All right.
Good to go? Perfect.
I think we're live here. Well, I want to welcome everyone to the, I guess, the last session of the 2026 Goldman Sachs Global Healthcare Conference. Very pleased to have the management team from Omada here with us today. Sean Duffy, Founder and CEO, Steve Cook, Chief Financial Officer. I want to keep this as interactive as possible. I say this in every session, offer the opportunity to ask questions. No one asks any. But they're more than happy to come up...
Feel free.
...come up after and ask you. This is being webcast, so in the event you do have a question, please just raise your hand and we'll get a mic to you, or I'm happy to repeat the question. Maybe, Sean, I'll start.
Sure
High level here. You've been public about a year.
Right.
Maybe just give us your reflections on what you envisioned for the company as you began the public market journey and...
Yep
... How things have gone.
Well, thank you, David. Hi, everybody. Saving the best for last here. We just crossed the year mark of being public, and just been extraordinarily proud of the team's progress. If you look at all the commitments we had at the time of IPO, every single one, financial, revenue, margin profitability profile, strategy, we delivered. I think we've come ahead of schedule in many areas, and I think it's all reflected in the Q1 results. A $78 million quarter, 43% growth, just a wee bit of positive in the most cost-heavy quarter of the year. Just thrilled with the progress, and it's against the backdrop of just so much excitement and dynamism in the chronic disease space, and the recognition that yesterday's care models of a visit-by-visit approach won't serve tomorrow's needs. We're feeling that, and it's showing up in the numbers.
I want to dive into the business model for a second. Obviously, we'll get to some more of the specifics, you can be in a space that's been challenging for companies to really figure out a durable growth...
Yep
... Model. I think we actually first met in 2014 or 2015 when you were early in Omada's journey, and you were figuring out, I think at that point, you were doing a risk-sharing model with one of your key customers and over time, you've evolved the business model. Talk to us about how you landed on the current business model for the company and why you think it's a sustainable growth vehicle.
Yeah. The big aha, which has always been on strategy for the business, is to be an actual provider of care delivering the real clinical and economic value. I think if you looked at yesterday's digital health, those business models did not have that characteristic, and that's where real healthcare spend is. At Omada, we are a between-visit provider. We contract as a covered entity. We file claims. It's on 10 unique codes, but it allows us to hit the exact same medical expenditures as an HCA would, a Tenet would, a Stanford Hospital would, although, of course, we don't have the clinics that we have to pay to build out. It's tailor-made specific for chronic care. The revenue model is very simple for Omada. We love it. It's when someone signs up, we start to charge, and it's a monthly fee.
That monthly fee is filed through claims, hits the medical expense no different than if, let's use a self-insured employer, if that employee went across the street to get a procedure at Stanford Hospital. It's a monthly fee that includes all of what we do. That model really works for a number of reasons. Number one, you're very aligned with your customers. They know that when they're paying for the Omada solution, they're paying for people to be engaged. They're paying for value. We love that. Secondly, it has great durability characteristics for the business. You've seen that. If you look at our quarter-by-quarter revenue build, you just see the consistent growth over time, I think the pricing and the revenue model is reflective of that.
One of the things you referenced there that I think sometimes goes overlooked is just the breadth and depth of clinical data you have, especially when compared to other digital health companies. The way sometimes I describe the company to investors when they ask, why is this different? I say, well, a lot of companies started as software companies and tried to become healthcare companies.
Right.
You've made investments very similar to a healthcare product-type company and clinical data that you're now leveraging software to deliver care. Maybe just talk about your clinical development strategy and how much you think that's contributed to the revenue you've generated.
The end market for Omada is a very risk-averse buyer. The moment you say hi, especially if you're supporting an employer through a channel like a health plan or a PBM, you've got the medical directors of those organizations expecting your solution, they want to see data. I remember in the earliest days, I left medical school. I was at Harvard, to found Omada, I asked myself what would convince my critical friends that a solution worked? There's one answer. It's peer-reviewed studies. We've spent many millions of dollars. These are multi-year investments. We have an arsenal of 30 peer-reviewed publications. They range from operational trials that we optimize for speed to academic medical center-led multi-million dollar RCTs. When we go to buyers, we can show those data, both clinical and economic, as well as things like industry-leading accreditation.
Omada was the first and remains the only NCQA-credited for diabetes and hypertension. That allows you to earn trust with buyers, which becomes a durable moat at the end of the day.
