Hi, my name is Justin Lake. I cover healthcare services here at Wolfe Research. Thank you for joining our Second Annual Virtual Wolfe Research Healthcare Conference. Really very pleased that I have The Cigna management here. We've got the CEO of the company's Evernorth business, Tim Wentworth, with us, as well as the new IR . Congratulations, Alexis, new Head of IR, Alexis Jones. Unfortunately, our [webinar] is kind of not treating Tim very fairly, so we won't have him on the screen here, but he is with us. If he started a few minutes late, we'll go a few minutes over. We'll make sure we get through everything today. Tim, thanks for joining us.
Maybe you could give us a couple of minutes to kind of refresh the State of the Union on what's going on with Evernorth and Cigna , and then we'll jump into questions.
Sure. I'm going to be really brief because I know you've got a lot of questions. I mean, I could do a long filibuster here, but I won't. Thanks for having me and us, first of all. Pleased to be here. I want to thank everyone that's dialed in. I apologize that we couldn't get the technology up, but I have a face for radio anyway, so this is better. In any event, here's what I'd say. The bottom line for Evernorth, which we launched this year after two years of working on merging the companies, driving synergies, driving core business results, executing on every promise that we've made to you, and performing, we clearly could see that the market was thirsty for what we had and the opportunity to give it a personality, to create an executional platform of services that had its own identity.
90% of our revenue reaches from outside C igna 's four walls, unlike our competitors. We're driven to work externally, driven to work in novel and creative ways. I think this year you've seen that. The bottom line and the results are what really matters. We've got 98% retention in our core book of business, higher than that in Evi Core. All of our engines, [EHI] , Evi Core, Accredo, Mail, are growing this year in line with our expectations or better. We are positioned to do a whole lot more in the future. We are driving great drug trend again. I think that'll come out. We'll again probably lead the industry as we have the last five years. We have record employee engagement scores, and we have powered Cigna 's growth in the government business.
The pharmacy part of that has been meaningful in terms of driving the top end of the range growth in the government business that we have. What I'd finally say is this: at the end of the year, it's a sort of a cherry on the cake, and we'll talk about it. You know, Justin, I'm going to give you your help if you're going to publish for this, which is primed for success. If you take a look at the year, we started out less than a year ago signing the first deal with Prime Therapeutics that a lot of folks didn't think we'd get done. We built off of that deal alone. We expanded our footprint beyond the initial deal to our safeguard programs, for example.
Round two, we were again selected by Prime in a very competitive process to be their specialty pharmacy preferred provider, as well as their mail service provider. You see us continuing to deepen our relationship with Prime. From that standpoint, if you go out to LinkedIn, I'm really, really proud of the fact that when we launched Evernorth, Ken Paulus, the CEO of Prime, wrote, and I quote, "David, thank you for the engagement with my organization, Prime Therapeutics. Your team led by Tim Wentworth has been not only professional but highly effective as we work through several complicated implementations. We appreciate the partnership with Cigna." You don't see the CEOs of customers do that very often, but the Prime relationship demonstrates that we are executing on what we are built to do.
The Amazon Prime relationship shows that we are, again, able to be creative, able to be disruptive, able to lean in and leverage our assets. I think the final thing I would point out and then turn it over to you, Justin, is this is done in a massively capital-efficient way. I think I'm proudest of, and I'm an EVA guy from way, way back, is that what we do leverages an ability to coordinate and integrate and work with others in ways that don't require us to invest massive amounts of capital in bricks and mortar or other things, and it enables us to be nimble, enables us to be a partner of choice, and I think portends to a very strong future. With that, I'm happy to open it up. I know you got a bunch of questions.
Oh, that's a great overview, Tim. You talked about the innovation, the ability to partner, and obviously, the company made a lot of news a couple of days ago with your partnership with Amazon. I want to make sure I give you an opportunity to explain to us what that is today and what it isn't, and maybe give us some background on the process there.
Sure. I'll try to be brief because I'm sure there are unanswered questions that I won't hit. The short answer is we've been talking with Amazon for quite some time. They've obviously been looking at how to expand their relationship in pharmacy. Some folks thought Whole Foods would be the answer, and of course, so far it hasn't. Some folks thought PillPack would be the answer, and so far it really hasn't. I'll leave it to Amazon to talk about PillPack's growth. You see PillPack in a lot of networks, but it comes into the network as a retail choice. Folks that are looking for affordability, very often PillPack may not be the most affordable choice, but it's a choice nonetheless. We have certainly worked with Amazon to put PillPack in various networks for patients where that was appropriate.
