Good morning. Thank you for joining us. My name is Lisa Gill, and I'm the Head of Healthcare Services here at JPMorgan. It's with great pleasure today that I have with me GoodRx. So we're going to do a full fireside chat. And with me this morning are incoming CEO or newly elected CEO, right?
Right.
Wendy Barnes, outgoing CFO, Karsten Voermann.
Voermann.
Yeah.
And Scott Wagner, who was the Interim CEO, is also with us this morning. So Scott is sitting up here in the front row. Scott, you know I really wanted to start by just getting your insights. I know you and I had a conversation at your analyst day of what you were looking for in a permanent CEO. So maybe if you could spend a minute talking about what you found in Wendy.
Oh, yeah. All right, this is working. Hey, all right. Thank you, Lisa. Hey, everybody. Per Lisa's comment, I was the Interim CEO for about a year and a half, was pushing the boundaries of the definition of interim. But the mandate was, what's the strategy of the business? Let's get some momentum. And the biggest and most important act was find the right person to lead GoodRx. And people and executives need to match what the business can do and what it can be. Right? There's a lot of interesting, talented people in the world. But you need to have a leader of a company that matches the priorities of what the business is and what it could be.
Pretty quickly during my time going back to the board, I came back and said, look, we need somebody content-wise who knows the pharma ecosystem and the economics of it cold. Can get to two inches when you talk about gross to net spread pricing, WAC, distorted economics in the system, somebody who knows pharma ecosystem. The second was somebody with a vision to clean up the hot mess that exists, like simplify all those distortions and make the system work better, particularly for people, but also for the system. The third was somebody with really deep and respected relationships in the industry that people not only like, but trust and respect. Fourth is somebody who's an awesome leader that can galvanize a company and bring people together. Last is somebody who's smart enough and with a real fire in the belly to win.
With those kind of five things, it's awesome to then be able to turn and lead and have Wendy accept and be in seat as the CEO of GoodRx. I probably spoke with 50 executives in the industry during my time. She's awesome.
Gosh.
And those five things are totally on point. And there's a bunch of other wonderful things. So I and GoodRx are so lucky to have Wendy in seat.
Thank you, Scott, so much for those comments. We are in investor conference, and I did forget to ask Karsten to please read the safe harbor statement. So we're going to read that first, and then we'll get into the Q&A.
OK, with that introduction of Wendy, I'll read a quick safe harbor and appreciate you having us here, Lisa. Before we begin, I'll remind everyone that today's fireside chat will contain forward-looking statements. All the statements made that do not relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking and are neither promises nor guarantees, and our actual results may differ from the projected statements that we make. Please refer to our 10-K and 10-Q filed with the SEC for a description of the factors that may affect our results, and we may also reference certain non-GAAP metrics, which are also reconciled to the nearest GAAP metric in our releases, which can be found on our investor relations site. Back to you, Lisa.
Great. Thanks very much and Scott, thanks for all those insights into how you were thinking about selecting the right person. Wendy, from your perspective, when you were thinking about taking this job, what really drew you to GoodRx?
Yeah, thanks for the question, Lisa, and thank you for having us. So I've had the benefit of working, whether it was big pharma, retail pharmacy, PBM, both from owning the relationships with retailers and owning all of the fulfillment at Express Scripts, in addition to other areas of the drug value chain. And throughout that tenure, particularly at Express Scripts, I had the opportunity to actually partner with GoodRx. I was part of the team that stood up Inside Rx inside Express Scripts, which was largely their cash solution in response to GoodRx. And although perhaps not as well known externally, on the back end, we were partnering with Trevor and Doug at the time through GoodRx.
So I had an opportunity to really understand kind of that early core model that was GoodRx and continued to really be just impressed with how they were driving a bit of disruption, if you will. And so flash forward to maybe six months ago as the CEO of RxBenefits, still within that pharmacy benefit ecosystem. And I just continued to see the aspects where all of these components were trying to solve what is getting cost out of the system, but really only had a microcosm and/or a very small component to be able to solve within that system, or said differently, had a bit of misalignment as to how they were trying to do it. Let me give you a couple of examples.
