GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (GDRX) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Okay. I think we're ready to get started with our next session. It's my pleasure to have the team from GoodRx here at the conference; Karsten Voermann, CFO. Karsten, it's great to see you in-person. Let me turn it back over to you. And I think you've got your disclosure statement you want to read, right?

Sure, sure. But before saying that, thanks for having us. We're excited to be here and excited with such a great conference. So I really appreciate it.

It's great to have you.

And with respect to safe harbor, we do the safe harbor provision. And we're going to probably make forward-looking statements during this presentation. We refer you to our SEC filings for risk factors that could impact future performance. And with that, back to you, Eric.

Okay. Yes, we've been getting through our safe harbor as we go through the last 3.5 days, which would…

Every time, right?

Understood, understood. You read it this time. I've had to read it in some other presentations. So there's been different flavors of it. But let's take a step back first.

I think for those who are less familiar with the story and the fact that the story has been on an evolutionary path over the last couple of years. Why don't you talk a little bit about what you, the team, the founders, the journey you've been on, the platform you're building and what you see as the market opportunity you're going after as a company when you look out over the next couple of years?

Absolutely. Great question. I think the core theme of GoodRx is helping to provide Americans with access to affordable health care. And that's our mission. That's what drives us forward every day. And within the context of that mission, we began with prescription medications as a place we could help consumers both get access to medications and make them much more affordable than they otherwise were. And that really stemmed from our founders' own experiences with gaps in insurance coverage and a high cost of medication that impacts literally everyone in the country. Most of our users tend to be insured, about 3/4 of them. And I think that surprises a lot of people because people think if you have health insurance, you're good. The reality though is that with copays going up every year, with formularies shrinking every year, meaning the medications you can get access to and the ways of getting access, getting harder with step therapies and pre-authorizations and volume limits and so on that the access to medication, but for GoodRx, is getting worse and worse. And that's where we come in. So we have deep relationships with different PBMs or Pharmacy Benefit Managers who we leverage to get consumers the lowest price on any given medication in any given geography that we can find across our whole panoply of pharmacy benefit managers who we work with. And that allows us to save consumers' significant amounts. In fact only a few years ago, I think when we first started talking, we were talking about savings rates of sort of 60%, 70% relative to what consumers would rather pay. Now -- otherwise net pay. Now we're talking about savings rate well in excess of 80% and beating what consumers with insurance pay through their copay by over half, over 50% of the time. So that's a lot of money when you think the average copay is about $20. So that's what we've been able to deliver. Consumers have flocked to GoodRx for that reason. We have NPSs with consumers that are 90, which is extraordinarily high, even higher than, say, Disney, and with health care providers too, which is really important. I'm sure we'll get into the health care provider part more later.

Yes. So maybe against all of that, I think when you think about the verticals you guys are talking about being in prescription, manufacturer solutions, telehealth, help us understand how you see the competitive landscape in some of those opportunities. What's the market opportunity? What's the competitive landscape? How you see your company fitting into each of those, maybe, virtualization of the business?