By the way, I would step back and remind you that we have had a meaningful relationship with Amazon as a client for a long period of time. Therefore, we've enjoyed the growth that they've enjoyed this year in terms of adding recent folks. More importantly, we've worked really collaboratively with them to execute for their members the kind of expectations they have for their consumers. In the end, the relationship we now have announced with them is one where, if you take the first thing they launched, it was basically just kind of a rebranding, a relaunching of PillPack inside of retail networks, but also now with a front end on the Amazon website. The second piece was disrupting the cash market. The cash market is not gigantic, but it is important. It's been underserved.
If you think about Amazon's core strategy, as I understand it, it is to go after markets that are not well-serving consumers. They clearly looked at the existing opportunities in the space, whether that was the cash cards of retailers or GoodRx and others, Blink, and they saw an opportunity to bring better value and better service. They came to us. We spent meaningful time helping them understand what we could do. They're using our Inside Rx chassis that we built four or five years ago for our cash program. They're using our unique, still only in market, ability to get rebates on brand drugs and cash programs to meaningfully lower the cost of brand drugs for cash-paying customers. They're executing that. We are adjudicating all of the claims that they're getting.
We also are, obviously, we built the retail network for them that their members can go into the Walgreens, CVS, etc., to access the Prime pricing at the retail counter in retail pharmacies. We've essentially are the entire private label backend for them as they launch this cash program.
That's really helpful. Let's start with the cash program. Can you maybe compare and contrast this to, for instance, what you're doing with GoodRx in terms of how the economics are split? My understanding is GoodRx gets the bulk of the economics, from some of their slides versus the PBM . How does that work with you and Amazon? I assume with GoodRx, you're getting a percentage of the volume there because it's getting spread out among multiple PBMs in terms of adjudication, whereas with Amazon, you'll be getting 100%. Maybe you could tell us or give us some ballpark number on how your penetration with GoodRx compares, and confirm that 100% number with Amazon.
Sure. I appreciate it. You pointed out the point that I would have made, which is that we have an exclusive with Amazon, which is fundamentally different than the relationship with GoodRx. Listen, we've been working with GoodRx for a number of years. They enabled us to launch more broadly than we could ourselves because we launched Inside Rx at the same time that we launched with GoodRx. I actually was on the CBS Morning Show with Dave Ricks from Lilly, kind of announcing the program a number of years ago. GoodRx obviously works with all the PBMs, leverages their databases, and so forth. There is, as you say, an underlying profit model for GoodRx that I want, I don't want to speak for Amazon, but I think Amazon saw an opportunity to create additional value for consumers. What I would say is this as it relates to the economics.
Obviously, it's incremental economics for us, which is good. I mean, to the extent [GoodRx] folks go to Amazon, then we've got the same patient in a different chassis. We like the Amazon chassis a lot. I'm not going to compare and contrast to other than to say that it's good economics for us with Amazon, and it was very appealing to, again, especially given that we don't have to really invest any capital here to work with them as an exclusive partner with an eye toward, again, empowering their strategy. I think that, over time, folks want to know what that's going to be, and they need to ask Amazon that question. I think that to the extent they want to take their cash program and leverage the data from it, they're certainly going to be well-positioned to do that right out of the chute.
To the extent that, from our standpoint, we are their partner here. We think there are any number of things that, depending on which way they go, we can support and help them with.
That's interesting. In addition to 100% of the share, it sounds like the economics to you on a percent basis might be similar. As I look at it, you're talking about Amazon bringing more value to the marketplace versus what's out there today. Would it be on a relative basis? The things that I've thought of here are, one, maybe Amazon's willing to take a more customer-friendly posture on the slice that their patients will be spread relative to what's out there. They certainly lead on price from a lot of other markets. How much of that is offset by using your model relative to having best price among three, four, five PBMs?
If you think about it, you can, I can say, you know, in terms of how competitive Amazon is.
Yeah. First of all, you know, in terms of who they think they're going to capture and for what reasons, that's really, you know, I don't want to comment on their strategy. They obviously have the ability to price however they want to, and we just are able to administer it really effectively for them. The starting point, to your point, is discounts. The point is, they don't need to work with multiple PBMs to have a retail network of 50,000 stores and access that lowest price that the retailer is offering and then decide if they want to subsidize that incrementally or, you know, reduce fees compared to what others are offering and so forth.