So a leading pharmacy inside a big PBM, as much as I was aligned to the patients that we were serving, I obviously had an interest in growing the volume through my own pharmacy, one example. Another example, when you think about the retail pharmacy side, obviously I wanted to grow script volume with only the most profitable scripts flowing through our pharmacy at Rite Aid and through those contracts. So there were just always components where I felt a little bit restrained from what I truly could do. And when I think about GoodRx, I see us as truly being this complement that sits in the white space of all of these players, inclusive of pharma, retail pharmacy, payer, health care provider, and candidly direct to consumer, which is also something that I didn't really have a lever to pursue.
Largely, most of my previous pursuits were B2B and then engaged with a consumer. So you put all those pieces together, and I can't think of really a better time to be able to influence all of that white space.
What would you say are the key priorities for you in your first year?
Sure. Well, I'd start with the near-near term, which is, of course, just getting to know the team and understanding the different aspects of the business and the key business leaders and where I think we have an opportunity to bring additional talent. I would also be remiss in these very early days. We are a Santa Monica-based company, so spent a little bit of time ensuring that all of our colleagues are safe with what's happening down in the L.A. area. So that certainly has taken a bit of time. But I will say, as again a bit of an aside, a hard line underscore to the culture that is GoodRx. It's just been really heartwarming to see everyone reach out to make sure that everyone's doing well and offering to bring folks into their own homes if they're evacuating.
Thinking more so about business short term, I would say it's continuing to build out those relationships with retailers, pharma, PBMs, and also some, I would say, organizations that we haven't spent a good bit of time with, but that I have historical relationships with that I think make sense to spend time with, particularly government regulators, and some of the trade associations that we haven't engaged with that are, frankly, really good representations of the issues facing that particular trade, so I do see us spending a little bit more time with the trade association. Beyond that, more specifically, I see us blowing out our brand partnerships, which I think we'll talk maybe a little bit more about here. I see myself spending a lot more time short term just with our retail pharmacy partners and PBMs where I have those historical relationships.
I think it's going to make sense just to reengage at a senior level.
Is there anything that you would characterize as an easy win in the early days rather than thinking about longer-term priorities?
Sure. Well, believe it or not, that brand opportunity, just given that we really doubled the number of brand partnerships in 2024, I think we're now at around 150. The last time we talked about it was roughly half.
Right.
While I would say some of those individual pursuits, particularly if it's a manufacturer that we're not working with today, may not be as quick and short term as the question would lead, but given the work we put in in 2024, we now have these use cases that are proving out what we're driving for these pharma partners, so what I'm finding even here, meeting with pharma, is that the conversations have a very different tone, according to the team that's been joining me in these meetings, in that these manufacturers are coming asking us what we can do for them. They've seen some of these results and have said, OK, here's how we think we can structure it, as opposed to us needing to start from a position of who's GoodRx, what do we do, so I think those will start to snowball, if you will.
I see that as at least a reasonable quick win. I would also add, perhaps in the category of quick-ish win, would be an opportunity to provide a virtual pharmacy partner to our offering. Specifically, when you access goodrx.com today, we will display just about every pharmacy that we partner with here in the U.S., and you can go get it from that pharmacy. Many of them also have a courier service, so you could conceivably get it delivered to your home. But more purposefully, what I mean is delivery same day, next day from a virtual pharmacy partner. There are a few that are quite good at that. I think that feels like something we should be able to pursue pretty quickly. From my seat, that's just really more about engaging consumers where they are with how they want to get their prescription.
I want to dig in a little deeper on the pharma manufacturing solution side of your business. You talked about the growth that you've seen there. You talked about some of the early discussions. But can maybe you talk about the benefit you think that GoodRx can bring to the whole ecosystem? And really, when you're talking to those manufacturers, what are you talking to them about what the offerings are from your perspective?
Sure. So as we think about partnering with manufacturers, there are really two ways in which we do it. The legacy business and how we got our start, and by all means, the team who's had more than 13 days in seat can feel free to jump in here at any point in time. So the legacy of our manufacturer solutions business was more rooted in partnership through agency through those manufacturers, whereby we were displaying banners. It was more of a presence advertising type push. And while that did drive meaningfully upside to both ourselves and the partner, the real value is in transitioning more so to a point of sale cash buy-down solution, in addition to driving partnership through their own access programs. So think their own patient assistance programs, their hubs, their manufacturer copay assistance solutions.
