Inogen (6IO) Risk Analysis

We are subject to California's Proposition 65, or Prop 65, which requires a specific warning on any product that contains a substance listed by the State of California as having been found to cause cancer or birth defects, unless the level of such substance in the product is below a safe harbor level. Prop 65 required that all businesses must be in compliance by August 30, 2018 with new regulations that require modifications to product warnings and for businesses to coordinate with upstream vendors or downstream customers for the 800+ regulated chemicals in consumer products and assess whether new occupational exposure warnings need to be posited in California facilities. We have taken steps to add warning labels to our products packaged in California and manufactured after August 30, 2018. Although we cannot predict the ultimate impact of these new requirements, they could reduce overall consumption of our products or leave consumers with the perception (whether or not valid) that our products do not meet their health and wellness needs, all of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

CMS has issued a final rule to require Medicare prior authorization (PA) for certain DMEPOS that the agency characterizes as "frequently subject to unnecessary utilization." The final rule was published on December 30, 2015 and specified an initial master list of 135 items that could potentially be subject to PA. Initially stationary oxygen rentals (code E1390) was included on the master list, but it was later removed. On April 22, 2019, stationary oxygen rentals (E1390) was again added to the list of potential codes that could be subject to PA. The master list is updated annually and published in the Federal Register. The presence of an item on the master list does not automatically mean that a PA is required. CMS will select a subset of these master list items for its "Required Prior Authorization List." There will be a notice period of at least 60 days prior to implementation. The ruling does not create any new clinical documentation requirements; instead the same information necessary to support Medicare payment will be required prior to the item being furnished to the beneficiary. CMS has proposed that reasonable efforts are made to provide a PA decision within 10 days of receipt of all applicable information, unless this timeline could seriously jeopardize the life or health of the beneficiary or the beneficiary's ability to regain maximum function, in which case the proposed PA decision would be 2 business days. CMS will issue additional sub-regulatory guidance on these timelines in the future. On April 6, 2020, an IFR was published in the Federal Register for policy and regulatory revisions in response to the COVID-19 PHE, and there was a comment period until June 30, 2020. Pursuant to a temporary regulatory waiver implemented by the administration, CMS has paused the national prior authorization program for certain DMEPOS. However, in July 2020, CMS released a COVID-19 Product Burden Relief FAQs document that included updates to this IFR, including that the pausing of the national prior authorization program for certain DMEPOS ended effective August 3, 2020. If our products are subject to prior authorization, it could reduce the number of patients qualified to come on service using their Medicare benefits, it could delay the start of those patients while we wait for the prior authorization to be received, and/or it could decrease sales productivity. As a result, this could adversely affect our business, financial conditions and results of operations.

We sell our products in 46 countries outside the United States through our wholly owned subsidiary, distributors or directly to large "house" accounts. In some foreign countries, particularly in the European Union, the pricing of medical devices is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to supply data that compares the cost-effectiveness of our products versus other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, it may not be profitable to sell our products in certain foreign countries, which would negatively affect the long-term growth of our business.

