Juan Sanabria: That’s helpful. And just the last question. I think, John, you referenced or maybe it was not, John, the expected deferral repayment from Bickford going forward? And is that the amount we should be taking ? I think it was about $1 million, correct me if I’m wrong, per quarter. We should be assuming is built into guidance? Is that going to be cast with this quarterly result?
John Spaid: So let me answer it this way. Yes. And no, I haven’t really told you a lot about — what we’re also assuming on the concession front as well. We’re not thinking about any concessions on Bickford, and we’re trying to be conservative in our guidance. So what I’d like to tell you is we have reason to believe that we’re going to see a lot better than what Kevin mentioned, but that’s — I may not have answered it really well, kind of the best answer I can give you.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] our next question is coming from Rich Anderson from Wedbush.
Rich Anderson: Sorry to keep the role in. But I guess I should — we should ask on the record, I’m assuming you’re prepared like on the whole Board commentary from land and buildings. Do you have anything to say about that at this point? Or is that a equally sensitive situation that you can’t comment on today?
Eric Mendelsohn: We have some scripted answers we can give you, Rich. We’ve had constructive dialogue with landed buildings to better understand their views and share ours. And as appropriate, we’ll continue to engage with land and buildings.
Rich Anderson: Okay. And then the other thing, I just — something came across my wire on a letter from some of the progressive caucus center Warren Sanders to the operators of skilled nursing sort of comparing their executive salaries to their inability to meet the minimum staffing requirements. I don’t know if you saw something similar or solve that, I should say. But do you have any comment now on minimum staffing and maybe the political elements to it.
Kevin Pascoe: Rich, this is Kevin. So we did see the letter and read it and understand maybe why there’s a question, also understand our skilled nursing partners and why they are pushing back on the issue. I think there is probably a thoughtful approach to delivering care. When we look at our portfolio, particularly the Star ratings are pretty good and stack up really well against it and think that our operating partners are delivering good care in their buildings. Yes. And I think there’s probably been — there’s probably a more thoughtful way to do it than just applying aggregate hours and saying that that’s what it should be for everybody and then also how they get applied versus RMs and CNAs. And I think the biggest issue that we have is just the ability to get labor.
It’s not so much that they don’t want to care for residents that they need to be able to attract and retain talent, and it’s not there, especially when you look at the RMs that are available. We see that in our markets where it’s kind of a trickle-down effect where the hospitals get first pick and then the skilled nursing, they’re scrambling to get nurses and then it flows down to even into the senior housing where they’re struggling to keep nurses. It’s just not available. It doesn’t matter how much you pay them. They don’t have the people to be able to staff. So again, I think there’s a more thoughtful approach that’s likely out there. like to think that there can be a compromise and it seems like there’s going to be more work to be done on this.
Operator: Thank you. That concludes our Q&A session. I will now hand the conference back to Eric Mendelsohn for closing remarks. Please go ahead.
Eric Mendelsohn: Thanks for attending, everyone, and we look forward to seeing you at NAREIT in June.
Operator: Thank you, everyone. This concludes today’s event. You may disconnect at this time, and have a wonderful day. Thank you for your participation.