So that's kind of a whole suite of offerings that we've been able to drive value towards. And that's where I'd like to see us expand a lot of these partnerships. As we think about brands in general, manufacturers are challenged not just when one of their molecules is losing exclusivity towards the end of life cycle. It's both at launch where they're struggling to get on formulary at all. It's also mid-life cycle when there are a number of competitors and they're also struggling to get formulary positioning. We've seen through our own data that of the top payers out there today, specifically pharmacy benefit partners, 600+ and some instances 700 NDCs not uncommon to not be covered through benefit design. And look, we fully understand the reasons why a number of these things are excluded.
Both PBMs and the client employer in this instance, they're trying to get cost out, and they just don't have the luxury of paying for everything, which is where we truly come in. So we're offering this value for brand manufacturers to be able to partner with us such that their scripts are not going to be abandoned at point of sale. The other prong of this that we're talking to pharma about, and that then ties back to our retail pharmacy partnerships, these same drugs are typically unprofitable for retail pharmacies. They have been underwater on brands for more than a decade, candidly since I worked in the retail pharmacy space, which was a long time ago.
So the opportunity for us to share value back with the retail pharmacy funded by pharma to make them whole on these drugs and in many instances profitable for the first time in a long time creates a very different talk track with us in the retail pharmacy. And we're sharing that now in conversation with pharma. And so as they're starting to see the data on the upside that we're driving to their brand launches, again, whether end of life cycle, early, or mid, it's just really changing the conversation.
Wendy, I think it'd be really helpful for people in the audience to really understand maybe if you can give us an example of exactly how this would work, whether it's the copay assistance, the point of sale, et cetera. So maybe just walk us through. If you want to just have a made-up drug, it's fine.
Yeah. I may ask Karsten for some numbers. Let me start first with more on the patient assistance side. Those are a little easier for me to describe, and then we can talk through what cash buy-down actually looks like. So let's start perhaps with that first prong. Most manufacturers for their larger brands offer assistance programs, and they tend to provide different types of coupons to reduce the patient's out-of-pocket at the point of sale. They tend to educate the public on how to access those largely through the brand name drug.com. I mean, it's just kind of a static standalone website where that information exists. Then you or I as consumers would enroll ourselves in that program, and you'd need to provide a host of information, sometimes inclusive of your prescribing physician.
Other times, that static brand page is something that your physician and/or the manager in that office would do for you. But more often than not, it's you as the consumer/patient figuring out how to enroll yourself in that program. What we're doing now is partnering with pharma to say, look, we are on average 5-10 times lift as you engage with goodrx.com. So they're searching for that same drug through goodrx.com as opposed to looking for fill-in-the-blank brand drug.com. And so what we're doing is, in addition to adding clarity around what is required to enroll in that program when they go to us, we're then redirecting them to that brand page.
And what we know is that the consumer sentiment and the trust placed in GoodRx when they're searching for that drug. Again, we're providing a much better experience in driving, in some instances, 15-20 times ROI than what the manufacturer is able to get on their own. So that's an example of kind of a copay program, if you will, in partnership with the manufacturer. And of course, they're paying us for driving that traffic. As it relates to point of sale brand buy-down, so think about the myriad of drugs that just aren't covered at all on formulary. And again, those are growing year over year for a whole host of reasons, but we know that that's not going away anytime soon. So when we're dialoguing with manufacturers, we're effectively saying, what do you think a fair cash price would be on this particular drug?
We have connectivity to all of the pharmacies in the U.S., so if you're willing to buy down that cash price, we then can convey that inside the retail pharmacy such that if you or I are standing at point of sale and it's otherwise not covered, then that GoodRx buy-down cash price will present, as opposed to you just get the reject, not covered. You're standing there saying what exactly happened? Or your physician writes it for you, and then you get to the pharmacy and find out that it's not covered, and then they're reengaging with your physician saying, substitution, what are we doing? Or the pharmacist is trying to substitute. All of that goes away. The other thing that goes away is the burden on the pharmacist or technician standing there saying, OK, I've got like 20 cash cards behind the counter.