Yes. Absolutely. So we'll probably take them in the same order you did, which is the size of the different offerings that we have. On our prescription transactions offering, which is really focused on the area I just talked about, namely saving folks and prescription medications. The overall medication TAM is about $524 billion, $525 billion. So it's quite large indeed. We focus primarily on the generic part of that business in this offering, our manufacturer solutions offering focuses on the branded medication. So looking at the generic side of the business, that market, depending on whose data you look at, is roughly around $100-plus billion. We currently and we're the largest consumer medication discount offering out there. We currently are penetrated low single-digits into that TAM. So we feel like we have an immense amount of runway to go. And again, we talked about a little earlier, the fact that most of our users are actually insured. And that's what most Americans are as well. So I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking GoodRx is an offering for an underinsured or uninsured population, which isn't the case at all. So we see that whole amount of TAM as effectively available to us. And we're doing our best to aggressively capture as much of it as we can as evidenced through our historical growth rates as well. I think the second business that is really important to us is on the branded drug side or manufacturer solutions business. So there, we're not so much trying to discount the price of an expensive branded drug that may be thousands of dollars a month. We're helping consumers get over, say, copays or deductibles, so they can benefit from the branded drugs and helping manufacturers in the same way because the biggest challenge branded drug manufacturers have is that consumers, if they can't get over that co-payer deductible phase will never be taking the medication. And of course, as a manufacturer, you don't want that. You want your medication to be taken by as many folks as it can help. And in that context, we do a couple of things. We do things like increased awareness among consumers and health care providers of these medications when new ones come out or even for existing medications as well. Second thing we do is we provide access solutions. So manufacturers have tried to provide discount programs for years. And by their own stats, roughly 3% of eligible consumers actually take advantage of them, which means 97% who could and who could therefore become users of the given medication, don't and that attenuates revenue for manufacturers dramatically. And then the other challenge that manufacturers have is because of the way insurance works with step therapies and volume limits and in particular pre-authorizations, the manufacturer has to be confident that either the consumer or the health care provider will be able to navigate that maze. And consumers aren't actually that competent on navigating that and health care providers are very busy. And so that doesn't work very well. So the third area we can help along with access and awareness for medications is to actually help in the process of getting a consumer on medication and through these hurdles that are setup in front of them. And we bought an entity called vitaCare a few months ago specifically to do that who helps health care providers and their patients ensure people get on medication. And we get paid by pharma manufacturers for doing that because it ultimately results in more prescriptions being filled, more branded drug sales happening. And that TAM is about a $30 billion TAM on the branded drug side. And of that TAM, we're just a tiny, tiny, not even 1% so far. So we feel like we have a ton of room to grow on the branded drug side, too, mainly because we started off more on the prescription transaction side, which is a more nascent business for us even though it did substantial revenue next year at north of $70 million.

And maybe just touch upon telehealth to some degree?

Yes. So the telehealth business, that business is an important one for us. The most important part of telehealth is, frankly, because it's an entry -- another entry point into the GoodRx ecosystem. And when people use our telehealth services, they tend to attach with very high frequency, either through a subscriptions offering or to filling prescriptions through our prescription transactions offering. So you can think of it in almost a sense as a unique marketing tool for us to be able to pull more people into the GoodRx ecosystem broadly speaking.

And then maybe just one follow-up on each of these verticals. And then we'll get into some idiosyncratic themes and issues. Who do you see as your biggest direct competitor? As I've learned more about the company over the years and we've dialogued more, there's sort of the competitive dynamic of just disrupting the end market and breaking old behavior habits. And then there's, people you do sort of more directly compete with for and demand. How should investors think about that?

Yes. So in our space, we're by far the largest by any measure. But before getting into the specifics of that, I think the first place I'd go is the biggest challenge that we have is most consumers don't know that medication prices differ between pharmacies, let alone they can save a bunch of money on them. So the lack of awareness is a huge problem. And that's where our health care providers that, again, I mentioned earlier, that 90 NPS we have with them. The reason we have such a high NPS is we help their patients get healthy. And they -- and we help them get healthy by getting them on medication. And health care providers are a huge referral source for us in -- and help us grow our user base and help more consumers. But to your question specifically, this lack of awareness is the biggest single problem we have from a quasi-competitive dynamic. If you ignore that and push that out of the way, we're about 2.5x-ish, maybe a little more bigger than other entities in this space who do prescription discounting broadly speaking. And the reason we're so much bigger is we have a fundamentally different model. We work with a multiplicity of PBMs. So we can derive the lowest price in a given geography for a given medication. Nobody else really does that. Nobody else works with multiple pharmacy benefit managers to be able to create a marketplace that allows consumers to really get to that lowest price very effectively. So it's a huge differentiator for us. I think the second thing that's a huge differentiator for us is that high level of awareness we have with health care providers. And the third thing that's a really big differentiator for us in this market on the prescription transaction side is that having scale gives you advantages in terms of pricing, in terms of ability to market, in terms of ability to be efficient about user acquisition that helps us move forward as well. I think when we look at our manufacturer solutions business, there are other companies in the space. But they tend to either be health care provider focused or they tend to be consumer focused, but not both. So, on the health care provider focus side you have entities like Doximity, for example. On the consumer side, you have entities like WebMD, for example, but you generally don't have a lot of overlap. So our biggest differentiation there is that both consumers and health care providers really like us as evidenced by the NPS. Health care providers use us a lot. We have over 2 million providers who have a patient who has used GoodRx. And we have hundreds of thousands hitting our platforms in any given 90-day period of time and hitting us during prescribing hours. And so that's really relevant to pharma manufacturers who are seeking to put information in front of docs and health care providers generally. And that ends up being a huge differentiator for us in that space. And one of the reasons we've seen that business grow as rapidly as it has, tripling last year through the year -- from the year before last year too, you asked last year, and we expect it to nearly double this year again.

