Mike Shapiro: Joanna, it’s Mike. No, I mean, look, obviously, we try to quantify things when we’re deviating from our guidance ranges. And as you know, this is a dynamic environment. There’s a lot of puts and takes. We tried to provide some subjective color around some of the things affecting. But honestly, given the fact we’re still in remediation mode and it’s still a dynamic environment, we’re just not in a position to provide a simple dollar amount for the impact. I think, obviously, it’s not something we anticipated going into the year. But as we model out our expectations, we model in a number dynamics and contingencies. And I think given the fact that we’ve reaffirmed and actually brought up the bottom end, I don’t think it’s in our best interest to try to put a specific number on the dynamic.
Joanna Gajuk: Sure, yes. That makes sense here. Raising the guidance, I guess, answers that question, I guess, indirectly. But another one in terms of just numbers in the quarter, G&A. So I guess you did well there. I appreciate the commentary on gross margin when you talk about the [indiscernible]. But on the G&A, the $152 million [ph] excluding some items. Is it a good runway going forward?
Mike Shapiro: Yes. I mean, obviously, we’ve been very disciplined in how we invest in phase in our SG&A. I think that’s a reasonable baseline. And again, we would expect that to grow in the low single digits as per usual as we drive the spending leverage.
Joanna Gajuk: Okay. And I guess another question here. So you mentioned where this new chronic therapies largely that you’ve been onboarding and adding over the last year that come with some additional, I guess, from costs. But kind of big picture question there on different categories of these drugs. The first, any interest in oncology from our checks, it seems the industry is focused on this new therapy class. We ended the industry conference, there was a lot of talk around oncologic. So kind of would like to hear from you in terms of your interest in adding more of these therapies into your portfolio?
John Rademacher: Yes, Joanna, it’s John. We have a dedicated team that’s working upstream with biopharma to identify therapeutic categories as well as specific drugs to be able to bring on formulary, we continue to take a look and have interest in oncology. When you think of some of the PD-1s, the products that you see advertised a lot on television they have characteristics that really are in alignment with what we have as our platform and more importantly, with the infusion suites that we’re able to operate. And so we’re working right now. We know that’s a competitive space. We know that both hospital outpatient departments as well as oncology clinics aren’t looking to transition a significant number of their patients over.
However, we think that we’ve got a very unique platform and a very efficient way in order to support patients that require those types of infusions or injections that have a health care professional oversight that’s required that need that clinical care that we can provide. And so we’re always looking for opportunities, whether in neurology or oncology to expand the portfolio of products that we are able to serve and expand the number of patients that we have.
Joanna Gajuk: I appreciate that. And I guess, lastly, you mentioned subcutaneous. And I guess it’s also, I guess, you sort of speak a tariff class to some degree but there’s obviously some existing infusions that are potentially being — also being worked out as version of subcutaneous. So how should we think about this ENTYVIO and OCREVUS therapies for you and I guess the OCREVUS label as the patient need training. So can you talk about how you think about these drugs or these new therapies impacting your business? Would that be a lower revenue, lower margin? And I guess, to your point, can you leverage suits in delivering these therapies to kind of your view about the subcutaneous drugs and how this could play out over time through P&L?
Mike Shapiro: Sure, Joanna. It’s Mike. Look, introduction of subcutaneous administration is nothing new. We saw for immune globulins, there’s been subcutaneous administration for well over a decade. And nothing evolves from a product introduction that catches us by surprise. Again, as John mentioned, our trade relations team has a finger on the pulse of everything in development. I think when you really look at the core of this enterprise, we’re really focused on that clinical administration and patient support that doesn’t fit every therapy, that doesn’t fit every situation. But really even when you have products that are being introduced with subcutaneous or alternative administration devices, quite often that doesn’t become the standard of care overnight.