Let me type in all of these BINs and PCNs and see if one of these flies and presents a better price, which is often what is happening today. It just seamlessly presents the buy-down cash price. And Karsten and I would love if you could just kind of jump in on how the economics work.
Sure, so I think on the pharma and small business, there are a couple of things, some global, some specific. On the global side, I think the first thing to point to is back when we started taking this company public in 2020, this is a business that was doing like $17 million-$18 million in revenue. Now we got it to around $110 million for 2024, so very rapid growth. At the same time, we've pivoted from, as Wendy said, more media-related advertising, which formed the majority early on, to now completely the other way, where the massive majority of the volume comes from these effectively always-on access and cash pay programs that we have. And again, the reason they're always on is both because manufacturers are getting great returns, and for them, it's also pay as you go. So there's no reason to turn them off.
And that really compounds the growth rate very aggressively, both as more programs are added, new users enter programs, and then refills occur too. And there are examples with Sanofi, Dexcom, a variety of others. But I think in terms of data on what the manufacturer solutions offering can provide to the manufacturer, it's faster time to get patients on scripts. And that's measured in terms of multiples of weeks, which makes a big difference to revenue if you get an extra X number of weeks' worth of revenue in a given year and patients on script faster. Secondly, it's measured in terms of greater rates of prescription as we go out to our HCP audience and present them with new information around new medications that are out there. So we see material script lift coming from the HCPs writing incremental scripts.
And that's what drives a lot of the high ROIs that Wendy was talking about. And then finally, incremental to those elements, we also see that when pharma manufacturers engage with us, the sheer volume that we can drive into their programs, given we have 350 million folks hitting our platforms, 100 million scripts filled on GoodRx, and almost everyone who hits our platforms, like right around 90%, has a prescription in hand and are just looking for a way to get on medication. And the combination of the health care provider and the patient having a script in hand is incredibly compelling.
You know, when we think about this business, you've talked about the exceptional growth over the last few years. How do you think about this business growing forward? And how big a piece of the business do you think it'll be over time?
Particularly the manufacturer component?
Yeah.
I think when we look at it from inside the business, we think it's on us, first of all, because even though it's grown very, very rapidly, it's still a fraction of the market, and as we move to these always-on type programs that I was just describing a moment ago with Wendy here, we continue to be highly confident that the growth rates we've showcased historically are also the ones that will manifest forwards. In fact, given the sort of exponential nature of some of them, I think we're feeling very good about them indeed. In terms of where it could ultimately be, I think from a revenue perspective, it could certainly be a lot higher, but I think what's equally interesting is the EBITDA side too, because when you think about it, we're not in a position where we have to pay for traffic to come to GoodRx.
We have the traffic both on the patient side. We had a million HCPs use GoodRx last year too. We don't need to spend money to get these folks, and so from an EBITDA perspective, we think it could be even more exceptionally high contributing.
High-deductible health plans have been around for some time. But when we think about that continued growth in high-deductible health plans, for many of you, you probably know this, but just to remind you, for high-deductible health plans, it's both pharmacy and medical together. So if you have an out-of-pocket cost of $2,500, that's a lot from a pharmaceutical perspective. When I think about some of those plans that are out there, what are some of the offerings GoodRx has? What do you think about the future of offerings? And are there any plan design changes that you're seeing in the marketplace that can be helpful or even hurtful to your offering as we move forward?
Yeah, I mean, certainly it's a trend that not only do we observe and validate. I think most of us as users of the system, perhaps even through our own employers, have experienced the portion that we have to pay out of pocket continues to increase, so generally speaking, I don't see high-deductible health plans abating anytime soon, and the trend in general just provides greater opportunity while you're still in your deductible phase to utilize GoodRx, particularly if you just can't swing a high-cost therapy while you're in that phase. I mean, as I think about our ability to wrap in with insurance, that's really kind of where the sweet spot is. Whether high-deductible or not, if I were to try and really talk through what would the vision be, it's that you or I at point of sale really don't care if it's on or off benefit.
You just see the price presented, and it's easy for you. Whether you're in your deductible phase or not, you feel that your out-of-pocket is appropriate without having to search, do one-off, get on your phone, look for a different program. That is the aim of all of this, whether or not your benefit design is high-deductible or not.
