And so, now they come to the end of this program, it’s just sort of structural gap caused by their calendars. And we think that’s just been so successful that the – the reason I believe here is that they’re going to just stick the landing and make sure that they transition off of the program in a successful manner as they sort of transitioned on to it. Because at the end of the day, one of their aims is to make sure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to breakthrough devices. So it seems consistent with their program that they want to or in their mission that they want to avoid any time gap. So that’s sort of our thinking of why they may find it compelling. Does that help, Larry?
Larry Biegelsen: Okay, it does. Just to be clear, it could be changed for the 2024 rule. This year, we could find out about it or it could be changed for the 2025 rule. You’re just not sure which one it’s going to be, but it sounds like you think that it makes more sense and there’s a good chance it could be for the 2024 rule. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but is that the right way to think about it?
Rob Fletcher: That’s right, Larry. And we and some of our partners in the interventional cardiology community have gone to CMS and made that request that they address it in 2024. So up to them, whether they decide to do that, but we certainly put forward all of the analysis and the arguments for why they may do that.
Larry Biegelsen: That’s helpful. And just lastly, Doug, I feel compelled to ask. No one’s asked yet about Abbott’s acquisition of – or pending acquisition at CSI. I mean, Abbott obviously believe that atherectomy share has stabilized I think that’s the part of the impetus for doing the deal. I mean what’s your view on how this – on that and how this – their acquisition could change things for you? Thank you.
Rob Fletcher: Yes as you know, we don’t – we spent almost all of our time focused on all the calcified patients who aren’t getting any calcium modification. So we’ve never thought of this as a share game between ShockWave and atherectomy. We see ourselves as largely complementary, at least our current device that we sell in the coronaries. There’s obvious evidence that people where you could use ShockWave people are using ShockWave particularly instead of orbital s versus rotational I mean I think the directional I think the atherectomy procedure we did pickup as “share” were largely Diamondback glass so Rotablator. I don’t know too many people who are trying to switch back to atherectomy. I don’t know anyone in fact, who’s saying, oh I was using ShockWave, I’m going to go back.
So has the full — has the dust sort settled where, okay, now I know where I’m going to use IVL and I’m not going to further reduce my atherectomy utilization. I’m not sure. One of the areas where atherectomy has some attractiveness is if you have a long lesion and you’re not sure if AD pulses is going to get it done, you might grab an atherectomy catheter to treat the longer lesion, because you can you can sort of keep moving it. We’ll see, we have C2 plus and its ability to treat longer lesions enables the physicians to use a more predictable safer option, in which case then maybe the shift hasn’t fully — hasn’t been fully realized yet though we’ll have a better sense, I guess, post C2 plus launch in the U.S. We won’t really be able to sell internationally, because there’s really no presence for Diamondback internationally.