We're able to, again, enable, based on how they want to dynamically evolve their positioning in that market and the value in that market, we're able to adapt, but we've constructed a very powerful piece. The difference is for others working with multiple PBMs, that's a good way to get additional eyeballs and additional data and information. We've got plenty of data to give Amazon what they need to plot their path here.
How do you see the cash market evolving over time? From a pricing perspective, from a penetration perspective, do you have any visibility to how often, you know, when a customer uses one of these apps, they're actually choosing? It's especially an insurer company or a customer, given your customer base or client base itself, how often an insurer customer is going and moving over to cash pay when they use it?
Yeah, not, you know, I think the question lies in wondering what's going to happen with two things. One is, the Affordable Care Act and other things that have sort of created insurance for those that didn't have it before. Two is plan designs, as you think about the fact that one of the things that opened up the cash market beyond its sort of natural size, which isn't terribly large, by the way, in the grand scheme of prescriptions. You know, you have 6 point some billion scripts and probably under, I think it's well under 500 million, cash scripts.
If I think about plan designs, the high deductible plans opened up, in many cases, for certain patients, roughly 5%- 7% of prescriptions where you'd say that the cash price, mostly in generics, by the way, that the cash price for a member who is in a funded plan could be better from GoodRx or, now Amazon or Blink or others than it was through their funded benefit. Members would opt out while in donut holes, deductibles, out-of-pocket maxes, etc., and use it. I will tell you that I'm not predicting you're going to see plan designs that are massively more consumer unfriendly, for lack of a better term, member unfriendly, for lack of a better term, than they are now. I think folks realize we've probably hit a point with copays and so forth that that's not going to be the way to manage costs in the future.
There's just not enough leverage in all of that, particularly on the generic drugs. I think the market will grow, but I don't think the market is going to be the exploding, you know, I don't think you're going to see a large cash market in specialty, for example, on the medical side, for example. It's a niche market. It's one we didn't participate in five years ago, and we said we were going to participate in it, and we were going to do it in a clever way. We did that. Now Amazon's taken advantage of that as we've also benefited from our Inside Rx program. I think that's going to be the long-term question. I don't see, you know, the cash market evolving massively, but if it does, we're really well positioned.
Got it. I appreciate all that. Let's take a step further. You said you've been talking to Amazon about multiple things over a fairly long period of time. Amazon announced a Prime two-day shipping for their Prime members. Clearly, that seems like a first step. How are you involved in, just to make sure I understand, are you involved in that at all from a back-office perspective? Beyond the cash-pay part, are you doing anything else with Amazon at this moment?
No, we're not on the back end. We certainly, again, as we do with all relationships, look at where we could potentially help. I think, depending on what kind of volumes Amazon experiences and what their capacities are and so forth, we think we're well positioned to help them if they were to have meaningful expansion in volume there. What I would point out is, again, the back end dispensing, which we do really well, 100 million+ 90-day scripts every year, robotic, 99.999% accuracy, etc., by far and away the industry standard, and that is growing for us. If Amazon were to want to hook into our back end, that's certainly something that we were talking about. What I would point out, if you think about all of this, is, again, Amazon's about disrupting the member experience. Two-day shipping for Prime is great.
The challenge in doing that, and Amazon's well aware of this, is a new prescription coming into a funded benefit may have multiple checks that need to be done, including potentially speaking with a physician. It's almost never going to be the case that that script will come in and go out in two days. What we've learned, because we did some two-day shipping, is that you've got to be really thoughtful about how you communicate with members around their expectations, depending on what kind of prescription it is. If it's a renewing one, if it's a refill, etc. Clean refills, you can definitely get done in two days. We do. I think 60-some% of our scripts or more are out and in members' hands before three days if they're clean. I think Amazon will, they're going to learn. They're going to experiment.
They have that capability at PillPack to manage benefits administration inside of the piece. Certainly, if they were to meaningfully become a large retailer at scale, which, hey, listen, I would welcome that from a standpoint of them being able to do what, at the end of the day, it's not the end of the PBM that Amazon gets in. It's the result of it. We will benefit from it by creating, again, competition amongst the retailers for access to our members. To the extent that Amazon can define that access, not just through unit cost, parity or better, but through other service elements or clinical elements, then they're going to have a really good shot. I think that's what they've got to think about over time as they now step into pharmacy more completely.
