And we think this OpEx envelope scales very nicely with much less variable OpEx like for the next $50 million, $100 million of growth, then we have kind of €“ then we have experienced as we’ve invested heavily like in the recent past. And so that’s why we continue to convey conviction about our balance sheet and ability to hit our growth objectives within that balance sheet.
David Saxon: Got it. Thanks, then congrats on the quarter.
Jesse Selnick: Thanks again.
Paul Badawi: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from Tom Stephan of Stifel. Your line is open.
Thomas Stephan: Great. Hey, guys. Thanks for the questions. Maybe if I can start on reimbursement with the canaloplasty professional fee cut for next year, I believe, recently finalized. Maybe you can provide just general thoughts or views around the volume impact in 2023 from these changes. And then, I guess, on top of that, what are your thoughts on price and gross margins next year in that same context?
Paul Badawi: Yeah. Hey, Tom, happy to take that one. So canaloplasty CPT-66174 as we’ve discussed in the past, I think, 2 years ago, the raw RVU process revalued canaloplasty 66174, as well as trabecular bypass stenting on the 66174 pro fee side. They proposed a 2-year reduction in the pro fee from the historical rate of 900 plus to 750 this year, down to about 600 next year starting on January 1. So, while this is never welcome for surgeons, ophthalmologists, they’ve been experiencing reimbursement cuts on things like cataract surgery for many, many years now, so it’s certainly not good news in terms of our business, and in terms of doctors decisions to use OMNI, we don’t see an impact there. And the reason why I say that is the relative positioning of the pro fee, so moving from 750 to 600, again, it’s not welcome news.
But it doesn’t change the level of reimbursement relative to any competing procedures. I think about goniotomy has had the highest pro fee that’s SION, for example. And it’s still well until that procedure is revalued in due course. The stents got revalued, so a reduced 66174 fee isn’t going to change the relatively better pro fee compared to stents in cataract. So we think that as you try to assess the impact of any of these changes on utilization, obviously, you think about, number one, relativity; and then number two, in a vacuum, does the pro fee going forward sufficiently reimburse the provider that they’ll continue doing these procedures? And we think that the answer is yes. So, doctors are used to using OMNI, they rely on OMNI for its efficacy, we have a very sticky business.
And we don’t see a pro fee change from 750 to 600 taking us, of course.
Jesse Selnick: Yeah, on pricing and margin €“ pricing time is really driven by the facility fee, which for 66174 actually went up. We’re always cognizant of margin pressures. I think, once SION becomes a more prominent contributor to our revenue mix, as that gets production scale, right, might be a very modest amount of pressure on our overall Surgical Glaucoma margins, right? But ultimately, we don’t feel like sort of there’ll be any cause and effect of price pressure, just given how pricing is really set in the market based on professional fee.
Thomas Stephan: Got it. That’s great color. And then my follow-up just on TearCare, Paul, you talked about the SAHARA readout, I think, by 2H 2023. Maybe sort of at that time, let’s say, the superiority endpoint were to hit. What can we expect maybe over the next 6 to 12 months after that? It’d be great if you could just refresh us kind of on the longer-term market access strategy would be very helpful? Thanks, guys.
