And they’ve had great traction across the industry with other Naven clients, including biopharma as they look at things like manufacturer programs, clinical trials, et cetera. And yes, as you did pick up, we did make a very small acquisition in the third quarter, a small nursing staffing agency that frankly is already integrated into the Naven platform. It was quite small, but complementary. And now as we think about that platform, the ability to scale it is quite attractive.
Joanna Gajuk: And on this last point in terms of adding assets, so you repeated the comments from three months ago in terms of just in the near term, the spending will be more focused on the core infusion or close to core home infusion assets, but I guess we haven’t seen much activity this quarter. So is there some sort of timing of things? Or should we expect more — things pick up in later this year or into next year? And are there any — I guess, flavor in terms of the pace of the deals and the closing of those? Thank you.
John Rademacher: Yes, Joanna, it’s John. We continue to take a look and understand what’s available in the marketplace as assets come available or we engage in different conversations. And we don’t really put a time box around when that is, right? It’s a matter of making certain that we’re disciplined in our approach and that we’re focused around where we can add value. And just to reinforce kind of — that I said in my comments and that is — we don’t feel like we have to do anything. The core business is operating extremely well, as you saw by the results in the quarter, we have confidence that we can continue to do that. But we also understand that with the capital structure that we enjoy today and with the ability to generate cash for us to find opportunities to increase value to our shareholder’s deployment of that capital in a multifaceted way.
But certainly, in us looking M&A as part of that multifaceted strategy, we think is the best use of that capital as we move ahead. And so I wouldn’t time box it. I don’t feel as if there’s a shot clock and we have to do something in the near term, we’re going to look for great assets that are complementary to what we do and increase the relevance with the payers, with the prescribers, with our patients. And if we find the right assets that are economically and strategically aligned, then we will look to deploy capital for those types of opportunities.
Mike Shapiro: The only thing I’d add, Joanna, is look, for every opportunity that makes it to a headline, there’s likely dozens that die on the edit room floor because as John reiterated, I think we’ve driven a discipline that there’s a lot of strategically attractive assets, but it has to generate very attractive cash on cash returns and represent economic opportunities as well.
Joanna Gajuk: No, I appreciate that. That makes sense. And if I may ask the follow-up, I guess, the commentary on next year in 2024. So I understand you’re not giving guidance. And appreciate a comment there on the procurement benefit this year, creating headwind next year and also the therapy, I guess, exits the headwind this year, so I guess, easier to complement for next year. But any other big tailwinds and headwinds that we should be thinking about? I guess, subcutaneous formulations may be coming for some of the main drugs like [indiscernible] at some point in the next few years? And maybe with that if you can give us a flavor of the Alzheimer’s drugs for rollout? And are you seeing more MA plans covering it? So I guess any other things, I guess, we should be thinking about as we head into next year? Thank you.
Mike Shapiro: Sure, Joanna. And again, I’ll reiterate my legal disclaimer, which is to say we’re not in a position to provide granularity. Look, the reality is we’re still in the process of working on our 2024 budget and expectations, which obviously will be eager to share in February of ’24. I think I would underscore a couple of things. Number one, John and I have reiterated that we maintain our conviction in the growth profile of this of this platform. Having said that, this is a very dynamic environment. We don’t operate in a static environment. There are constantly puts and takes, both from a therapy portfolio, disruptive technology, procurement dynamics, payer dynamics. And so as we formulate and finalize our thoughts, we’ll definitely circle back.
But rest assured, there’s always going to be, as there have been over the last four years since we consummated the merger, a tremendous number of variables that are moving. I don’t know, John, if you have any comments on that.
John Rademacher: Yes. The only other thing I would add to the specific question around the Alzheimer’s. Again, it’s been slow in the uptake as I think everyone is aware, we’re still working to understand what are the medical policies in which the payers are going to utilize as we move forward. We, again, believe that the platform that we have and the capabilities from a clinical standpoint are well positioned to support that these patients, but there’s still so much that has to develop for us. We’ve talked before about the challenges of diagnostic aspects of it as well as continue to track those patients through the process. And so we’re working both with biopharma as well as working or listening to the feedback from payers around that and are doing everything we can to be a partner where appropriate and look to participate where we can add value.
Joanna Gajuk: Thanks for taking the questions.
Operator: Our next question comes from Brian Tanquilut with Jefferies. Your line is open.
Brian Tanquilut: Good morning, guys. John, maybe as I think about the pending legislation around hospital site neutrality for drug administration. How are you thinking about the potential downstream impact of that, if implemented, for infusion providers such as you guys?
John Rademacher: Yes. We are — well, I’ll start with just the general. We continue to work in Washington kind of across the board to try to look for expansion of coverage and expansion of access for Medicare beneficiaries to be able to receive the full benefits of home and alternate site infusion services. And again, well document has been well discussed, the limited access that they have today. As we continue to take a look at other areas where legislation is moving. Again, we look at that as potentially being an opportunity for us. We know that the efficiency of our model allows us to operate extremely effectively within the home and alternate site infusion delivery aspects of that. We talk about the efficiency of our nursing and the infusion suites and our pharmacies and the way that they can compound dispense and distribute the product.
So if this starts to open up additional opportunities and/or it changes the economic dynamics to be more aligned with the lower cost providers, we think that there might be an opportunity for us to participate. But again, we’re going to need to have some legislative fix or other elements that allow us to be able to service those Medicare beneficiaries in the home or in one of our infusion suites.