Where I was going with that is, we've seen it in your Prime relationship, right? It started with purchasing, now it's moved to specialty. I want to talk to you about where you think that goes next. To kind of follow up on Amazon for a minute, I think, I'm certainly not an expert on Amazon, but the distribution logistics seems to be what they're really good at. Obviously, purchasing and kind of the administration part behind the scenes is what Express Scripts and PBMs are really good at. The thought process being that probably the biggest gain that Amazon is getting bigger is their purchasing power. Is that something that you think, down the road, you'd be open to?
We'd be open to working with Amazon in any number of ways as they evolve the strategy. The reason we built Ascent, and this is a good transition to Prime Therapeutics, was strategically two reasons. One, we saw that rebates were getting more and more challenging because pharma was just more and more resistant in today's environment, particularly with COVID, feeling kind of good about themselves. We needed to make sure that we continued to be able to have a meaningful chassis to get and protect rebates. Secondly, because we could build something that would be strategically interesting to potentially large others that we could work with in more durable ways than just a PBM or a rebate contracting relationship. Prime saw that as obviously valuable and evaluated and differentiated.
To the extent that, again, Amazon wants to move further down that path and PillPack wants to look at how they purchase products and potentially look at differing ways to do that, we have a number of group purchasing organizations that are very successful, not just Ascent. We have a generic purchasing group purchasing organization as well that we're more than interested in talking to potential members, including Amazon, about.
That's really helpful. That leads us to the next question that I get a lot from investors, which is, you know, Amazon certainly has been disruptive in a lot of the markets that they've gotten into. They haven't always been successful, but in some of them, they've been disruptive to the pain of their competitors. You've got a big mail order business, for instance, right? That is very profitable. How do you kind of weigh the potential of letting the foster the handout, so to speak, with enabling Amazon from a purchasing perspective to be competitive when they're already very good at logistics and distribution versus the potential disruption to your mail order business versus the other opportunities that it is to work with a company that's at that scale and size and potential?
Sure. I appreciate that question. I got to ask that once. I'm going to apologize. Somebody may have heard me say this three years ago because I'm incredibly consistent when I was on CNBC. I think one of the times I said that when I was asked about the products in the henhouse, if we were to work with them, my answer was we have a lot of henhouses. As you've seen over the last several years, we have meaningfully diversified and managed to ensure that our patients and our payers could direct the scripts to the places they wanted based on their particular strategies. For example, you've seen us push Retail 90 to very high levels in our book of business. That was viewed by, let's call it, 10 years ago, when CVS bought Caremark, for example, as hugely threatening to us.
What we've seen is our mail members are very sticky. They're very happy, but so are our Retail 90 members. We're able to surround them with clinical programs as well. From our standpoint, the real question is how we underwrite the relationship we have with our B2B clients is determined by how much mix of business comes through different channels, what kind of specialty relationship we have. It's a very sophisticated underwriting model that would allow for and has allowed for our managing clients that have no mail and being profitable in an appropriate way, and our clients who have a lot of mail and our clients who have grown their mail. We're not at all concerned. Where we start, and this is, I think, the most important thing to understand, Justin, is my thinking and our thinking is real simple here. Amazon's going to go into pharmacy.
If they're going to go into pharmacy, I would much rather be working with them than not. I would much rather harness what they do and create value for my book of business rather than view it as some threat that I have to stop. I will use Mail. I will use my Mail to, in part, drive Amazon to lower prices, right? In other words, we've been a very, very cost-efficient, high-service, great outcomes organization. The final point I'd make is we get paid by and large. I know you spoke with Stuart Piltch yesterday. I had him on a panel. Stuart would tell you this with the large employer coalition he works with. What they're interested in isn't our shipping scripts out the back door. That's nice, and they have a lot of mail service. What they pay us for is the clinical front end.
It is the risk that we take on overall adherence and outcomes across a series of comorbidities. That's the value that we add. Our mail capability is terrific. It's a differentiator. It does force others to price more aggressively because they know that we've got that competitive threat. We love taking care of the DOD through our mail service operations. That continues to be a very strong relationship that, as you may know, is now we've completed the RFP for, hopefully being selected for another seven years. I think we will be based on service and based on our competitiveness and our efficiencies. The real magic of what we do and will be doing in the future is how we integrate with others and how we drive clinical and overall outcomes and continue to innovate. Mail is just one henhouse of many.
