Michael Ryskin : Hey, guys. Thanks for the question and congrats on the quarter. I want to follow up on an earlier point you touched on, the COVID headwind that you overcame in the quarter and just how to think about price for the rest of the year. So as you said, impressive that you saw revenue for requisition growth, despite some of that headwind. How should we think about that through the rest of the year? I mean, and again, that’s kind of a two-parter in terms of COVID headwinds and fading as you go through the year and then the pricing benefit. You had some major health plan renegotiation that concluded last year. Is that what’s driving some of that growth and anything else in that arena that we should be thinking of for the rest of the year? Thanks.
Jim Davis : Yeah, so let me start and then I’ll let Sam make some comments. So, remember, in the rev-rec calculation, there’s multiple moving parts here. The first one is pure price. We said it was flat in the quarter and we expected to be flattish for the rest of the year. We also said in the rev-rec calculation is test-per-rec – test-per-rec, test-mix, and then payer-mix. Test-per-rec, positive in the quarter, we expect that to continue. Test-mix was favorable in the quarter. We expect that to continue. So all told, we like the trend that we saw in the first quarter. Now, there’s always puts and takes as we move through each quarter and, we’ll have to see how it plays out. But Sam, do you?
Sam Samad: Yeah, I mean, I’ll add maybe a couple of things. First of all, the COVID point, Michael, COVID is not really material for the rest of the year. We said for the full year, it’s going to be a $175 million decline. We’ve had $90 million of that decline happen in Q1. So, the biggest impact really was going to be felt in Q1. But yeah, there is a price impact related to it, given the fact that – a small, minor price impact, actually, because the price went down middle of May last year. So really it’s a minor price impact. Then just a little bit of color on the pricing dynamics. As Jim said, it’s flattish for the full year in terms of price impact. If you look at the ingredients within that, the health plans, we expect them to be, modestly up in terms of price.
The health systems is a negative impact in terms of price. Then we have some other businesses where we’ve had some price increases that helps. So overall, I think the net neutral in terms of price impact for the year.
Michael Ryskin : Great. Thank you.
Operator: [Operator Instructions]. Our next question comes from Stephanie Davis of Barclays. Your line is open.
Stephanie Davis : Hey, guys. Congrats on the quarter. Thanks for taking my question. You touched a bit on the automation opportunity in your centers in your prepared remarks. So I was hoping you could help us tease out what the mix of the cost structure looks like in the centers. How should we think about the Phlebotomy talent that would be difficult to improve with AI solutions, versus how much of that cost is more admin or front desk and could have that AI opportunity coming up?
Jim Davis: Well, Stephanie, we’ve always said that about 50% of the cost structure in the company is wages, labor and within the laboratories, it’s obviously higher than that. Within the Phlebotomy, it’s mostly a people expense, although there’s supplies and rent for our patient service centers. I would say in the laboratories, much of the automation efforts continue in the specimen processing area, what we call sorting, aliquoting, pouring off tubes of urine, and things like that. That’s where our automation efforts continue to pay dividends for us. On the Phlebotomy side, as I mentioned, yes, it’s a highly labor-intensive operation. Now, in a typical 10 to 12 minute draw time, there’s still probably five to six minutes of that time doing manual paperwork, computer entry type of stuff.
The biggest opportunity there to improve that is still the movement from paper requisitions to electronic requisitions. What still comes into our patient service center today is 35% to 45% paper that we end up having to input that information into our Quest system. So we work back through the physician offices that send us that paper and try to convert that. I would tell you also, we’re working on some other kits that could allow for some self-draw. So these are early stages, early stage development. But, we continue to work on some other things that should make our Phlebotomy staff even more productive.
Operator: And our final question.
Stephanie Davis : Thank you.
Operator: Our final question of today, will come from Andrew Brackmann of William Blair. Your line is open.
Andrew Brackmann : Hi, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe just following up on some of the questions related to advanced diagnostics from earlier. I guess it’s been about a year since you guys announced that Haystack acquisition. So, can you maybe just talk about how your views on the MRD segment or that asset in particular may have evolved since then? I know you mentioned no change in dilution or spending related to it this year, but how so we’ll be thinking about potential additional investments here in the future to drag some of those share wins. Thanks.
Jim Davis : Andrew, our thesis hasn’t changed at all on the Haystack acquisition. The MRD market continues to grow by our estimates strong double digits. I mean, there’s one primary competitor in that space today that is doing very, very well with the test and making inroads in the market, and we applaud them and they’re doing terrific. So, we think having a second, third credible offering in the marketplace that has a very, very, good basis for competition, very strong and very low limits of detection. So, feel good about that test. We still feel great about the investment and where this market is going. We’re going to build on that. We’ve launched our STEP500, assay as well that allows cancer doctors, medical oncologists to get advice from a treatment planning therapy – therapy planning standpoint.
