Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Encompass Health's First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. Today's conference call is being recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time. I will now turn the call over to Mark Miller, Encompass Health's Chief Investor Relations Officer.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining Encompass Health's First Quarter 2024 Earnings Call. Before we begin, if you do not already have a copy, the first quarter earnings release supplemental information and related Form 8-K filed with the SEC are available on our website at encompasshealth.com. On Page 2 of the supplemental information, you will find the safe harbor statements, which are also set forth in greater detail on the last page of the earnings release. During the call, we will make forward-looking statements which are subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. Certain risks and uncertainties, like those relating to regulatory developments as well as volume, bad debt and labor cost trends that could cause actual results to differ materially from our projections, estimates and expectations are discussed in the company's SEC filings including the earnings release and related Form 8-K, the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, and the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2024, when filed. We encourage you to read them. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the estimates, projections, guidance and other forward-looking information presented, which are based on current estimates of future events and speak only as of today. We do not undertake a duty to update these forward-looking statements. Our supplemental information and discussion on this call will include certain non-GAAP financial measures. For such measures, reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measure is available at the end of the supplemental information at the end of the earnings release and as part of the Form 8-K filed yesterday with the SEC, all of which are available on our website. I would like to remind everyone that we will adhere to the one question and one follow-up question rule to allow everyone to submit a question. If you have additional questions, please feel free to put yourself back in the queue. With that, I'll turn the call over to Mark Tarr, Encompass Health's President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. The broad-based momentum of our business continued in the first quarter evidenced by 13.4% revenue growth and adjusted EBITDA increase of 19.2%. Owing largely to our Q1 results, we are increasing our 2024 guidance. Doug will cover the details of the quarter and increased guidance in his comments. Demand for rehabilitation services remains strong, and we are continuing to invest in capacity additions to meet the needs of patients requiring inpatient rehabilitation services. During Q1, we added 51 beds to existing hospitals. Over the balance of the year, we plan to open six de novo hospitals with a total of 280 beds as well as a 40-bed freestanding hospital to be licensed as a satellite location of an existing hospital. Consistent with our historical practice, the satellite will be accounted for as a bed addition. We anticipate adding another 93 beds to existing hospitals in 2024, inclusive of the aforementioned satellite. We continue to build and maintain an active pipeline of de novo projects, both wholly owned and joint ventures with acute care hospitals. Since the beginning of this year, we've announced three additional de novo projects, bringing our pipeline to 14 hospitals under development with opening dates beyond 2024. We remain keenly focused on further enhancing the quality of our patient care and resulting outcomes through the deployment of clinical technologies and protocols. We have previously highlighted the installation of in-house dialysis capabilities at many of our hospitals. We now offer this service in 88 of our hospitals and we'll continue the rollout to additional locations in 2024. As another example of an ongoing clinical project, our quality of life improvement project incorporates an individualized approach to inpatient care in which our therapists focus on a specific patient's interest, lifestyle, home improvement and community mobility needs. The goal of this program is to improve the patient's inpatient experience and readiness for discharge to their community. On March 27 of this year, CMS released the 2025 IRF proposed rule. This included a proposed net market basket update of 2.8%, which we estimate would result in an approximately 3% increase for our IRFs beginning October 1, 2024, based on our current patient mix. The IRFs final rule is expected to be released in late July or early August. Review Choice Demonstration, or RCD, began in August 2023 in Alabama. Recall that under RCD Cycle 1, which lasted 6 months, every Medicare claim was reviewed for documentation and medical necessity. The affirmation rate target set by CMS under Cycle 1 was 80%. All seven of our Alabama hospitals ended Cycle 1 above the target affirmation rate. For Cycle 2 in Alabama, which runs from May 1 through October 31, we had the choice of continuing with 100% pre-claim review or a random spot check pre-claim review of 5% of claims. Based on our Cycle 1 claim experience, we elected to continue with 100% pre-claim review for Cycle 2. The target affirmation rate for Cycle 2 is 85%. On March 1, CMS announced it is expanding IRF RCD to Pennsylvania for hospitals billing to the Medicare administrative contractor, Novitas. Our nine hospitals in Pennsylvania will not be subject to RCD at this time as they build to a different Medicare administrative contractor. During Q1, many providers across the U.S. health care spectrum experienced significant disruptions due to the cyber-attack on Change Healthcare. We have historically used Change for the vast majority of our claims processing across our payer base. Our teams and our centralized business office and information technology quickly rallied to successfully implement workarounds using alternative third-party vendors and enhancing our own claims processing capabilities. As a result of these efforts, we experienced minimal impact to our Q1 cash flow from the Change outage. We resumed claims processing with Change in early April and continue to maintain the alternative channels we recently developed. Across our 160 inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, we are daily providing high-quality, cost-effective care to medically complex patients. Our dedicated clinical teams work collaboratively with physicians to administer this care, producing leading scores in patient satisfaction and quality outcomes. This value proposition increasingly resonates with patients, caregivers, referral sources, and payers. The demand for inpatient rehabilitation services remains considerably underserved and continues to grow as the U.S. population ages. We intend to continue to expand our capacity and capabilities to meet this need.

Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. As Mark stated, we are very pleased with our Q1 results. Revenue growth for the quarter of 13.4% was primarily driven by volume as total discharges grew 10%, inclusive of 6.7% same-store growth. Q1 revenue growth did benefit from both leap year and the timing of the Easter holiday. Our Q1 revenue also included a $6.9 million increase in provider tax receipts, primarily attributable to prior periods. Q1 adjusted EBITDA increased 19.2% to $273 million, driven by revenue growth, stable premium labor trends, and prudent expense management. Other operating expenses as a percent of revenue decreased 80 basis points, benefiting from the favorable impact of on-site dialysis implementation and efficiencies in our recruiting efforts. Q1 adjusted EBITDA included approximately $5 million related to the aforementioned provider tax receipts. Q1 net preopening and ramp-up costs were $1.8 million as compared to $4.2 million in Q1 last year. Given the timing of our new hospital openings and the balance between joint venture and wholly owned de novos, our net preopening and ramp-up costs will be concentrated in the final three quarters of the year. We anticipate $15 million to $18 million of de novo net preopening and ramp-up costs for 2024 as compared to $6.6 million in 2023. We continue to generate significant levels of free cash flow. Adjusted free cash flow for the quarter increased 5.6% to $167.6 million due to higher adjusted EBITDA, partially offset by an increase in working capital which was unrelated to the Change Healthcare outage and higher cash tax payments. Primarily based on the strength of our adjusted EBITDA growth, our net leverage again declined, falling to 2.5x from 2.7x at year-end 2023. We ended the first quarter with no amounts drawn on our $1 billion revolving credit facility and more than $130 million of cash on hand. As Mark alluded to, based primarily on our Q1 results, we are raising our 2024 guidance as follows: net operating revenue of $5.25 billion to $5.325 billion, adjusted EBITDA of $1.03 billion to $1.065 billion and adjusted earnings per share of $3.86 to $4.11. The key considerations underlying our guidance can be found on Page 12 of the supplemental slides. And with that, operator, we'll now open the lines for questions.

And we'll take our first question today from Kevin Fischbeck with Bank of America.

Can you provide more details about the volume in the quarter? You mentioned that the leap year contributed to strength, but there's been a lot of discussion about how March might have slowed down. What are your comments on the volume throughout the quarter and how things are trending so far in April?

The volume remained pretty constant throughout the quarter. In February, you had the extra day because of leap year, which certainly helped volume that month. In March, discharge volumes certainly benefited from the fact that the Easter holiday fell on the last day of the quarter, which also happened to be a Sunday. But really, we saw good momentum on volume through the entire quarter.

Kevin, not only was it consistent throughout the quarter, but if you look at it geographically across our eight regions, it was very consistent across all of our regions, and we're very pleased with the progress that we've continued to make on overall volume growth.

Great. And then I guess...

When we look at the total discharge volume growth, we had a 12% increase in Medicare fee-for-service and north of an 11% increase in Medicare Advantage.

Okay, great. Can you discuss how the contracting for Medicare Advantage rates is going? Are you anticipating any pressure from the negative rate adjustments expected for next year? Is there any concern about how this might impact your contracting or their utilization management?

So we're right at about 90% of our Medicare contracted revenues being on an episodic basis versus on a per diem basis. The payment differential for the quarter was just over 3%. So good progress there. Most of those contracts that are on an episodic basis, the annual increases are tied directly to the Medicare fee-for-service rule. So at this point in time, we're really not expecting any adverse consequences from what's going on with regard to the Medicare Advantage rule.