Okay. Understood. Earlier this year, you ran into an issue with a grocer channel that you partner with. For those who don't know about that issue, which affected your results. Maybe first take a step back and explain to people exactly what did happen. And then the second part of the question would be, you gave fairly explicit guidance around the headwinds that, that issue would face as we moved into the back part of the year. Any update there or views about how sort of that issue continues to sort of be resolved?

Sure. I think first, going to the first part of the question. Yes, so we have deep relationships with pharmacy benefit managers. And the reason when GoodRx's inception, why we went on a path of partnering with pharmacy benefit managers to be able to offer low prices to consumers is; number one, ubiquity, meaning that, that gave us the ability to allow consumers to say that any pharmacy across America, basically, 75,000 plus of them because the pharmacy benefit managers already have relationships with all the pharmacy chains and pharmacies. The second is we could leverage their ability to negotiate low prices with pharma manufacturers to pass low prices that are traditionally only given to health plans to consumers directly. So, that created an opportunity for consumers to really see, like we talked about. Now the pharmacy benefit managers have contracts with all the different pharmacies through which prescriptions get filled. In this case, given grocer elected to stop accepting some of the PBM discounts that we aggregate in our discount marketplace effectively. And when they elected to stock -- accepting some of those,; that impacted our consumers' ability to use GoodRx as a way to access those PBM discounts at the grocer in question. And that had a pretty significant impact on us because the grocer traditionally had fairly low pricing. So we had a fairly high level of revenue associated with that, that grocer relationship to the tune of north of 20%. And when that issue hit, that caused in the second quarter, approximately a $30 million impact versus what we believe revenue would otherwise have been in the third quarter and fourth quarter, we've articulated that we see that being more like $35 million or $40 million. A $40 million number being bigger because the issue ramped during the second quarter and grew to its full magnitude by the end of the second quarter, but was fully there in the third quarter and we expect it will be fully there in the fourth quarter. To be clear, our new users aren't really impacted much at all. I think on our last earnings call, our CEO, Trevor, talked about this at some length and pointed out that new user accounts are effectively nearly back to where they were before because as a new user you come into our platforms and you go to wherever the lowest prices, instead of the grocer, it might be CVS. So you go to CVS, it's some next -lowest price. You're happy, you use GoodRx and you save a lot of money. But for our existing user base at the grocer, those folks don't necessarily check pricing before they go in. And so they might go in and they see a price they don't like. But they may then use their insurance and pay their copay or find some other mechanism of picking up the prescription versus going to a different pharmacy where they could use GoodRx. And that's the source of the revenue gap that we talked about, that $40 million for third quarter and fourth quarter.

Got it. Okay. So, those headwinds still hold in terms of what -- how we should be thinking about the back part of this year?

Yes, we believe so.

Understood. When you think about the backdrop you're operating in and you bring it back to the net add cadence in the business is obviously the grocer headwind. We have a volatile consumer spending environment overall. And then we've talked about this on the public earnings call, the element of the backlog of prescriptions and doctor visits and all the things that you're still absorbing coming out of the pandemic. How do all of those issues sort of roll up and how we should be thinking about customer additions to the platform going forward?