Maybe we can jump into the business now. You started as a prevention company, and you've evolved into this multi-platform, multi-service line business pretty quickly. Maybe just contextualize for investors where you are in that diversification of offerings, and give us a feel for where adoption is in each of those.
We began Omada's journey as prevention obesity. Really, that was the first chapter of Omada. We expanded to diabetes, to hypertension, to cholesterol, to MSK care, and that was not TAM driven, just to be clear. That was customer-driven. Because what happens is if you earn trust with customers, with employers, we have over 2,000, 25 million covered lives, over a decade of operating history with them. If you earn trust, they ask you to do more for them. Each one of those condition expansions came from a customer ask, where they saw us in action, they saw our capabilities, and they recognized that they have new needs that they'd love us to support. The way we judge those is, number one, clinical feasibility.
Is this a between-visit care need where longitudinal day-to-day support matters for patient outcomes in not just an incrementally different way, but a transformationally different way? That's the first judge. The second judge is there a business model, and is there commercial adoption? If a customer asks for it, that helps answer the yes on the other side. We've seen really just exciting full platform growth. Right around 50% of new customers start Omada's journey or their journey with Omada in a multi-product fashion. We did announce in kind of last year that both hypertension and diabetes grew over 45%. It's not just weight, it's not just GLPs for Omada, it's the attention broadly on metabolic and chronic care that is supporting the remit of the whole clinical platform.
Maybe just to go one level deeper to visualize just what type 2 diabetics endocrinologist every. Paint a picture of someone that's on maybe a pump and a CGM, and they're on drugs. What are those changes that you make?
Yeah. Perfect. Let's contrast it to the existing. Brings me back to the early Omada days, where we wrote at that in-home. It's funny because I remember we did a tour outside of Atlanta, and I'm sitting at home with this patient, and the healthcare academic would've said, oh, this individual's under care. Because they had an attributed PCP, they'd been prescribed a med. Then you ask what they've received, what's on their mind, and they didn't pick up their scripts. They weren't taking their meds. Their health trajectory was heading in the wrong direction. They had no idea on their sugar levels. That became the issue. If you study this space, it's extraordinarily hard to get any outcome.
You really have to drop in the paratroopers in this clinical category, and they need day-to-day support that includes a symphony of things, connected devices to monitor progress, education, curriculum, community support, care team engagement. That's not just that doctor telling you what to do. It's the health coach or the diabetes educator that's listening to their goals, supporting them. Because what you need to create is a feel of accountability and progress. What our care teams do is, A, make sure that the person's equipped with all the needed connected devices. We enable a cellular scale, blood pressure cuff, oximeter. Every patient with diabetes gets, from right at the beginning to a FreeStyle Libre CGM. Those are all the hardware. You get their care teams, diabetes educator, health coach. The care teams get to know them as individuals.
Then the software experience combines all those other pieces. That gives the person a feeling of, wow, for the first time in my life, I have someone in my corner, in my pocket, on a daily basis rooting for me. You ask them to compare and contrast that to standard of care currently, and it's a night and day difference.
How does it work on the other end? One of the questions I get from investors, if Omada's offering all these different services, don't they have to hire a ton of professionals to support that? Help us understand your side of it and how much infrastructure's required and how technology can be leveraged to make that efficient.
It's interesting. We did have to bite off building it all from Now thankfully, a lot of those costs are numbers. We had to build every single piece of at least, we didn't believe you could deliver the member experience needed as an example, and use an off-the-shelf EHR. We built our entire care team platform that our care teams use to support our members ourselves, because it's different. The care we deliver is a longitudinal daily engagement model versus fee for service episode product model, which a lot of the EHRs are built upon. We did have to take on the burden of that, but equally, we're appreciating that. You look at our margin progress. Our long-term targets that we've communicated are 70%+. We ended last year in the upper 60s, 68%. Nip it at it.
Could we have done that without the care team platform, investments in technology, AI? No. I was our first-ever health coach for Omada when I founded the company, flying totally blind, just looked at a weight chart, message a person, total guess. The way we run the operations right now is the complete opposite.
I think one piece just from an economic standpoint, on the R&D side, when we want to spin up a new care track on our existing tech stack, we approach that with modularity and flexibility in mind. We ramped our new GLP-1 product in just a couple of months on our existing tech stack. We didn't need to go back and deploy tens of millions of dollars to reinvest to stand that up. That's going to continue to benefit us from an operating leverage perspective as well.
Maybe that's a good segue to talk about GLP-1s.