Our next question will come from A.J. Rice with UBS.

I know the SWB per FTE was about 4% to 5% in the quarter. And I think that's your target for this year. I wonder, when you look at it underlying permanent wage trends, premium labor sign-on bonuses, ship bonuses. Is there any place where you're running higher than the pre-pandemic where there's still opportunities in your mind potentially to improve on that year-to-year rate?

Total SWB for the quarter increased by 3.8%, which is slightly below the lower end of our annual range. The main reason is our expectation of a higher growth rate in benefits for the last three quarters of the year, influenced by positive accrual adjustments from those periods. Premium labor in both categories remains elevated compared to pre-pandemic levels, although they have stabilized. In terms of sign-on and ship bonuses, we reached a total of $14.3 million, representing a $2 million increase from Q1 of last year and a modest $1.2 million rise from Q4. This aligns with our typical seasonal trends and the volume increase seen this quarter. Contract labor spending was at $19.3 million in Q1, which is better than $20.7 million in Q1 of the previous year and up from Q4's $17.7 million. We attribute this largely to seasonal patterns and the upward volume trend. Contract labor FTEs were 1.6% of total FTEs for the quarter, consistent with the second half of last year around 1.5%. Before the pandemic, this number was just below 1%. We see ongoing opportunities, but it feels like we’ve stabilized in this range for the near future. We are making good progress in our recruitment efforts, with 148 new RN hires this quarter, a significant increase compared to fewer than 50 in Q1 of last year.

And final comment on labor, A.J., is not only on the recruitment side, but retention continues to be a big focus. And our turnover particularly around the nursing continues to trend downward as well as therapy. So we're seeing a lot of positive aspects within the broader umbrella of labor itself.

Yes. And just to put a finer point on Mark's comments there, annualized Q1 nursing turnover was at 20.2% and therapist turnover 6.6%. So those are very positive numbers.

And both of those would be lower than pre-pandemic.

Yes, it's a very low number on the therapies, interesting.

Our next question comes from Andrew Mok with Barclays.

I was hoping you could give us a little bit more detail on de novo openings this year, just overall cadence and timing. There were no openings in Q1. So how should we think about the six de novos for the balance of the year?

Yes. Certainly, as we alluded to at the beginning of the year, you're going to have a different pattern this year than you did last year. Last year, we benefited in terms of the annual net preopening and ramp-up costs by the fact that we had earlier openings, we had those that were predominantly JVs, five of the ones that we opened last year were, and you had a couple of hospitals in hospitals, which tend to ramp up faster. We're skewed now with our openings into the final three quarters of this year. which is leading to kind of the year-over-year change and particularly over the balance of three quarters. If you look over the final three quarters of last year, our net preopening and ramp-up costs were negative $2.4 million. If you subtract out from the $15 million to $18 million range we have for 2024, the $1.8 million we experienced in Q1, you're left with an anticipated $13.2 million to $16.2 million impact in Q2 through Q4, and the midpoint of that range is $14.7 million. So that would represent a little over $12 million delta on a year-over-year basis.

Got it. That's helpful. But if we just take a step back and think about the six de novo, should we think two per quarter for the remaining three quarters? Or is there even more of a back-end skew to that?

I think we've got two openings in Q2 and then the balance are in Q3, one short, one will likely extend into Q4.

Okay. That's helpful. And then occupancy in the quarter ticked up to about 76.7%, which I think was a notable sequential and year-over-year increase. I know you have elevated bed additions coming online this year, but can you give us a sense for what full capacity looks like or maybe where your top decile hospitals sit on an occupancy basis?

Yes. So occupancy during the quarter was definitely favorably impacted by normal seasonality as well as the volume increase we saw and the fact that there were no counterweights in terms of the de novos opening in the quarter. Again, as we move forward, we would hope to see the overall occupancy rate continue to move up modestly over time. And really, the primary reason there, in addition to the fact the demand environment remains very positive, is that we are increasingly seeing a higher percentage of our overall beds in private rooms, which eliminates the capacity constraints that can be caused by gender compatibility and other issues requiring patient isolation. And again, the increase in private beds is coming from really two initiatives. The first being that virtually all of our capacity additions, be they bed additions to existing hospitals or de novos, are comprised of all private rooms. And then the second is when we are doing major remodels and renovations where we are able, we are taking the opportunity to convert semi-private rooms to private rooms. In terms of targeting a specific theoretical occupancy peak, it's hard to do that because we still have such a mixed bag within our overall physical plant. But generally speaking, in a facility that is all semiprivate, you start to hit capacity constraints north of 80%. When you're in a facility that is all private room, you can run into the mid- to high 90s.

