Operator: Please standby for the next question. The next question comes from Tom Stefan with Stifel. Your line is open.
Thomas Stephan: Great. Thanks for the questions. Maybe I’ll start with OMNI coverage. Really good to see the GEMINI 36-month data. I think, Paul, you said should be coming in the next couple months. But can you elaborate a bit on what the LCD reconsideration process entails? And maybe how long that might take once you submit that GEMINI data to WPS and I guess, maybe the others?
Ali Bauerlein: Yes. Sure, Tom. Happy to take that question. So first and foremost, we’re focused on trying to reverse course before this LCD is implemented and also working with other four MACs to not have those additional LCDs move into a final status until they can consider the information from both GEMINI and the IRIS Registry as well as other missing studies and what we deem as substantive and procedural flaws in the process. But if we do have to go through reconsiderations, you cannot submit a reconsideration until an LCD is effective. So after December 24, we could submit a reconsideration request with new evidence. So we would have to have new information that the MAC has not already considered and we would submit that through a reconsideration process.
That process can vary quite significantly in length based on both complexity as well as MAC availability and other priorities. But that process could take multi-months in range. So it certainly is a long process, which we believe would be a significant issue for patient access during that period, which is why we are so focused on trying to prevent implementation of that LCD in the interim period.
Thomas Stephan: Got it. That makes sense. That’s helpful. And then, Ali, I’ll stick with you. Just on the balance sheet, if you can, it would be helpful if maybe you could provide a bit more detail just on the construct of the runway you believe the business has? I know you guys obviously pulled the OpEx guidance this year. But maybe if you can just give us a general framework of what the burn maybe looks like in the near to intermediate term? Thanks.
Ali Bauerlein: Sure. So Tom, as we said, we’re first of all, pulling guidance. So we’re not going to provide any specific guidance either for 2023 or 2024. As you can imagine, this is a very dynamic situation that we’re in, and there are many variations and flavors of what could happen in terms of coverage for OMNI and SION and how that may play out with WPS and other MACs. So we are running a variety of scenarios and then focused on what our infrastructure needs to look like in each of those scenarios. But first and foremost, the priority of the upcoming week is really on what do we do to try and reverse course here with WPS and potentially resolve the issue with the other four MACs. In terms of our balance sheet, as you see, we do have significant cash resources right now with our cash balances, and we’ve done a good job of managing cash with only $10 million of burn in the third quarter.
We would expect to continue to be very focused on where we’re spending money in the interim, waiting for these solutions to resolve themselves and then we can set appropriate infrastructure. But in terms of absolute dollars or scenarios, frankly, it’s just — there’s just so many different variation of outcomes here that we’re working through internally. We can’t provide that today, which is why we withdrew guidance.
Thomas Stephan: Very fair. Thanks.
Operator: [Operator Instructions]. Please standby for the next question. Our next question comes from Matthew O’Brien with Piper Sandler. Your line is open.
Unidentified Analyst: This is Samantha on for Matt. Thanks for taking our question. I guess — focusing on the restructuring here, I guess, you mentioned that some of that would be the mix sales force. And I guess, does that imply or suggest that you are not expecting a quick reversal of the final LCD?
Ali Bauerlein: Yes. Just to start, while a portion of the restructuring was associated with our Surgical Glaucoma business, that was really focused on management infrastructure on the commercial side, not on the sales rep capacity. So there was some small combining of regions, but really the focus of that reduction in force on Surgical Glaucoma was not for the carrying reps, but more management infrastructure that we think really allowed us to be more efficient and effective in our overall structure. So it did not imply anything about our likelihood of success or feelings about the Surgical Glaucoma business. All of this was done in advance of any decision by WPS. This was done in the middle of October.
Matt Link: Yes. And just a follow-up on Ali’s comments. It was actually quite the opposite. It was moving the structure, flattening the structure in a way that we thought it would allow us to enhance our responsiveness to the opportunities in front of us, further our engagement with our customers who value the technology OMNI and the procedures we support. It was really all about our ability to both sustain and drive more consistent, predictable growth in the future. So we believe it’s a structure we can scale into the future. We obviously understand we need to deal with the matters in front of us, but the moves were all about our ability to support and sustain growth moving forward.
Paul Badawi: Yes. And just to add on to that, when we were recruiting Matt, his background, scaling a business of a similar size to Sight and scaling it into the hundreds of millions and beyond to over $1 billion in revenue. He’s experienced all the different stages of growth that we’re going to be going through now and into the future. And I think a lot of what we’re doing is very familiar to him, and it’s kind of in his mind, the best-in-class way of operating a business at today’s scale.
Unidentified Analyst: Perfect. Thank you for all that. I guess last question from us. Could you give any more details on timing of future WPS interactions or with any of the other four MACs as well?