Sure.
Yeah. I was just at ADA this past weekend, so it's really all the rage. I don't know if GLP-1 adoption has gotten to that part of the country quite yet. Maybe just talk to us about why you launched the GLP-1 Care Track and we'll talk about the prescribing thing in a second. Maybe let's start with just the Care Track.
Sure.
Yeah. You said it was product, you sound customer driven. What were customers telling you about GLP-1 that led to that development, and what have you seen in the utilization so far?
Yeah. This is an area where I think we're thanking ourselves for, in our view, getting really ahead of the market here. Three or four years ago.
At that point in the journey, a lot of them were prevention obesity customers. Some of them started to cover GLP-1s for obesity. Then they started calling us. The average voice would say, Sean, we're looking at the cost of this and the slope of the curve, and it looks vertical. There's no slope in the curve. Does this go to infinity? What do we do? Equally, we're looking at persistence data, and we're seeing that our employees who are paying for these meds for are not persistent on the meds. We're seeing regain in real-world evidence. Help us think through what to do here, because clearly these meds can be effective, but equally, we're worried about waste, and we want to think through how to maximize the value.
This is an area that we care a lot about because these are incredible medicines, and they're incredible pairing with comprehensive lifestyle solutions. We developed the first version of our care track, which is called Gen One, which paired the Omada that they knew alongside the GLP-1, optimizing for on-therapy outcomes. If the patient's goal was to discontinue, doing everything we can to reduce or ideally eliminate regain after discontinuation. Every year, we built upon that knowledge in a rinse and repeat fashion, leading us to the most recent version of the care track, which includes all the bells and whistles, including prescribing and titration of the medicines themselves. Because the market is getting more and more complex and more and more difficult for buyers.
Despite some obvious moderation in the price, you take almost any unit price for GLPs and multiply it by the prevalence, and this is an enormous cost position for employers. For Omada to come in to almost manage effectively the spend and be really a value maximizer in almost a GLP operating system layer for the accounts has been attractive to the market.
Do you have a sense of how customers are measuring success? If they look at their medical spend and they add GLP-1 to it, is their intention that we had a medical spend of some number, we add GLP-1, and this number comes down to justify the investment? What are you seeing play out in a real-world setting?
It's interesting. You've got a 40/60 split, 40/45 or so. You've got the minority of employers or the lesser are those who cover GLP-1s for obesity. They're not covering it right now because they are hoping for a total cost of care reduction. They're covering it because they see that these meds are effective, and they're responsive to employee voices. They bring Omada in really in the hopes of gaining what we're all after, which is that savings, and it's that savings through medical outcomes. They want to see from Omada are the right employees using the meds. That's where our prescribing network can come in, of course, aligned with all The Obesity Society guidelines, best in class clinical practices. It helps avoid the stories you hear of the dermatologist at a fitness center prescribing a GLP-1.
There's the clinical and favored piece that they're getting from Omada. There's the weight loss outcomes while on the med, of which we've seen upwards of a 30% increase in weight loss on our care track than not. Discontinuation. Because you talk to a patient, a very common goal is to try to get off the med. What we can say to the individual is, David, that's an amazing goal. It's not going to be an easy one, but it's not your destiny to have, i f that's your goal to regain, let's work together while on therapy. The analogy we often use is, would you run a marathon tomorrow without training? The answer is obviously no.
You can use that on-therapy window to support rethinking nutrition habits, exercise habits, ask what a week in their life looks like from an eating standpoint. Ask them if there's anything they've ever wanted to do physically that they can't, and then build some success there. We've seen that in the discontinuation data. We followed patients after a year, seeing essentially weight gains, it's just minimal regain at the end of a year, whereas the natural progression should be 6%-7% increase at that point.
Got it. GLP-1s obviously represent a huge opportunity, sometimes I think investors do get a little bit over their skis in the sense of GLP-1s is all the growth in members.
We've tried to do some math behind what sort of GLP-1 and ex-GLP member growth is contributing. At least our assessment is in that the non-GLP member growth actually represents the majority of your growth, and GLP-1s is additive to that. Maybe help us think through. Is that an accurate interpretation, and how do you want investors to think about GLP-1s and then the aggregate growth profile?