The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce the referral of an individual to a person for the furnishing of, or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common financial arrangements from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and any remuneration to or from a prescriber or purchaser of healthcare products or services may be subject to scrutiny if it does not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability. Failure to meet all requirements of a safe harbor is not determinative of a kickback issue but could subject the practice to increased scrutiny by the government. The Physician Self-Referral Law, commonly known as the "Stark Law," prohibits a physician from referring a patient to an entity with which the physician (or an immediate family member) has a financial relationship, for the furnishing of certain designated health services (DHS) for which payment may be made by Medicare or Medicaid, unless an exception applies. Violation of the Stark Law could result in denial of payment, disgorgement of reimbursements received under a non-compliant arrangement, civil penalties, and exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. Although we believe that we have structured our provider arrangements to comply with current Stark Law requirements, regulatory authorities may determine otherwise. The Federal False Claims Act prohibits any person from knowingly presenting or causing to be presented a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making or causing to be made a false statement to get a false claim paid. The Federal False Claims Act allows any person to bring suit in the name of the government alleging false and fraudulent claims presented to or paid by the government (or other violations of the statute) and to share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. Such suits, known as qui tam actions, have increased significantly in the healthcare industry in recent years. Sanctions under this federal law may include civil monetary penalties, exclusion from federal and state healthcare programs, criminal fines and imprisonment. In addition, the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback and criminal healthcare fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the false claims statutes. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the safe harbors and exceptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Such a challenge, regardless of the outcome, could have a material adverse effect on our business, business relationships, reputation, financial condition and results of operations. The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback, physician self-referral, and false claims laws, which apply to items or services, reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or in several states, apply regardless of payor. Penalties under these state laws can be comparable to those under their federal equivalents. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act also created the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires applicable manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, and medical supplies covered under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program to report annually to CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians, as defined, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests in such manufacturer held by physicians and their immediate family members. Additionally, the "Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promoted Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act" enacted in 2018, extends the reporting and transparency requirements for physicians under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act to physician assistants, nurse practitioners and other mid-level practitioners, with reporting requirements going into effect in 2022 for payments made in 2021. Failure to submit the required information under the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $0.18 million per year (and up to an aggregate of $1.177 million per year for "knowing failures"), subject to an annual adjustment for inflation. In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments and other transfers of value made to applicable recipients, including physicians. Certain states mandate implementation of compliance programs and/or the tracking and annual reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians and other applicable recipients. The shifting compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with different compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions increase the possibility that a healthcare company many violate one or more of the requirements. The Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law grants authority to the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) to seek civil monetary penalties (CMPs) against an individual or entity based on a wide variety of conduct including violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law, and False Claims Act. An entity that offers to or transfers remuneration to any individual eligible for benefits under Medicare or Medicaid that such entity knows or should know is likely to influence such individual to order or receive from a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier any Medicare or Medicaid payable item or service may be liable for CMPs. This is commonly known as a beneficiary inducement. We sometimes offer customers various discounts and other financial incentives in connection with the sales of our products. While it is our intent to comply with all applicable laws, including the safe harbor regulation for discounts, the federal government may find that our marketing activities violate the law. If we are found to be in non-compliance, we could be subject to CMPs of up to $0.18 million (subject to annual adjustment for inflation) for each wrongful act, assessment of three times the amount claimed for each item or service and exclusion from the federal or state healthcare programs. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other government regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines and the curtailment or restriction of our operations or exclusion from participation in the federal healthcare programs. Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment or restructuring or our operations could harm our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management's attention from operation of our business. Moreover, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable federal and state fraud laws may prove costly. HHS makes annual inflation-related increases to the civil monetary penalties in its regulations pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.  The HHS Annual Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment Final Rule issued on January 17, 2020, sets forth adjusted civil monetary penalty amounts that apply to penalties assessed on or after January 17, 2020, if the violation occurred on or after November 2, 2015. We are also exposed to the risks of fraud, misconduct, or other illegal activity by our employees and third parties who act for us or on our behalf, such as our independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners, and vendors. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Pursuant to HIPAA, final regulations have been implemented to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the healthcare system by facilitating the electronic exchange of information in certain financial and administrative transactions while protecting the privacy and security of the information exchanged. The HIPAA transaction standards are complex, and subject to differences in interpretation by third-party payors. For instance, some third-party payors may interpret the standards to require us to provide certain types of information, including demographic information not usually provided to us by physicians. As a result of inconsistent application of transaction standards by third-party payors or our inability to obtain certain billing information not usually provided to us by physicians, we could face increased costs and complexity, a temporary disruption in accounts receivable and ongoing reductions in reimbursements and net revenue. In addition, requirements for additional standard transactions, such as claims attachments or use of a national provider identifier, could prove technically difficult, time-consuming or expensive to implement, all of which could harm our business.

Numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including HIPAA and the HITECH Act, govern the collection, dissemination, security, use and confidentiality of patient-identifiable health information. HIPAA and the HITECH Act require us to comply with standards for the use and disclosure of protected health information within our company and with third parties. The Privacy Standards and Security Standards under HIPAA establish a set of basic national privacy and security standards for the protection of individually identifiable health information by health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and certain healthcare providers, referred to as covered entities, and the business associates with whom such covered entities contract for services. Notably, whereas HIPAA previously directly regulated only these covered entities, the HITECH Act, which was signed into law as part of the stimulus package in February 2009, makes certain of HIPAA's privacy and security standards also directly applicable to covered entities' business associates. As a result, both covered entities and business associates are now subject to significant civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply with Privacy Standards and Security Standards. HIPAA requires healthcare providers like us to develop and maintain policies and procedures with respect to protected health information that is used or disclosed, including the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure. The HITECH Act expands the notification requirement for breaches of patient-identifiable health information, restricts certain disclosures and sales of patient-identifiable health information and provides a tiered system for civil monetary penalties for HIPAA violations. The HITECH Act also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Additionally, certain states have adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations, some of which may be more stringent than HIPAA. If we are determined to be out of compliance with existing or new laws and regulations related to patient health information, we could be subject to criminal or civil sanctions. New health information standards, whether implemented pursuant to HIPAA, the HITECH Act, congressional action or otherwise, could have a significant effect on the manner in which we handle healthcare related data and communicate with payors, and the cost of complying with these standards could be significant. The 2013 final HITECH omnibus rule modifies the breach reporting standard in a manner that will likely make more data security incidents qualify as reportable breaches. Any liability from a failure to comply with the requirements of HIPAA or the HITECH Act could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. The costs of complying with privacy and security related legal and regulatory requirements are burdensome and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Approximately 19.6% and 20.2% of our total revenue was from sales outside of the United States for the three months ended September 30, 2020 and September 30, 2019, respectively, and 20.7% and 21.5% for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and September 30, 2019, respectively. We sell our products in 46 countries outside of the United States through our wholly owned subsidiary, distributors or directly to large "house" accounts. In order to market our products in the European Union or other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain and maintain separate regulatory approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies from country to country and can involve additional product testing. The time required to obtain approval abroad may be longer than the time required to obtain FDA clearance. For example, the European Union requires that manufacturers of medical devices obtain the right to bear the "CE" conformity marking which designates compliance with existing directives and standards regulating the design, manufacture and distribution of medical devices in member countries of the European Union. In 2017, the European Union adopted the EU Medical Device Regulation (Council Regulations 2017/745) which imposes stricter requirements for the marketing and sale of medical devices, including new clinical evaluation, quality system, and post-market surveillance requirements. The regulation has a three-year implementation period, with full application of the regulation to occur in May 2020 and will replace the existing directives on medical devices in the European Union. After May 2020, medical devices marketed in the European Union will require certification according to these new requirements, except that devices with valid CE certificates, issued pursuant to the Medical Device Directive before May 2020, may be placed on the market until May 2024.  Only medical devices that comply with certain conformity requirements of the Medical Device Directive are allowed to be marketed within the European Union. The company's products will be required to comply with the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR). Products that fail to be certified with the MDR may not be marketed or sold in the European Union. The European Commission delayed EU MDR implementation by one year, which would delay this requirement until May 26, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The foreign regulatory approval process, including with respect to MDR, includes many of the risks associated with obtaining FDA clearance and we may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. FDA clearance does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries. However, the failure to obtain clearance or approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative impact on our ability to obtain clearance or approval elsewhere. If we do not obtain or maintain necessary approvals to commercialize our products in markets outside the United States, we may be required to discontinue sales in those countries which would negatively affect our overall market penetration, revenues, results of operations and financial condition.