That's helpful. The other thing I've tried to do some more work on, and I'd love to just get 30 seconds on, is when you look at the composition of your mail script, you know, it's obviously very different than fulfilling a specialty script, for instance, versus a script on cholesterol, you know, your typical cholesterol drug that just comes every 90 days. Can you talk to us a little bit about the composition of your mail and how much of that is, you know, how do you think about specialty being defensive versus the more typical mail and how that splits out?
Yeah. I mean, you know, everything depends on how you're counting, right? If you look at the number of patients we serve, it's probably mail is probably 20x what we serve in Accredo because they're rare diseases and so forth. When you look at the intensity of service, it's probably 40x more consultative to serve these patients. In many cases, sending nurses to their homes, having monthly conversations with them, with a pharmacist, etc. When we look at it, while Accredo in many cases does distribute to the home using ice chests and all sorts of other things and coaches patients through the administration of their product, it's a far more complicated backend process and frontend process. We think it's complementary. We think, obviously, the specialty effort that we have is really key to unlocking value for payers and patients and physicians.
We are by far and away the preferred specialty pharmacy for physicians. Our NPS of providers is extraordinarily high, and we measure it. What we like about specialty is that it puts us in a position of much, much more sophisticated value creation for multiple constituents, including pharma companies, who are looking for one or two players to meaningfully take care of those patients in many cases because of the patient numbers and the detail needed to not only take care of those patients, but capture the data in the new product and report it back to the pharma company so they can maintain safety, etc. Really different businesses.
We are certainly committed to both businesses, but there's no question that I could ask a lot more questions in finalist meetings about what we're doing to help manage specialty than what I would call the almost commoditized distribution of mail, which is probably close to 90% generic prescriptions right now. Mail was the enabler of the generic wave and continues to be a really great high volume, high adherence, clinically focused with the specialist pharmacist at the frontend model. In that respect, the models are similar, but a lot of differences.
That's helpful. Let's talk about, you know, you mentioned Prime, and that was another interesting story. Frankly, we had some of the same conversations back when you announced that in terms of making it a competitor of yours stronger from a purchasing perspective. You've answered some of those questions by evolving that relationship into specialty. Can you talk a little bit about, you told us a little bit about that process and how the discussion came about and how you want a, you know, if you want an RFP that was certainly pretty broad. Where do you think Prime goes over time? Is it to work with them more on the pharmacy side, or do you see opportunities in terms of working with the constituents in the 15- 20 Blues that are part of Prime to sell them other capabilities inside of this Evernorth operation?
Yeah. I mean, I think that we take nothing for granted with Prime. We've had to earn our way into every place that we're providing value for them today, and that will continue. I think that, you know, Prime's plans are competing against large national players. They need to compete. They compete in a very differentiated way. They're very local. They've got very powerful brands. They've got very strong relationships with providers, and they want those relationships with providers to be deepened. Therefore, I think where it goes is the affordability paradigm for those plans that they're going to have to drive to compete and create access to those patients, as well as the service. I think as well, Prime's customers are very focused on servicing members really well.
I think a big piece of why we were successful in winning the Accredo business was not just the cost paradigm and the clinical paradigm, but frankly, the patient and physician service paradigm. I fully expect as we continue to execute and perform for Prime, that it's what we built Evernorth for, to land and expand relationships with the 120+ health plans that we have relationships with and the 2,000+ employers and the government entities and so forth. I'm not going to predict what it will be next. You know, we want to follow Prime's, you know, sort of strategy. When I look at our Evi Core asset, for example, I think there's some really interesting things that we have on the drawing board that Prime's plans could benefit from and snap into.
Again, as we deepen the things that we're doing for those plans, the ability to coordinate with other things that we are building will be so easy for them that all it'll be up to us to do is continue to perform, earn their trust, and show the value. I think we will, over time, be able to not only bring new ideas to them, but in fact, consider what ideas we ought to be building in the context of them because it's such a powerful, good relationship along with the other particularly regional health plans and blues that we work with.
Is there any way to put some numbers around, in terms of, for instance, your purchasing power and how it might have changed for both bringing Prime into the fold and where, you know, how much growth do you think you can get in terms of specialty suspension from being in Prime's network?