Sure. So I think, first of all, on the grocer issue, we talked about that in our last bit of conversation a little bit that those new user accounts are looking even by the time of our last earnings call, very similar to the level they're at beforehand. So I think that issue is not one that's particularly impactful. I think as we look at the macro environment, I think we find ourselves fortuitous in 2 ways. One way is we help consumers save a lot of money, which in general is a good thing when the macro environment tightens up. Second thing is that the medications that consumers are on, particularly the chronic ones are tend to be nondiscretionary purchases for most people. So that's also something that I think we are able to benefit from. So on those macro factor dimensions I think we're not particularly fearful of significant negative impacts. I think the other area that's probably worth mentioning to some degree, is on our Pharma Manufacturer Solutions business. That's largely a pharma marketing spend driven business. And I think with respect to what we're seeing in market now, we see lots of new drug launches. And therefore, we see revenue continuing to come in. But I think no one has a perfectly clear crystal ball of what say, '23 pharma manufacturers spend will look like, given our pretty small base though and where we are in our sort of growth curve in that business, not even having a percentage point of the TAM right now though, we're optimistic that we'll be able to continue to grow that business at a healthy quite.

Okay, understood. Okay. And then I want to turn to the subscription side. GoodRx Gold, you recently raised the price of your gold subscription offering. It's interesting. There's been a lot of conversation at this conference about companies raising price, lowering price, sort of testing out price elasticity. Number one, what sort of led to the decision to explore changing the price of your subscription? And any update on what you're seeing or how the sort of broader end demand environment has responded to raising price?

Yes. We talked about this a little on our last earnings call and even on our earnings call before we implemented the price increase too. And sort of threading some of that together, our view was that our subscriptions offering became more and more robust over time. We had it for multiple years, kept on adding new benefits to it and new functionality for consumers. But we never actually re-priced it. And so the delta between the amount of value consumers got and the amount of value we retained for ourselves is getting bigger and bigger. And so we felt like this would be a good time to start to leverage the opportunity to increase price in order to capture a bit more of that value for ourselves. And so, when we first talked about this, we talked about expecting subscriber count to be not growing very much this year because we have some sort of churn in the middle of the year as we went from the old price to the new price. We're now through re-pricing effectively pretty much entirely the entire subscriber base and we saw some of that. And we think what we talked about happening, we see that pattern of -- I think at the time we talked about a V-shaped sort of subscriber count number with the low point after we'd finished re-pricing and run. But I think the broader point is that we really felt like the amount of value that we're delivering was such that we continue to be able to, once that churn event happened, continue to climb, and that's why we said that the accounts would effectively be pretty V-shaped. So more similar at the beginning and at the end of the year versus, say, dropping as a result of the price increase.

Understood. And away from the decision on price and thinking longer term, how should we be thinking about subscription as a percentage of the mix, driving more people into the subscription offering, given all the benefit that sits inside of it? How should we think about that as a driver of both growth and possibly even better unit economics on the platform over time?

Sure. So I think when we think about it, one of the impacts of the price increase is creating more differentiation for users between our prescription transaction and our subscriptions offering. What I mean by that is that with the higher price, the subscriptions offering becomes relatively more relevant to folks who might be on multiple prescriptions, might be on -- have more chronic conditions, which is exactly the right use case for it, in our view. So from that perspective, we see better symmetry between the part of the market we're seeking to attack with it. And the way the offering is characterized today. So and that side of the business, it's a more focused audience, but an audience who benefits more from it. And we expect that the remaining users will continue to leverage our prescription transactions business, which for us -- which is for us just great because for folks who may have be on limited scripts, that side of the business will be more better suited to them. And from our side of the business, it allows us to monetize them quite nicely.

Okay, understood. I want to turn back to the manufacturer solutions part of the business. How should we be thinking about sort of almost unit growth in terms of the number of advertisers and the number of brands versus spend per brand or spend per advertiser, the old wallet share versus unit debate as to what the primary driver of that business is going to be going forward?