Is there anything else on the plan design side, Wendy, that you see changing that could have an impact to GoodRx?
You know, gosh, obviously the insurers ultimately control benefit design. And I think it will be much more of the same. Frankly, I think it's going to be narrower pharmacy networks where permitted, because again, that's one of the few mechanisms that payers have to get deeper reimbursement from pharmacies, which in turn can convey to a more competitive price to the employer. The ongoing push for cost absorption by the consumer patient themselves, I think those trends will continue. But as I think about where Good plays in that, those are candidly favorable tailwinds because it just provides more opportunity to be checking price through goodrx.com as more of those pressures continue to sit on employers.
I would be remiss without saying, you know, I do think we have an opportunity to engage directly with employers, whether it's directly to CFOs, CHROs, or potentially the consulting community, broker consultants. Look, I'm also abundantly clear that a one-to-one opportunity from us directly to an employer is certainly not an easy opportunity to pursue. What I do know is that as an employer, having spent the last 15 years engaged with them through the PBM side and the pressures that they're under, their ability to seamlessly say to their employees, hey, look, we can't pay for it all. We don't want you to have to pay for it all at extraordinarily high prices, but we're going to try and make it easy for you. Let's actually wrap in GoodRx from our side of the house.
Said differently, there is absolutely an opportunity for these largest employers, many of whom their benefit offering is already largely private labeled for themselves. So you see your own employer when you log in for pharmacy finder, when you log in for your provider finder. It would be seamless to also have the GoodRx experience be tailored to these specific employers. And we're not doing that at all today. But I think the easier entry foray into doing that would be a little bit more of a one-to-many back to that employer, which is through an Aon or a WTW or a Lockton. So I do see us engaging in those conversations and largely having their brokers carry the message around, look, if you want to do business with us, fill in the blank PBM, GoodRx needs to be part of the fabric. So this is said differently.
It's kind of a different take on the Integrated Savings Program that today is direct to the PBM. That still exists. It's still a fine business. But we know that there are challenges in what PBMs determine they want to display to their own patients and clients. And this largely gets around that.
You know, when we think about the actual prescription, it comes from the provider. Where are you investing in those relationships with the provider? And is it just simply education? Again, there's a difference in what they prescribe, right? And really starts at that point. And are they understanding what the out-of-pocket costs are potentially for the patient?
I mean, certainly there is just a ridiculous amount of opportunity and partnership with health care providers. I would maybe back up and just start with the sentiment that GoodRx enjoys through providers is truly unparalleled. These are all numbers that I perhaps as an outsider looking in wasn't as grounded in and have come to understand here just in the last few weeks, a few of which, Lisa, were even a little shocking to me. But we have validated data that suggests that one in two health care providers in the U.S. regularly talk about GoodRx to their patients on a daily basis. That's pretty staggering when you think about it, one in two. We know we have over 1 million prescribers who actively support us and drive, I think they drive a good 90% of our volume, that top decile.
Significant amount of volume.
Of health care providers, if I understand correctly. So I just kind of want to start grounded in we have some pretty good connectivity today, candidly without a lot of effort. So that says to me, with additional effort, with conveying perhaps different offerings for different specialties, I think there's even additional opportunity. So today, we're already tailoring more of a provider portal login, depending upon your specialty, the types of drugs that you tend to write. So for that provider, they have their own unique login experience, which then displays the type of drugs they tend to prescribe, rather, at the particular strengths that they tend to prescribe. But we have an opportunity, I think, both through machine learning and additional technology to somewhat integrate what's the payer geography there, and we tend to know what those formularies are.
So whether implied or not, we should be able to infer what's not going to be covered in those offices. We should know that. So there are additional things that we can do to help these health care providers. I think the Holy Grail would be truly integrating into all EMRs. We know that that is not simple. And we are integrated in some instances today. But ideally, if I had a true long-term vision, it would be that in that office, in that workflow, with whatever e-prescribing mechanism that office utilized that is part of the real-time benefit check, we would be displayed alongside all of the covered pricing and just best price would surface at whatever pharmacy that patient desired to get their medication. And it's something we're trying to figure out as a company. It certainly can be done.