We, our contract manufacturer, and our component manufacturers are required to comply with the FDA's Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which covers the procedures and documentation of the design, calibration, testing, production, control, quality assurance, labeling, packaging, storage and shipping of our devices. The FDA audits compliance with the QSR through periodic announced and unannounced inspections of manufacturing and other facilities. We and our component manufacturers have been, and anticipate in the future being, subject to such inspections. Although we believe our manufacturing facilities and those of our component manufacturers are in compliance with the QSR, we cannot provide assurance that any future inspection will not result in adverse findings. If we fail to implement timely and appropriate corrective actions that are acceptable to the FDA or if our other manufacturing facilities or those of any of our component manufacturers, contract manufacturers, or suppliers are found to be in violation of applicable laws and regulations, or we or our manufacturers or suppliers fail to take prompt and satisfactory corrective action in response to an adverse inspection, the FDA could take enforcement action, including any of the following sanctions: - adverse publicity, untitled letters, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties;- customer notifications or repair, replacement, refunds, recall, detention or seizure of our products;- operating restrictions or partial suspension or total shutdown of production;- refusing or delaying our requests for 510(k) clearance or pre-market approval of new products or modified products;- withdrawing 510(k) clearances or pre-market approvals that have already been granted;- refusal to grant export approval for our products; or - criminal prosecution. Any of these sanctions could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Outside the United States, our products and operations are also often required to comply with standards set by industrial standards bodies, such as the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO. Foreign regulatory bodies may evaluate our products or the testing that our products undergo against these standards. The specific standards, types of evaluation and scope of review differ among foreign regulatory bodies. If we fail to adequately comply with any of these standards, a foreign regulatory body may take adverse actions similar to those within the power of the FDA. Any such action may harm our reputation and could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The primary regulatory body in Europe is the European Commission, which includes most of the major countries in Europe. The European Commission has adopted numerous directives and standards regulating the design, manufacture, clinical trial, labeling and adverse event reporting for medical devices. Devices that comply with the requirements of a relevant directive will be entitled to bear the CE conformity marking, indicating that the device conforms to the essential requirements of the applicable directives and, accordingly, can be commercially distributed throughout Europe. The method of assessing conformity varies depending on the class of the product, but normally involves a combination of self-assessment by the manufacturer and a third-party assessment by a "Notified Body." An assessment by a Notified Body of one country within the European Union is required in order for a manufacturer to commercially distribute the product throughout the European Union.

The FDA and similar foreign governmental authorities have the authority to require the recall of commercialized products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design, labeling or manufacture of a product or in the event that a product poses an unacceptable risk to health. Manufacturers may also, under their own initiative, recall a product if any material deficiency in a device is found or withdraw a product to improve device performance or for other reasons. Similar regulatory agencies in other countries have similar authority to recall devices because of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture that could endanger health. A government-mandated or voluntary recall by us or one of our distributors could occur as a result of an unacceptable risk to health, component failures, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues. Any recall would divert management attention and financial resources, could cause the price of our stock to decline and expose us to product liability or other claims and harm our reputation with customers. A recall involving our Inogen concentrators could be particularly harmful to our business, financial condition and results of operations. We are required to timely report to the FDA any incident in which our product may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or in which our product malfunctioned and, if the malfunction were to recur, would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury. Repeated product malfunctions may result in a voluntary or involuntary product recall. Depending on the corrective action we take to redress a product's deficiencies or defects, the FDA may require, or we may decide, that we will need to obtain new approvals or clearances for the device before we may market or distribute the corrected device. Seeking such approvals or clearances may delay our ability to replace the recalled devices in a timely manner. Moreover, if we do not adequately address problems associated with our devices, we may face additional regulatory enforcement action, including adverse publicity, FDA warning letters, product seizure, injunctions, administrative penalties, or civil or criminal fines. We may also be required to bear other costs or take other actions that may have a negative impact on our sales as well as face significant adverse publicity or regulatory consequences, which could harm our business, including our ability to market our products in the future. Any adverse event involving our products, whether in the United States or abroad, could result in future voluntary corrective actions, such as recalls or customer notifications, or agency action, such as inspection, mandatory recall or other enforcement action. Any corrective action, whether voluntary or involuntary, as well as defending ourselves in a lawsuit, will require the dedication of our time and capital, distract management from operating our business and may harm our reputation and results of operations.