Yes. We've talked about on previous calls sort of NRRs, net revenue retention rates in excess of 150%. And we've talked about ROI, some of the manufacturers have told us they've achieved like 8x ROI and things like that. So from that perspective, growing within a manufacturer is important, but it's only one of effectively 4 growth vectors. I think the first growth vector is more manufacturers because right now, we're on 19 of the top 20 and many more. There are about 500 manufacturers in the U.S. And we're not penetrated, even barely to 10% to a range of those. Then there's, medications per manufacturer as well, which is in general, with a manufacturer, you work with 1 or 2 medications. They get a great ROI; more medications come on board to leverage your platform. So medications per manufacturer, is the second growth vector. Then, the third growth vector on top of those is the number of solutions each medication might use. So they may initially be focused on awareness like, "Oh, I manufacture Enbrel. So I want GoodRx users and health care providers who are heading the AbbVie HUMIRA drug page to be exposed to Enbrel to know why one might be better than the other. But then they may go from awareness, which is what that is to access and want us to help actually promote co-pay cards, deductible assistance programs, et cetera. So that would be a second solution that they'd buy; so solutions per medications and other growth vector. And then the final one is we're actually growing the number of solutions we offer to both organically and of course, we bought vitaCare this spring, which allows us to offer more solutions to manufacturers as well. So those are the 4 key growth vectors on that business.

Okay. And within that business and that segment, anything you'd want to call out in terms of incremental investments you think are important to make, where investments have to sort of be made today to build sort of a scale against some business longer term. Obviously, M&A could be one example where you just called that out, but just curious how you think about the investment side of manufacturer solutions.

Sure. I think we talked about digesting vitaCare being an important thing going forward. So I think the M&A side, we talked about in relation to that being a bit less of a priority. But in terms of investments, there are 2 big areas that drive manufacturer solutions. The first is investments in sales staff, which isn't really an investment. But the more good folks you have selling, the more drug manufacturers, you can target in parallel. So there is a certain amount of OpEx associated with the business. It tends to be a pretty small percentage of deals given just how big the deals are. I think the second thing is that on a go-forward basis and you could either attribute this and calls investment to the manufacturer solutions business or it's the core business more broadly. But I think we are seeking to do deeper relationships with manufacturers and have deeper relationships with manufacturers. And so one of the elements of those are that we might move to a model in future like we talked about where the partnership with manufacturers extends to, say, marketing more broadly to consumers, not just on the platform but externally. So we've historically, as many of you've probably seen done advertisements that are GoodRx plus Walgreens or GoodRx plus CVS. And from our perspective, we think it gives us credibility to have those brands associated with us. The brands usually have lower NPS than GoodRx does. So they like to be associated with GoodRx as well because it helps to improve the customer appreciation of their businesses. And I think drug manufacturers are analogous to that. So the opportunity to partner up with drug manufacturers and say, run and add that there's drug manufacturers add but where the drug manufacturers suggests that for access to the medication at a discounted rate, folks go to GoodRx, that's pretty attractive to us. And you could either argue that ad spend will be manufactured solutions or you could say it also just drives people to GoodRx in aggregate. But I think we see ourselves potentially doing more of that in future versus GoodRx only add spend co-op dollars are good after all.

I want to turn the telehealth. Obviously, we're coming hopefully out of the pandemic and moving back to more normalization. Telehealth broadly had a bit of a moment in time during the pandemic. But it's part of a broader array I think the way you think about delivering health solutions to Americans over time. How should we be thinking about the post-pandemic normalized future for telehealth inside the broader GoodRx? And you've talked about getting to breakeven in that segment because it's been a drag on profitability since you've sort of implemented that. Walk us through the elements of growth and getting to breakeven in telehealth as a broader vertical of the company?