But there are a lot of things that need to happen in order for us to get there.
Is there anything you'd add, Karsten, on that?
I think just in terms of provider data, yeah, the top decile of providers is absolutely meaningful to driving our volume. And the one-in-two stat, I think, is also valuable. But the piece that's probably most valuable is the levels of awareness and NPS from providers for GoodRx are effectively right around 90%. And providers, when GoodRx was small, before we had the big marketing budgets we do today, were the original evangelists for the product. And that's continued throughout our history. So very powerful for us to be able to leverage these folks.
It's a very challenging time for retailers, especially drug retailers. Can you talk about their interest in partnership and working together with GoodRx as they work through some of their challenges?
Sure. It's a space I've spent a lot of time both in partnership and candidly going head to head with, just depending upon the role that I had. What I will say is I enjoy some pretty deep relationships with the top retailers that we partner with. So I'm selfishly just looking forward to spending time again with Tim, Walgreens and many others that we partner with out there to see what else we can do to assist them. But I think brand margin is just an easy place to start. They're looking to stabilize their margins. And look, it's no secret what the large chains are up against and what they're needing to do in order to improve their performance. And they're public companies. And they talk very clearly as to the things that they're needing to do.
And we have demonstrated an ability to deliver value back to them that they're unable to get for themselves today, particularly, again, around brands with what we're doing with manufacturers. But I would say even stepping back a little bit more, some of the other things that we're engaged in and have already demonstrated, we know that we can also be a really good e-commerce front door for a lot of these pharmacies. And we've got one partnership that we recently executed with just a highly engaged chain in the Midwest where effectively we are going to be their e-commerce front door. So folks will come looking for scripts there through us. And then they can pick up back in store to include displaying inventory and just a number of things that on the whole retail pharmacies don't do well themselves.
Or they just don't have the active consumer engagement to drive it in the way that we do, just knowing that we've got 30-40 million who are actively filling scripts on our platform today. I think beyond that, it's really, there's only so much we can do between the tension of the PBM and the retailer. I don't see that abating. I mean, there's always going to be a give and a take there. But the other interesting component of this is regardless of whether or not those pharmacies move to a cost-plus model or not, of which several are, we are still a partner. I think we've got 30% of our volume today is tied to cost-plus business. So the model is still well-supported, even in a cost-plus environment. And the irony of cost-plus pricing, while very favorable for the retailer, it's often more expensive for the patient.
So again, that can turn into even more of a tailwind for us to drive a competitive price in partnership with the retailer.
So when I think about those cost-plus models that you talked about, is there any difference in the economics to your model for cost-plus?
Practically no. Like Wendy said, the cost-plus is well over 30% now, and that's been flowing through now for a couple of years. You've seen all of our key metrics like prescriptions, transactions, revenue per MAC, or the admin fees we talked about collecting on Investor Day. You've seen those be incredibly stable, so I think from our perspective, our economics are the same. As Wendy said, and I think this is important, so I'm going to reiterate it, it doesn't make anything cheaper for the consumer either. In fact, it goes the other way. Cost-plus models are often a little more expensive, and that drives a greater need for the consumer to use GoodRx while our economics are maintained and have been empirically for the last several quarters.
One of the PBMs does not contract with you currently for price transparency, for your price transparency tool. How do you view the landscape of price transparency tools? And are there differentiated value propositions? Is there a way to convince these not to build them themselves? What's the value of build it yourself or work with GoodRx?
Sure. Well, the history of the program around this is we actually had a number of other PBM partners who originally did build their own tools and ultimately ended up partnering with us. So I would say of the big three, the one holdout, of which, by the way, we actually do have a partnership through their RVO Health arm, it's just not directly with the Optum Rx arm. So I wouldn't put a fork in that one just yet. I do think there's continued opportunity there. And I'll tell you why. Look, it's not to suggest that the PBM-built tools are in any way bad. I think it just comes down to market trust, unfortunately, whether they're doing all of the right things or not.
Cognition, right? I mean, I think your name is much.