Our next question will come from Ann Hynes with Mizuho Securities.

So I just want to talk about guidance. You beat consensus estimates on the adjusted EBITDA side by close to 10%. So even by Encompass' conservative history, just the 1% guidance rate seems conservative to me. So maybe can you tell us what the quarter actually was versus your internal expectations? And is there anything we should consider as we go out throughout the rest of 2024, why you wouldn't be able to see this type of strong growth going forward?

Yes, Ann, you've highlighted a crucial point. To reiterate, we provide annual guidance and do not offer quarterly guidance. I understand that this poses challenges for you and your colleagues in creating quarterly estimates. When we assessed our expectations for Q1, we considered the momentum from Q4, typical seasonal trends, and noted the added day in the quarter due to the leap year, as well as the impact of Easter falling on the last day of the quarter, which is relatively uncommon. Additionally, we experienced an unexpected benefit from the provider tax income during this period. Thus, the quarter exceeded our expectations, prompting an upward revision of our guidance; however, this should not imply that our internal expectations aligned with the consensus estimates. Moving into the latter part of the year, the main factors to consider include the year-over-year impact from new openings and ramp-up costs. Ultimately, whether we stay within or adjust our provided range upward will largely depend on two factors: the continuation of volume amidst challenging comparisons and the interplay between fixed pricing and the labor inflation we face over the next three quarters.

Great. And I guess my follow-up question really has to do with that rate. I mean, I know you're getting a 3% increase from CMS, but it kind of seems lopsided given the labor environment over the past couple of years. Is there a delay in the way the calculation works that maybe over the next couple of years, you should see an acceleration of rates, given what's happening in the labor environment?

So if you look at the rule making for all of the post-acute sectors, the only sector that has a forecast error adjustment, which means it's looking backward to say, did we miss a rate of underlying inflation in the providers' cost structure that needs to be factored in the go-forward rate is SNFs. And that dates back to some legislation from the early 2000s, they went to have a good lobbying effort. I can't really tell you anything more about that. For IRFs, there's no catch-up. And so every year, the market basket update is based on forward looking. It's the anticipated rate of inflation in the next year, not what you experienced in the previous year. So you would hope at some point, those become relatively consistent, but there isn't a catch-up mechanism built into the IRF making into the IRF rule making cycle.

And Ann, one of the other areas on that. You never really know when there's going to be some other adjustment around productivity or something that's unforeseen that CMS would apply that would pull the net rate increase downwards. So that's what makes it a bit of a challenge.

Our next question will come from Scott Fidel with Stephens.

First question, just curious on your thinking right now around potential capital return, particularly as it relates to buybacks when thinking about the strength and the performance of the business, leverage now being at the low end of the target, the cash on hand, et cetera. Just curious on your sort of thinking about potentially ramping up buyback activity.

Yes, certainly on the table, it's going to be a topic of continuing Board discussion for all of the reasons that you cited. Even with the cyber-attack on Change Healthcare, our cash flow remained very strong in the quarter because we were able to implement those workarounds and because of the strength of the business and the flow-through from the adjusted EBITDA. All of the points that you noted are very important ones, which the net leverage is all the way down to 2.5x. There's $130 million of cash on balance sheet. We're generating enough internal cash flow to fund all of our discretionary CapEx plus the dividend. So it certainly opens up other options for capital deployment, and that's very much on the agenda for our Board now.

Okay. And then a follow-up question. Just would be interested in your thinking on the final SNF staffing rule. I know it's somewhat second degree removed. But just really in sort of two areas in particular. One, as you've talked about the opportunity over the long term for capturing more volumes from SNFs in terms of SNF conversion, whether that final staffing rule would have any influence over that? And then just also whether any thoughts on this type of sort of staffing mandate at the federal level, if you've heard anything about that moving into other post-acute sectors? Obviously, IRFs would be top of mind for you in terms of any slippery slope type dynamic relating to the final SNF staffing rule.

