John Rademacher: Hey, Joanna. It’s John. Yeah, I think as we’ve outlined before, look, all of our contracts are in really good state. Most of our contracts are evergreen annual renewals through that process. And so we don’t feel that there is any significant risk of any of those. Most of the major payer contracts that we have are in the middle of multi-year agreements that we have there. So we believe we’re in a stable environment in 2023. However, as my previous comments, I mean, we are continuing to have active dialogue across all of the payer community around some of the increase in the input costs. Our labor and med supplies and other things to try to find ways to get some rate increase even in the interim period of those agreements.
Joanna Gajuk: Okay. Thank you. And I guess on just your other smaller payers in terms of Medicare. Where do we stand with this legislative fix there? And would you expect kind of more traction when maybe some of these new drugs are getting approved like the drugs for Alzheimer’s? Like, would you expect this to be an impetus for something like that on the Medicare side to improve the coverage for infusion therapies at home?
John Rademacher: Yeah. Look, as we’ve said previously, we continue to be active in Washington, D.C., both as part of the National Home Infusion Association, as well as things that we do independently to try to move this forward. There is continued push and pressure from our standpoint. Again, we have bipartisan support to move things forward, it’s a matter of getting it prioritized. And as we rolled through January, certainly, with some of the changes in Congress and the Republican control, there is a reset of committee leads and other things that go through that process. So look, we’re always going to put this and try to put this front and center as part of the government relations efforts that we have underway to try to move it ahead.
It’s hard to hazard a guess, there is a lot of moving pieces in Washington, D.C., as you know with various agendas as well as things like the debt ceiling and other things that they’re working through. So we’re going to be — continue to be active. I’m always cautiously optimistic, because I know that offering high-quality care at an appropriate cost in a setting in which seniors deserve to be served resonates. It’s a matter of finding how do they pay for it within the process. To the broader question around, are there catalysts out there potentially with the new Alzheimer’s indications and those. Yes, I mean we’re going to look for every one of those to be an opportunity to continue to articulate the value of delivering care to beneficiaries in the home.
We’re going to continue to use those as being leverage points to change the dialogue and to get more receptivity of making that transition. And so, we’ll try to utilize that for the opportunities that it will present as things move forward. But too early to tell. We’re still, as everyone waiting to see what CMS does with some of those novel new agents as they’ve received FDA approval or there’s others that are in the pipeline. And so, we think we have a viable solution, especially with the infrastructure that we have, both within our infusion suite as well as in the home to serve those patients that would require an infusion. And so, we’ll continue to have dialogue both with biopharma and the innovators as well as in Washington and with CMS around the value and virtues of home infusion as being part of that service model.