Sure. So yes, our telehealth business, in our view, is in many ways, a partially revenue-generating marketing tool in a sense because it exposes more people to GoodRx. Those folks generally end up with a prescription. Sometimes they fill that through a prescription transactions offering. Often, they end up coming to our subscriptions offering, so that there's a high rate of connection between folks who come in as telehealth clients and then ultimately become subscribers as well. So we like the business on those 2 dimensions quite a bit. But the business on its own to your point, it actually has, unlike our other businesses, and in fact, a true cost of revenue, which is, our health care providers on the back end. And while we use them efficiently, they've gotten on zero cost. I think from our perspective, we continue to see the business as a marketing vehicle primarily. So I don't think we see the business. And we've consistently focused on taking this marketing view versus say, hey, we want to be all things telehealth to everybody. Like I don't think Teladoc got to fears as a competitor, for example, at all. That's not our goal is to be all things to all people and make that business a huge part of our overall GoodRx set of offerings.

Okay, understood. You talked a lot in previous answers about sales and marketing. So I don't necessarily want to go back and rehash some of what you've already said. I think it's been pretty clear. But when you think about bringing it all together from sales and marketing, maybe crystallize some of the earlier answers in terms of where those sales and marketing dollars are going to be the most focused going forward? And how we should be thinking about leverage in sales and marketing on top of revenue growth over the medium to long term?

Sure. Yes, it's a great question. And I think you almost have to look at this longitudinally a little bit over time. So prior to the COVID period, there is a greater ability on the part of health care providers to refer patients to GoodRx because health care utilization was just higher; particularly in office utilization was higher. It's created a great avenue to expose folks to the GoodRx collateral that almost all health care providers solicit from us. In fact, in the early stage of the company, health care providers are the first adopters who then brought their consumers on board. We ended up spending more of our own sales and marketing money as a percent of revenue and, frankly, in absolute dollar terms, too and to an even greater extent during the coronavirus period because we didn't have as much benefit from this in quotes free sales force of health care providers. So I think now we're in a world where you expect to see some normalization. We talked about on our last earnings call that as a percentage of revenue, sales and marketing is dropping in dollar terms as well. And we talked about that in the context of the health care utilization environment, beginning to look more like we saw prior to COVID period. More generally, I think we also talked about focus on efficiency generally. And the component of that ties to the rest of the OpEx stack too, including, for example, recently doing some cost cut. But a piece of it is also specifically related to sales and marketing and pruning off the lower return sales and marketing elements, especially in light of health care utilization coming back and having more folks exposed to health care provider offices and health care provider collaterals.

Okay. I want to bring it back to margins. When you went public, there was sort of a margin structure. I think people got used to and you've talked about an investment cycle coming out of the IPO. When you and I were first talking a couple of years ago, but the business mix has also changed and the business from the time you went public to now. How should investors be thinking about the building blocks for long-term margin structure for the business? Some of the headwinds today, investment cycles today versus what you see as sort of normalized structure longer term?

Sure. Yes. And I think on that, we talked about on the early days, we talked about our product and tech area being an area where we're going to focus on, which we did. Now we've pruned that back. Most recently, that was an area of some of the biggest cuts we made because we felt like we had achieved a lot of what we aspired to achieve there. I think sales and marketing, we just talked about a moment ago as well. So from those perspectives, I think our view is, our intention is to return to margin levels, but look more like the previous ones. So I think we said on our call, we expected that sort 2Q, 3Q margins this year to be at the mid-year relative to where we expect to go going forward. And that was in part because we knew we're going to make a lot of the efforts that have since manifested themselves which folks have seen. So we see going forward, margins continuing to go in the right direction, now that a lot of this investment cycle you're your referenced is largely complete. And I think we're also benefiting to some degree because the utilization rates just in health care broadly are returning more to where we want them to be.

Got it, okay. I'd only have a few minutes left. But acquisitions, the company has been acquisitive and seems to be sort of amplifying the platform you're building through both organic and inorganic growth. Can you help investors understand your acquisition strategy, may be why these were some of the types of assets that were attractive to the company in terms of deploying capital into M&A?