Let me talk about the selling motion and then pass off to Steve. The selling motion for the GLP-1 Care Track involves saying hi to self-insured employers, just like we would any other employer. We are proud that we now work with the three largest PBMs in the country to deploy not just our care track, but the broader suite of a lot of services. If an employer wants to contact Omada for GLPs, very quickly the conversation turns into, oh, wait, I probably shouldn't just cover Omada for those employees that are using GLPs. I should cover more broadly. I should think about Omada for diabetes and Omada for hypertension. It turns into a broader platform sale, which is reflected in the numbers.
Just to help absolve concerns there, we do periodically and plan to continue to share a little view at the aggregate GLPs. The last few that we announced, we just crossed 150,000 net folks in Omada care programs where we're supporting them alongside a GLP.
On 886,000 total.
Yep. That's right.
Yeah.
Yep. Ending Q1 members was just north of 1 million. It gives you a general sense.
In any given account, there's still going to be the majority on a GLP. We expect that this proportion to continue.
Look, we got our start in prevention weight health, but we previously disclosed that 75% of our revenue is in prevention weight health or the GLP-1 revenue sets, then the other 25% is in diabetes and hypertension. For Sean, I think, given we're using the GLP-1 conversation as the tip of the spear to engage with employers, we've seen growth across all of them fairly equally. One's not really outpacing the other. It's important because the diabetes and the hypertension economics are some of our most profitable members. They're in program the longest. They're priced at the top end of our range. We really like the profile of those members in our overall panel.
On member growth, I was talking to someone about Omada yesterday, and they asked me, they said, well, if they have 50% retention at year one, if you have 1 million members to grow that, does that 1 million go to 500,000, then you've got to grow 700,000 to get to 20% growth? It's sort of a confusing...
No, for sure.
... Dynamic for people. I was like, no, it doesn't work that way.
Yeah. For sure.
Maybe just eliminate that for folks more broadly.
Yeah, absolutely. It's simpler than it seems. You are right that if you look at the shape of a member who joins, at about the end of the first year, north of 55% are still engaging monthly, end of year two, north of 50%. Clearly, obviously, you lose people along the way. Some of that loss is for people leaving their organization. What happens mechanically is every single year, you're getting thousands of new enrollments from old accounts that just come in the door. You look at some of our legacy customers, like a Costco, every single year, we get thousands and thousands of new business-as-usual Costco new members coming in, and the whole cost structure for Omada, the lion's share of the cost structure is getting that account. It's not the email marketing to get the members in.
Those are just automated once we close the accounts. Once we explain that tends to help people get a little bit more comfortable. It's not like refilling that 50%. A lot of that's coming from the existing accounts because of those exact dynamics.
Okay.
The revenue durability is at the account layer.
Yep.
We've gone back and looked at every customer vintage in Omada's history, the net dollar retention has always been above 100 because of that dynamic. If Costco has 100,000 employees, they lose 10,000 every year. They're replacing those 10,000, and they're growing on top of that. Then we're going back in, then we're adding more products across our existing customer base. You just get these really durable, really predictable revenue cohorts across the employer base.
That's a very helpful framing. Maybe just to pull on the three PBM contracts where you now have access, how should we think about the conversion of the PBM contract access to member, to revenue?
Yes. Let's look at just the shape of the self-insured employer market. We have about 8% of that. In the white space within that, those are employer accounts that ideally we can knock on their doors and convince them to work with Omada. The thing about employers is the vast majority would far prefer not doing a direct contract with Omada or any solution in our space. They don't want to have to bring it through procurement if they can avoid it. Per their risk-averse buying standpoint, they're like, well, I'd like my health plan and my PBMs medical leadership to look at this to see if it's worth the salt to evaluate the clinical data. T hat's another argument for why they'd love this to go through channel. That's all great. It does create a moat if you can get the channel.
Right now, if you add up the market share of the three major PBMs, CVS Caremark, Optum Rx, something like 80% of scripts. If you're a sales rep and you happen to be at The Conference Board talking to heads of benefits or self-insured employers, the first question you're going to ask if you're on the Omada sales team is, what PBM do you use? Because the majority answer is going to be one that we work with. That turns into a fast follow where you can say, hey, that's fabulous. We have an integrated relationship with CVS Caremark. Oh, we've worked for years, a wonderful relationship with Express Scripts.
Oh, did you hear about our new Optum Rx relationship? That turns into that meeting where we can talk about the easy button to deploying not just our care track, but the broader suite of Omada services.
If you think about their own, you see the selling cycle to the PBM, but then they also have to go.
We had to.
Right. A couple of different steps there. If you think about Optum as an example, where you've just announced access, that you've talked about not being reflected in your 2026 guidance. Maybe just operationally, what are the steps that have to take place now to bring Optum members onto Omada?