The first part's a little harder than the second. Our purchasing power was superb when we built Ascent. Our view was that others would benefit from our purchasing power, and we would be able to evaluate what kind of incremental purchasing power we would be adding by virtue of the specifics of a particular partner such as Prime. Ours was powerful. I'm not going to say we didn't need Prime to be at a very high level, but we were performing highly. Prime, we didn't start this by saying, "Hey, we think we could get more for us and you, and we're substandard and you're substandard, so let's do something together that makes us scale." It was that we were well scaled. Prime was well scaled, but we thought they could benefit from some of the things that we had done, and they evaluated that in a very deep way.
It's hard to say how much more purchasing power we've had. I do like the fact, I think there's no question, you get more attention at the table with pharma if you're representing more lives. Prime brought a painful increase in that to the table. It adds, I think, meaningful heft and durability to what we were already doing. We think that's an opportunity for some others as well. That's why we built Ascent. As it relates to Accredo, each of Prime's plans gets to make the decision as to whether they stay in AllianceRx or come over to Accredo. We have pretty strong belief that we will earn our way into working with virtually every one of those plans, but we have to earn it. We're already installing three, and we've got more on the docket for April.
We could not install all of them for January if we wanted to because, to answer your question, we would be looking at a double-digit percentage increase in the size of Accredo over what it was before. We're going to manage that in a really thoughtful way. You've seen us manage really, really well transitions of all of Cigna's book of business onto Accredo, all of Cigna's business and government side onto our PBM platform. About 70% now of Cigna's commercial business onto the PBM platform with a December and a January 1st finalization of that transition with no noise in the marketplace. We'll execute really well for Prime. Over time, I believe we'll win all those business and do so, we do have the capacity to take good care of those patients. Again, I see a significant increase in Accredo. It's probably approaching 20%.
That's really interesting. To be clear, my understanding, we had David Schlett on yesterday as well, the CFO of Prime . My understanding of that deal that they signed with you is that it's not a binary choice, right, between AllianceRx and yourselves. My understanding is that they would be adding you in addition to AllianceRx. Am I misunderstanding that? Would you get 100% of the business if those views that move over to be a third?
Certainly, theoretically, we could, yeah. I mean, they have the choice, as they always do. What Prime did was, as their PBM and frankly, as their representative, went out and looked in the market for the next generation set of capabilities and value creation that they could bring back and say, "This isn't just a network deal we're adding another participant in. This is a preferred relationship with someone we think is better." We just got to go in and prove that. Again, each plan is going to make their own decision, but we theoretically could be serving virtually 100% of those patients.
That's exciting. As you look at the growth opportunity, I know you've historically called the PBM business, you know, the health services business a 3%- 5% growth. In 2021, you're going to get the benefit of some cost-cutting that you had put in place years ago with the announcement of the Anthem transition. You've got clients coming in. I know it wasn't Accredo this year, but you talked about it being additive over time and now specialty. Should we expect that the, I think the market's expecting to see accelerated growth above 3%- 5% with these items? Is that a reasonable thought process for a couple of years given what's going on here?
First of all, if I give you forward guidance today, Cordani, will never let me talk to you again. What I'd say is this. The 3%- 5% when you really think about it is a pretty darn wide range that we've given. Three would be really terrific, and five would be more than almost anyone would have anticipated. The things you just mentioned. The other thing I would point to is we've done really scaled deals this year. You may see claims counts, which increasingly profits per claim isn't even necessarily the right way to measure our business because of all the services we're doing and so forth. You may see claims counts growing at a more rapid... Let me be clear. We don't write business that we can't and don't make money on.
Large deals, as in most businesses, your larger customers get your best price, get the most leverage, bring the most scale to you. Those things are additive and valuable. The collection of things you cited, including our disciplined management of the costs post-Anthem, are the kind of things that one should expect should push us to the high side of the range or above it. We'll be giving you guidance in a short bit, and I think you'll have a sense of that.
Got it. I really appreciate your time here, Tim. I can sit here for another hour and still fill it up. Can I say thank you to Alexis, having you guys two days after this announcement. I told her I wanted to give her a hug if it wasn't for the screen. I really, really appreciate you being here, Tim. Thanks again for this. Congratulations on all the new opportunities and success. Looking forward to hearing more in the fall quarter.
No, thanks, Justin. Really appreciate it. The timing is good for us too. I love being able to get out and tell our story at the end of a year like this year has been. I hope everyone out there stays safe and healthy. Thanks for being interested in us. Stay tuned. Take care, Justin.
All right. Take care, Tim. Thanks again, Alexis. Take care.
Thank you.
Thanks, everybody.
Justin.
Bye-bye.