Even after we have obtained regulatory clearance or approval to market a product, we have ongoing responsibilities under FDA regulations. The FDA and state authorities have broad enforcement powers. Our failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could result in enforcement action by the FDA or state agencies, which may include any of the following sanctions: - adverse publicity, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties;- recalls, termination of distribution, or seizure of our products;- operating restrictions or partial suspension or total shutdown of production;- delays in the introduction of products into the market;- refusal to grant our requests for future 510(k) clearances or approvals of new products, new intended uses, or modifications to exiting products;- withdrawals or suspensions of current 510(k) clearances or approvals, resulting in prohibitions on sales of our products; and - criminal prosecution. Any of these sanctions could result in higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales and have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our products are medical devices subject to extensive regulation in the United States and in the foreign markets where we distribute our products. The FDA and other U.S. and foreign governmental agencies regulate, among other things, with respect to medical devices: - design, development and manufacturing;- testing, labeling, content and language of instructions for use and storage;- clinical trials;- product safety;- marketing, sales and distribution;- pre-market clearance and approval;- record keeping;- advertising and promotion;- recalls and field safety corrective actions;- post-market surveillance, including reporting of deaths or serious injuries and malfunctions that, if they were to recur, could lead to death or serious injury;- post-market approval studies; and - product import and export. Before we can market or sell a medical device in the United States, we must obtain either 510(k) clearance from the FDA, clearance under the de novo process or approval of a pre-market approval application from the FDA, unless an exemption applies. In the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is "substantially equivalent" to a device legally on the market, known as a "predicate" device, with respect to intended use, technology and safety and effectiveness, in order to clear the proposed device for marketing. Our commercial products have received 510(k) clearance by the FDA. If the FDA requires us to go through a lengthier, more rigorous examination for future products or modifications to existing products than we had expected, our product introductions or modifications could be delayed or canceled, which could cause our sales to decline. In addition, the FDA may determine that future products will require the more costly, lengthy and uncertain pre-market approval process. Although we do not currently market any devices subject to pre-market approval, the FDA may demand that we obtain a pre-market approval prior to marketing certain future products. In addition, if the FDA disagrees with our determination that a product we currently market is subject to an exemption from pre-market review, the FDA may require us to submit a 510(k), de novo application or pre-market approval application in order to continue marketing the product. Further, even with respect to those future products where a pre-market approval is not required, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain the 510(k) clearances with respect to those products or do so in a timely fashion. The FDA can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval of a device for many reasons, including: - we may not be able to demonstrate to the FDA's satisfaction that our products are safe and effective for their intended uses;- the data from our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials may be insufficient to support clearance or approval, where required; and - the manufacturing process or facilities we use may not meet applicable Quality System Regulations. Medical devices may only be promoted and sold for the indications for which they are approved or cleared. In addition, even if the FDA has approved or cleared a product, it can take action affecting such product approvals or clearances if serious safety or other problems develop in the marketplace. Delays in obtaining clearances or approvals could adversely affect our ability to introduce new products or modifications to our existing products in a timely manner, which would delay or prevent commercial sales of our products. Additionally, the FDA and other regulatory authorities have broad enforcement powers. Regulatory enforcement or inquiries, or other increased scrutiny on us, could affect the perceived safety and performance of our products and dissuade our customers from using our products.

The federal government and all states in which we currently operate regulate various aspects of our business. In particular, our operations are subject to state laws governing, among other things, distribution of medical equipment and certain types of home health activities, and we are required to obtain and maintain licenses in many states to act as a durable medical equipment supplier. Certain of our employees are subject to state laws and regulations governing the professional practices of respiratory therapy. As a healthcare provider participating in governmental healthcare programs, we are subject to laws directed at preventing fraud and abuse, which subject our marketing, billing, documentation and other practices to strict government scrutiny. To ensure compliance with Medicare, Medicaid and other regulations, government agencies or their contractors often conduct routine audits and request customer records and other documents to support our claims submitted for payment of services rendered. Government agencies or their contractors also periodically open investigations and audits and obtain information from healthcare providers. Violations of federal and state regulations can result in severe criminal, civil and administrative fines, penalties and sanctions, including debarment, suspension or exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and other government reimbursement programs, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business. Changes in healthcare laws and regulations and new interpretations of existing laws and regulations may affect permissible activities, the relative costs associated with doing business, and reimbursement amounts paid by federal, state and other third-party payors. There have been and will continue to be regulatory initiatives affecting our business and we cannot predict the extent to which future legislation and regulatory changes could have a material adverse effect on our business.