The average selling cycle for employers is building pipeline in the first half and closing in the second half. In the building pipeline stage, we have our field reps that are out there. We have a channel management team that aligns all the needed relationships in every single market, figures out a way to structure joint pipeline reviews, makes sure that the Optum Rx sales teams have all the right training, that there's great collaborations between the field teams. You build pipeline and then you close in back half for deployment in the first half of next year.
There always is the off-cycle account that's like, hey, I really want this tomorrow. We may see some of those this year, but in terms of what we underwrite for any new channel, it's pipe build in first half, closing in second half for deployment the next year.
Just remind us the size of the member population, or the accessible population that getting Optum brings you.
Optum Rx overall has nearly 70 million, I think 70 million, 80 million covered lives that would include fully insured plans. They have, I believe, is closer to $30 million. If you add up the overall ASO market...
Yep
... Roughly 75%-80% will work with.
A PBM that we work with...
Okay
... Is the best way to think about it.
Got it. Okay.
The other point I think that from a cost perspective, our sales team is roughly 25 total people. Because you're leveraging the health plans and the PBMs to distribute Omada and you're partnering with them, we've been able to keep our sales force relatively flat over time. That's just created a significant amount of operating leverage in sales and marketing over time. It's a really nice feature of how we're contract and then ultimately deploying to employers.
As you think about member growth or Steve, as you and your team do your planning for the year and the budgeting, one of the things I always get asked, how do you know? Will member growth be 30%, be 35%, be 20%, be 50%? I mean, it seems like there's a wide range of outcomes. How do you think about forecasting that number and what are some tools that you can give investors to gain visibility into the outlook there?
Again, it's like further to our point, we have a decade plus of amazing data on all of our existing book of business. We know at the account level how much, on average, Costco is going to ultimately refresh and add to that population. That's ultimately 75%, 80% is just the business you closed in year is going to cascade forward to the next year. We're going to work really closely with our sales team, look at all of our pipeline builds, make some assumption on covered lives conversion, pipeline conversion, and then determine, kind of stress test like a high mid, low scenario on how much we expect to close in year.
It's really, you have so much great insight at the end of the year because you know how much pipe you've built in H2, and that's going to be your Q1 revenue build, and that's where you see the majority of our new enrollments come in is in that first quarter. We have a lot of great data to help ascertain where we're going to land early on in the year, and that's how we run our entire planning process.
As we translate that to revenue, you don't give ARPU per se.
Yeah.
It's like trailing three-year thing you gave at the time of the IPO, I think. Everyone tries to come up with some sort of PMPM or some reflection of pricing. How should investors think about that translation from member growth to revenue?
Yeah. Pricing and revenue per member are distinctly different in our business. Pricing, we've steadily increased through time. Revenue per member is a combination of channel, product mix, customer vintage. It's this multifactorial way to ultimately calculate that. Last year in Q1, we were at $279. This year we're at $276, roughly flat on a year-over-year basis if we're looking at it on a trailing 12-month basis. That's how we think it's the most apples-to-apples way to look at revenue per member because definitionally our members are someone who's been billed once in the last 12 months, it's a complete apples-to-apples compare.
What's not in the guide and where we view potential upside is on additional product closures in the back half of the year, more cholesterol being added, potentially some early wins in prescribing that we realize in the year. We have several internal motions on driving engagement up. If we can keep folks in program longer by making the product experience more compelling and increase the attach and they stay an extra two to three to six months, that's incremental ARPU that drops directly to the bottom line because it has very low incremental carrying costs. We can construe that as being upside to the current guide.
As you bring on new accounts, I think if you look at this market historically,...
Yeah
... One of your competitors, they've seen when they bring on new accounts, they used to give a PMPM, you'd actually see it go down. When you bring on new books of business, do you have to discount at all to bring them on, or what's the pricing on new business?
No, typically we've had success in increasing price through time, also attaching more of our products from the outset. CVS and Optum are both great examples. CVS, we're working with them across all of our condition areas, we're working with Optum across the majority of our condition areas, and we attach prescribing. Prescribing is priced at roughly two and a half times the price of our legacy, former legacy prevention offerings. That's been a huge part of our success is just through time attaching the entire product suite, often coming with higher ARPU products, folks are staying in program longer, and that's where the durability has been coming from the last couple of years.
Shouldn't that number go up over time?
We expect it to. We certainly would expect it...
