Mark Keim: Yes. So we update this analysis every quarter and the conclusion is really not changing. Joe mentioned a couple of the data points, the folks with us more than one year versus less the folks in the zero to 25% MCR bucket. Expansion, we’re seeing a little bit of an increase, but across the board is not much. Remember, expansion is just 30% of our total revenue. The other data point that some folks have been talking about is coordination of benefits or duplication of benefits, do we see any increase in that population. Once again, not really, a little bit of an expansion. So across the board, is there something here? Maybe, but it’s really minimal. So again, not expecting much of an impact here to the extent it plays out.
Now I refer back to the previous question, where I think the states are quite amenable to revisiting it. On your first question, are we fairly even distributed on our Marketplace? Yeah. I don’t see any real estate density in any outliers of one state being disproportionately dense. We’ve got pretty good distribution across our 14 states here.
Gary Taylor: Thank you.
Operator: The next question comes from Steven Valiquette with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Steven Valiquette: Great. Thanks. Good morning. So just a follow-up question on the exchange business. Here you mentioned the shift from bronze to silver has been the right move the better margin profile demonstrates that. So I know you talked about this more a year ago, but just remind us again why bronze has proven to be more tricky from your point of view. Has that gotten better or worse currently versus a year ago? What would have to change within that just to give you comfort to reexplore bronze on a greater level? Thanks.
Joe Zubretsky: Steven, it’s really an anomaly of the product design, not anything that we design, but the way the product is priced from an industry perspective, where one thing I can point to that is absolute fact is for the same member in bronze and silver with the same acuity level, the same services and therefore, the same HCCs, the risk score produces less revenue in bronze than it does in silver. And there are other aspects of it that make it just slightly less attractive. Mark?
Mark Keim: Yeah. I’d say a couple of things just building on Joe’s thoughts. It’s a lower actuarial value product. Sometimes that attracts folks that don’t think they’re going to use a product but do, the way the rules are set up, the balance on risk adjustment is a whole lot better on gold and silver than it is on bronze. And finally, just at a lower revenue load, it becomes slightly less attractive from a G&A perspective and some of our other operating ratios. You take those things all together, it’s more volatile, and we just don’t see the margins there.
Steven Valiquette: Okay. Thanks.
Operator: The next question comes from George Hill with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Mr. Hill, I’m not sure, some trouble hearing you. All right, your connection may have gone down. We’ll go to the next questioner, who’s Kevin Fischbeck with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Kevin Fischbeck: Great. Thanks. One quick clarification question before I jump into the real question. The $6 of embedded earnings, it wasn’t 100% clear to me. Is that in addition to the $0.65 coming back or is that $0.55 in the 3.50?
Mark Keim: So the total of $6 is $4 of new store EPS; $2 of net effective COVID; and there are two other items in there that cancel each other out. There’s the implementation costs, which are a bad guy in the current year of $0.65, but go away next year, right? And then, there’s also the remaining hit on redetermination of expecting in 2024, which is also $0.65. So those two cancel each other out, you’re looking at $4 and $2.
Kevin Fischbeck: Okay. So that $6 on the current guidance is not on the 20, 40 earnings power number.