Yes. So this is Mark. And certainly, I don't know all the details of the SNF. But just in general, we feel like we have done a really nice job with our quality outcomes and making that value proposition that helps separate us from other providers in the marketplace, whether it's other IRFs or skilled nursing facilities. Clearly, the SNFs have been challenged the past several years through COVID and otherwise. So they have a lot of ground to make up, so to speak. But we're very focused on what we're doing right now around our programming and our quality, and I don't see the SNF rule having any impact on the market share that we've been able to take.

And it really shouldn't be applicable to IRFs in the future because our staffing is really already dictated by the mandated requirements of care. The complement of therapists that we have in our facilities is driven by the therapy rules. Again, that's the three hours of therapy per day, five days a week. It's got to be multi-disciplined therapy, and the preponderance has to be administered in individual versus a group or a concurrent setting. And then we also have very stringent nursing requirements that are mandated. So this was something that was lacking in the SNF industry, which is why I think you're seeing this come down. It is not something that is applicable because there needs to be adjustment in the IRF segment.

And keep in mind, we're already taking a pretty acute level rehab patients that are medically complex. And as part of that, we adjust our nursing staffing to make sure that we can do a great job in taking care of those patients and not have those patients go back to the acute care hospital. So there are a lot of either rules of thumb or formal rules that are currently in place around what it takes to staff hospitals to meet the type of patients we're taking in.

Our next question will come from John Ransom with Raymond James.

I'm curious about the role of conveners and navigators. In the competitive space for patient referrals, have you noticed any changes, or has it become more stable with the three legs of post-acute care maintaining their share? The numbers across the three modalities appear stable. When you speak with discharge planners and navigators, how do their perspectives differ from those of five years ago?

John, I think it has settled down a bit. When we've seen these Navigators come into various marketplaces, there might be a short-term impact on referrals or their approval for a patient to be discharged to an IRF, but that is usually somewhat short-lived. They see the issues, quality and otherwise, that come in place in the market when they try to dictate where the patient goes according to just the cost of care. And so that pops up in the marketplace and then seems to go away within 30 to 45 days. So I think it's settled down overall compared to where it was three, four years ago.

Our next question will come from Pito Chickering with Deutsche Bank.

Next quarter. So digging into the OpEx leverage you guys got this quarter, you talked about sort of dialysis and recruiting as large drivers there. What have been the returns on doing dialysis yourselves? And with that also at 88 hospitals? Is it safe to model additional OpEx leverage going forward from that lever?

Yes. So the straight math on the dialysis conversion is when we use an outside contractor on average, it costs us about $600. When we do it internally, it costs us about $300. The reimbursement is the same because that's basically coded into the requirements of the patient when they're admitted to our facility. So that incremental $300 per treatment is a flow-through. And then you get the other benefits that are very difficult to quantify, such as the fact that the patient's therapy isn't being disrupted and you're not having to incur transportation costs to go outside the facility if that's an alternative. In terms of continuing leverage from that in OOE, we would expect to see that. Now bear in mind, some of that is a straight reduction in cost. Some of it is also a geography issue. When we contract with a third party, that $600, 100% of it runs through OOE as a contract services expense. When we do it internally, that cost gets spread out into other line items, the largest of which is SWB. And then we would expect that based on some of the efficiencies we're seeing both in terms of advertising costs that are out there and some of the different modalities and approaches that we have developed within our recruiting efforts that even as we continue robust recruiting efforts to make sure that we keep pace with our clinical requirements with new hires, that we'll continue to see some efficiencies in recruiting as well.

Okay. And then so a quick question on that one. I guess, how many dialysis patients do you guys have? And then sort of second part here is on provider tax revenues haven't really been a big driver for you guys historically. You obviously saw $6.9 million in the fourth or in the first quarter, I guess, how should we think about that going forward?

Yes. So Pito, somewhere between around 3% to 5% of our total patients are on dialysis care, either internally or where we have a vendor come into our hospital. So we do think that's going to be a continued focus and look to a larger percentage of the population has issues that will put them on some sort of dialysis care. So we think it's a growing need for our hospitals.

Provider taxes are difficult to predict in terms of timing and amount, and in most quarters when we receive provider tax revenue, there is an offsetting expense. Therefore, it does not significantly impact EBITDA. We have not included any net benefit from provider taxes in our guidance for the remainder of the year.

Our next question will come from Ben Hendrix with RBC Capital Markets.