Okay
... To go up over time. The only counter dynamic to that is we are finding that, really in Q1 for the first time, we saw a lot of diabetics and even their fourth, fifth, and even sixth year with Omada. When you get further out on the curve of engagement, when you're in that fifth year, you don't engage as much. You're probably billing two to three months on average. You're still contributing revenue at very high margins, but you're in that member count. It does have a little bit of a dilutive effect on revenue per member, but that's still revenue and margin that we want, and so we're okay with that. I would say we're more biased to future upside from that perspective, given the other areas we cover.
As you think about setting guidance and targets for the company, you've meaningfully outperformed all the expectations that were set at the time of the IPO and in your time as a public company and even coming really strong out of the gates here in Q1. I think everyone appreciates the conservative approach to setting guidance and putting yourselves in a position to deliver consistent results. Maybe just help us, like operationally think through, what has transpired in the business with end markets or customers or market share that has enabled such significant outperformance?
You can start.
Well, let me just talk about the three growth levers, if you will, in our algorithm. There's the first, which is covered lives. That's what you can sell. That's care areas, the matrix to get to the end market. Self-insured employer, fully insured plan, integrated health system. That's the first. The second is enrollment initiatives. Just that every single day innovation relative to how you get people in, different campaign types, different campaign schedules, different messages, leveraging the data science, leveraging just A/B testing to figure out how do you best get people in. The third is engagement. That's the stickier that we can create the program experience for people, the more ARPU we realize. Those are the three.
In the last couple of years, we've had a lot of innovation bets in the second two, especially in back half, that have delivered in an outsized way. Those are typically experiments, we never underwrite them because you want to see them come through. Equally, we don't tend to, per Steve's comments, underwrite any off seasonality deployments from, like, Omada for Cholesterol or Prescribing, given, typically you close and then deploy in the next year.
Yeah. Anytime we're ramping into a new channel, we always take a very measured approach, because you just don't know exactly how quickly you're going to build into that. With CVS and Optum, CVS is obviously... Optum, but as those things start to ramp, we can get more specific on how we underwrite that. I think to your point, we're a full year ahead of some of the IPO projections. We just logged our highest ever gross margin quarter in Q1 at 64%, with our long-term target being 70%. We have really near-term visibility into getting to that target with the potential to maybe raise that in the future. We're really excited about that.
On the point of profitability, you've made a couple references to the different operating leverage points in the model. How do you think about the balance between sort of scaling profitability, but also opportunities to reinvest for growth?
I think this year is a great example of that. We're going to continue to make progress this year towards our 20% adjusted EBITDA margin target, improving upon what we did last year, but we did qualify this as a year where we're going to be investing into AI and into Prescribing. I think Prescribing was the lion's share of our investment this year, then we backed that up with the Optum Rx deal. That's what we spent a lot of time last year kind of teeing up is like, hey, we're going to go enter Prescribing, then we kind of punctuated that with adding Optum Rx, and that'll ultimately add some leverage to the business going into next year.
Excellent. Maybe just to close out here, Sean, and Steve, I'll turn it back to you. You've obviously been on the road, I think, meeting with investors. You're presenting. You're here today. It's probably one of the last times you'll be in front of investors before second quarter earnings. What's kind of the take home message you want to leave people with, both in the room and on the webcast here?
Yeah, no, I think we hit a lot of it. Just to distill it, I think the founding of Omada was predicated on the fact that a visit model doesn't work for chronic. If you look at where today's disease burdens are, it's obesity-related disease. If you look at where the therapeutic landscape and the technology landscape has evolved, we now have more instruments pointed towards those areas than we ever have before. The thesis for Omada is that AI alone isn't going to cut it. GLP-1 alone aren't going to cut it, and you need, if you will, a care provider that can tie the two together. We think we're really well-positioned for this. Well-positioned in a moment where software velocity Having to do more, us to do more for our customers, and better leverage our channels.
I mean, we have more launches and new programmatic capability launches this year than we ever had in Omada's history. I mean, GLP-1 Flex Care, Omada for Prescribing, Omada for Cholesterol, that's because our product velocity has increased within the organization, and we're able to leverage our channels to do it. We really feel blessed that many of the investments we've put forward over the last decade that took a lot of cooking are starting to yield great, healthy, nutritious meals for Omada.
Excellent. Well, with that, we are at time. Steve and Sean, thank you so much for participating in the conference, and we'll look forward to getting the next update in August.
Super. Thank you.
Thank you.