Unknown Analyst: That’s very helpful, thank you.
JD Schaub: Right around 1,400 or so.
Unknown Analyst: Got it.
Operator: Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star, one. We’ll take our next question from Glen Santangelo with Jefferies.
Jeff Santangelo: Yes, thanks for taking my question. Hey Brian, I wanted to follow up on this telehealth business that you’re sort of introducing here. Are you willing to disclose at this point who the two national providers are? What I’m trying to get a sense of is how this business model is going to work. Are they going to send the scripts to you and you’re going to do the fulfillment, or are they going to do it? I just want to make sure I Understand how the revenue recognition around this new initiative will work, and I’m kind of curious to get your thoughts, if you think it can be meaningful here in 2023 as you get it off the ground.
Brian Markison: Yes Glen, good questions, and good morning. I hope you didn’t have to wake up extra early for this. The two telemedicine providers that we’re working with now are Skin Solutions MD and Ro. Both of them are very different, both of them different in scale, scope, but have a meaningful presence and a bit of good history here in working in telemedicine. The way it works is we’re treating telemedicine as an esthetic account, so we are shipping to them. When they receive the product, we record the revenue, and then they will be selling it through their channel through their providers to their patients. The patient needs an assessment – that’s done by the telemedicine provider, and they handle all the shipping, so in terms of efficiency, they may be our most efficient channel, if you will, because they handle fulfillment and shipping to the patient, but we treat them basically as a provider.
Jeff Santangelo: Okay. Maybe if I can just follow up with two quick financial questions. I did want to follow up on the business development question because it seems–in your prepared remarks, you seem to suggest that something may happen in 2023, and I think we’re looking at the cash on the balance sheet, looking at the SG&A you reported this quarter, and just wondering how would you expect to finance something like that? Would your covenants allow you to take on more debt, or–you know, hard for us to think about the size of anything that you may potentially do. Then my last question is really around the lack of guidance. It sort of seems like the esthetic business is up and running and now clearly established, and maybe with a much better line of sight than what you had obviously last year, so I’m just kind of curious as to what’s the logic to not provide guidance at this time. Thanks.
Brian Markison: Yes, I think the main logic is it all circles back to some extent to business development, and also the fact that we’re a brand-new category. While we’re putting our head down right now, driving that reorder business, and again all the metrics there from our perspective are really very promising, the other component of this is right now, our sales force is spending 100% of their time driving Upneeq. If we bring in new programs or new products to leverage the team, that will take a little bit of time off Upneeq and obviously they’ll need to put it on the new program, and that’s a lot of the conversation that’s happening as well right now. There’s also an opportunity in eye care where we are talking to people about do they want to go back into it with their platform, because they’re looking for the same thing we’re looking for in esthetics, and I think ultimately if the model looks good and it makes sense, we can talk to our lender about increasing the debt, but we don’t want to increase debt and we don’t want to do another offering.