I think most of my questions have been answered, but I did want to follow up on your comments about the review choice demonstration. And specifically, your decision to continue with 100% pre-claim review in Alabama. I know you've had periods of elevated denial activity with fiscal intermediaries in the past. It seems like the sampling election would help you sidestep some of that risk. I just wanted to get your thought process there and kind of how relations with intermediaries are going?

Yes. The relationships have been positive so far, especially with most of our hospitals under Palmetto. The team decided to maintain a 100% review approach. It seemed beneficial to establish discipline around documentation and ensure we captured everything needed in the charts. Deviating from this approach didn't feel like the right choice, considering the processes we had already implemented. The hospitals' input also supported the decision to continue with the 100% review.

The benefit of the 100% pre-claim review, there's really kind of twofold. One is it allows for a much more iterative process with the MAX, so that we can find out if they're viewing anything regarding a patient's appropriateness in our hospitals as either if they're either viewing it erroneously or if they're perceiving they require a change in our documentation, and we can make that adjustment. The other thing is you get a larger sample size. So one of the risks that's associated with that 5% pre-claim review is they look at one particular patient and they disqualify that patient that based on a circumstance and then apply that through extrapolation to a broader base. Whereas if we've got the 100% pre-claim review they're out there, we can line that patient that they may be contesting up with many others that have been approved elsewhere in their organization and say, you tell us what's different. So we just think because the infrastructure is already in place and procedures already in place, that this is the right way for us to proceed through cycle 2.

And just is the added cost of the 100% material?

No, it's already in place.

We'll now hear from Brian Tanquilut with Jefferies.

Congrats on the quarter. I actually just have other questions. Maybe, Doug, can you share with us the growth rates in different diagnoses of patients coming in? I guess where I'm coming from is, as we think about broader utilization strength, just curious if it's specific to stroke? Or are we seeing more from like elective procedures such as drug replacements?

The story is really pretty consistent with what we saw in the back half of last year. So good growth in neurological and stroke in the quarter. Neurological was up just north of 10%. Stroke was up almost 12%. We did see a pretty significant increase in brain injury. That was up 11.1%. And other ortho was up almost 16%. But again, remember, that's off of a smaller base. So we are seeing a broadening in terms of some more rapid growth in some of the smaller categories that have gotten deferred for a period of time during COVID, but the strength in our higher acuity categories continues to be there as well.

Brian, for elective procedures, we just don't see a lot of them. As a matter of fact, for just joint replacement, it's a little bit less than 3% of our total patient mix. So it's not really had a large impact on us.

One of our smallest categories, but knee and hip replacement was up 20% during the quarter.

Our final question will come from Jared Haase with William Blair.

Maybe I'll just ask one around the Change Healthcare disruption. And specifically, I know you mentioned some of the work you did to implement workarounds and maybe enhance or build out some of your internal capabilities. I'd just be curious, any particular areas of interest that you called out where you made investments or sort of built out those workflows? And then I guess the other question is just should we think about any leverage benefit from that just in terms of you internalizing a little bit more of the sort of RCM capabilities?

Yes. So you think about how we and how most providers utilize Change, it was for two things. One is what is called claims scrubbing, which is just to make sure that as you are setting a claim to any particular payer, whether it's CMS through one of the intermediaries or to one of the Medicare Advantage or managed care players that we're getting the documentation in the form that is most readily acceptable and desired by that particular payer. The second thing is that for us and for others Change really served as the electronic intermediary in terms of submitting the claims and getting those processed. The primary thing that we did internally was establish our own electronic interface with CMS and now extending that to other payers as well. Whether or not there's going to be any kind of leverage that ultimately comes from that, I think it's going to depend on a go-forward basis between the balance that we have in restoring claims processing through Change, these other third-party vendors that we identified and put in place during the process and how much we choose to do internally. It's still somewhat of a dynamic situation. We will refrain from going back to a situation where we have an overdependence on any one single vendor.

Sure. I do want to call out our teams and our centralized billing office down in Tampa as well as our IT staff because they worked extremely hard to minimize the impact on this and figure out workarounds to come in at night from the weekends to make sure that we were being taken care of from a company standpoint. So I did want to point that out.

Thank you, operator. If anyone has additional questions, please call me at (205) 970-5860. Thank you again for joining today's call.

This does conclude today's conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.