Yes. So I think, first of all, we talked about, I think, on the last earnings call, the fact that the vitaCare acquisition was our biggest to date. So we spent a little time divesting that before going and doing something else. So I think that's an important reality. I think the other -- to the other parts of your question, a lot of the acquisitions we did in previous years were effectively similar lines of business, certainly since the telehealth acquisition of HeyDoctor to businesses we're already in that helped enhance businesses we're in. So RxSaver was an offering that's somewhat similar to our own prescription transactions offering. And so from that perspective, we felt like they had a very strong brand, but they had pretty terrible pricing. So combining their brand with our ability to drive pricing down would be quite attractive indeed. When we look at other acquisitions like our Scriptcycle acquisition, Scriptcycle was also similar to our prescription transactions business. But instead of being primarily consumer-focused, it was focused on independent and small chain regional pharmacies being able to offer their own cash discount programs. And that's an area where we hadn't really worked before. And we felt like it would be important to support that area too among other things, be able to help those smaller independent chains, be competitive in the long run and their consumers continue to save money. So those are 2 examples of how businesses support our core arena. We also, prior to those 2, but subsequent to the HeyDoctor acquisition, bought an entity called Focus Script. And that entity really gives us new capabilities on a couple of dimensions. They're almost like a mini PBM. So as such, they allow us to have a significant amount of strategic flexibility as well as being, of course, revenue generating.

Got it, okay. I know we're only -- well, maybe I ask one more follow-up there. When you think about zooming back out in the M&A, you've done, maybe just give us your priority set in terms of allocating capital? Growth potentially amplifying equity returns, utilizing the balance sheet, thinking about balance sheet longer term? What are sort of the priorities of the company when it comes to that?

Yes. I think we've, in general, historically, up to at least the COVID period, we've had great sort of flow-through in terms of adjusted EBITDA or cash flow. Operating cash flow last quarter was about $50 million or so. And I think that's, A, somewhat distinct from a lot of other tech companies, but B, it's also a core focus for us going forward is in enhancing the rate of flow through going forward relative to the last couple of 3 years of the investment cycle we talked about. So I think the existence of that capital, like we said, will be digesting vitaCare that exists so that capital isn't specifically focused on that sort of activity. I think we can leverage it for growth. But we've always been able to grow well through on of significant cash. So I'd expect to see our cash balances but for other activities. As folks know and as we talked about on prior earnings call and in our filings, we have share repurchase authorizations and the like, too, which I think go to your point of enhancing investor returns potentially.

Okay. In the last few minutes we have, we've been trying to put people on the spot as our sort of last question.

I love to be put on the spot.

As you look out, you've talked a lot about the agenda for the company and there's a lot in there. When you look out over the next 12 months, so what do you see as the key strategic priorities or goals of the company except for themselves that you want to leave investors with as maybe the most important and/or framing as if we're here a year from now, hopefully, we will be sort of talking about the company and about what it's achieved, what are those goals and priorities?

Sure. So that will tie into some of the conversations we've already had so far, frankly, like early on, when we were talking about competition, we talked about the single biggest thing being that 70% plus of consumers don't even know that prices are different between pharmacies a little on they can save money, so awareness is key. Awareness of GoodRx and the ability to save money, super critical for us. So we hope to be coming back a year from now or more folks will know about, more folks will be using GoodRx. I think the second most important dimension is the depth of health care provider relationships. We've always had strong relationships with health care providers. They are the first heavy users and promoters of GoodRx. We want that to continue. We feel like the COVID period was a period in which they sort of didn't grow at the rates that would have been perfect for us. So we're focusing on things like developing the HCP mode app; that leads health care providers an electronic way send coupons to their patients. So that patients can benefit from GoodRx way more than they could before so health care provider relationships are the second key. I think the next area of platform capabilities broadly. And one point example could have been the health care provider mode when I talked about. But creating more ability for seamless use of the platform and for us to get more user information and higher levels of user engagement are key. We talked about even being willing to take on the $10 million a quarter headwind associated with asking users for more information, creating more friction in the funnel to get that higher level of engagement. So we're very committed to doing that and deepening relationships with consumers more broadly. So those are the key points. When you talking here, you can hold me to them.

We'll bring them up 12 months from now, Karsten. Thank you so much for being part of the conference. Really enjoyed the conversation. Please help me in thanking GoodRx for being part of the conference this year.

So grateful to be here. Thank you so much.