That certainly is a component. Look, PBMs don't tend to have. There really is no consumer angle to a PBM. Most people, if you were to ask them who provides your pharmacy benefit, you really wouldn't know unless you're looking at the really tiny print on the back of your Rx card, and most people don't pay any attention to that, so what I would say is the consumerism that we bring to the tool being embedded with the PBM certainly supplants anything that they could do on their own, but again, back to that trust element, I think it's a both trust and an independence issue, and PBMs need greater credibility as it pertains to trust with both their clients and the consumers who are engaging with them, and this gives them that arm's length to be able to embed with us for that true transparency.
Again, whether they're providing it or not, it's just the public perception is that they're never going to get there.
I want to talk about retail closures, so prior to your time, Wendy, with the company, there was a revenue headwind due to some store closures. Companies like Walgreens have talked about closing 1,200 stores. CVS has closed over 900 stores. As you know, Rite Aid had to close nearly half of their stores. As we think about that on a go forward basis, you, Karsten, can you talk about the future, what you see here, what the impact it could potentially have to volumes as we think about those continued store closings?
Yeah, we look at store closures pretty heterogeneously, not homogenously. And what I mean by that is even before Rite Aid made their announcement of concentrated store closures around the middle of the year, CVS, for example, had been closing stores for a long, long time. And the impacts of that on us were effectively de minimis. Or even less than de minimis, but I don't know a word that's less than de minimis. And the reason for that is they're going through a model of thinning. And there's just such a concentration of CVSs that folks just went from one CVS where they had their GoodRx BIN number on file to another one. And when they got there, it was already on file too. So it was seamless for them. And so literally no impact that was meaningful in any way.
If you contrast that with Rite Aid store closures, particularly in the northern Midwest, so I'm thinking near Michigan and Ohio, where large swaths of stores got closed in one geography, that was more impactful, given our philosophy has always been to be super transparent with investors. I guess it was our second quarter earnings call. We called out that we thought there'd be about a $5 million headwind from the temporary dislocation as folks were looking for new pharmacies, getting their GoodRx card on file there again, et cetera. In the Q3 call, we reported that the impact was about $2.4 million, so about half the full 2H volume. I think that goes to the accuracy with which we can predict these things, as well as the transparency that we want to provide to the investor community.
But more broadly, when Walgreens came out and talked about store closures, we were pleased to hear in every communication that we saw that they're like CVS talking about thinning, which is largely non-impactful versus this concentrated store closure. Now, on the concentrated closure side too, those scripts don't go away. Those people don't go away. They ultimately find a different pharmacy, ultimately get back on GoodRx. But there is a lag, and that's why we called out that headwind.
Looking back on 2024, ISP volumes ramping throughout the year, you talked about your expectations. We talked a lot about it at the Analyst Day. Can you maybe just talk about longer-term targets and what you've been seeing in that product line?
Sure. So product lines performed just fine. Like we said, it's been performing in alignment with expectations. I think the reality, though, is that the opportunity around going more directly to brokers and employers, which Wendy articulated earlier too, is very, very large. And going through the PBMs as a channel is one avenue. It's been a channel that's been good for us. And it's grown quite rapidly. But we also think it could be a lot better. Originally, PBMs did that because of the pull from employers who had employees saying, hey, you're charging me more for benefits every year, but I get my medication on GoodRx. So employers said, great, let's integrate GoodRx in. But the PBMs aren't as aggressive about rolling that out as we might like, which is why Wendy is speaking to potentially working with brokers and large employers in addition to them.
Wendy, this is our last minute here. The stock's been under a lot of pressure. When we're sitting together here next year, what do you hope that investors will appreciate about not just the company, but also about the stock over the next 12 months?
Look, I'd like to think that with the brand opportunity sitting in front of us, in addition to the ongoing engagement with retailers on those same brands and that e-commerce connectivity, that alone provides a massive opportunity for us. More broadly, as I just think about the pharmacy benefit and the pressure that it's under, we are best positioned to connect, whether it's a payer, a pharmacy, whether it's pharma. Candidly, on that regulatory front, to be the solution, just given the consumer connectivity we do have, I have every reason to believe that this stock will start to support the performance that we deliver as a company. The strategic plan for this year is strong. I think it's just going to take us a couple of quarters to gain some of that trust back. I very much believe we can.
I'm looking forward to it. Thank you so much, Wendy.
Thank you, Lisa.