reconnects, when we use the term reconnects, both seamless and with a gap, that is purely a Medicaid concept. So that 25% going to 30% that we’re seeing is strictly within Medicaid – then separately, as I mentioned earlier, we’re picking up members in the marketplace. I mentioned closer to 40,000 through SEP in the third quarter. So that would be a different concept. And obviously, as an enterprise, only helps – in the overall membership story. And then Joe is exactly right, on the two of the 12 states where we haven’t seen it yet, there’s a few things driving that. The timing of when folks started impacts how quickly data develops to have a data-driven process. The timing of the fiscal year is definitely a component, but in all cases, the concept of actuarial sales just means it’s a matter of getting the data into timing consistent with fiscal years and appropriate retro periods.
So we feel good about that process. And again, the vast majority have already given us those concessions. So we feel good about how the process will unfold.
Sarah James: That’s helpful. Thank you.
Operator: This concludes our question-and-answer session. The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect.
