Just email me at jeff.garro@psc.com. Can try to filter in any audience questions as well. Really pleased to have the SelectQuote management team with us today, CEO, Tim Danker, CFO, Raff Sadun, and President of the Senior Division, Bob Grant. Just a hearty welcome from all of us here at Piper Sandler. Thanks again, guys, for taking the time today.
Thanks for having us, Jeff. We appreciate it.
Great. I know I have a long list of questions, and we'll have plenty from the audience as well, so I'll just fire right away with the first one. Figured we'd start with a little bit bigger picture question, more macro-oriented around the Senior Division, and maybe more specifically, want to dive into the underlying consumer behavior for seniors. What's changed in renewal behavior? Maybe throw out a few drivers like the longer Open Enrollment Period since 2019, COVID impacting both benefit construction and mortality rates, and maybe overall increased competition in Medicare Advantage. What factors would you call out as either transient, stable, or accelerating?
Yeah, great question, Jeff. I'll field that. We've got variations of this question from several investors, a great one here. First, we are seeing consumers are switching more frequently. As you mentioned, one of the factors are a function of more open enrollment periods. These additional windows allow consumers to switch at a higher frequency than in the past. We certainly believe that AEP and things like OEP are here to stay. The SEP periods are a little more transient, based upon what's going on in the broader environment. To the MA plan construction, we certainly have seen carriers, and they have for the past several years, continue to invest into MA plan benefits that are available to consumers, things like prescription drugs, wellness programs, meals, transportation.
These are things that are very positive for consumers, and we would expect that level of investment by our care partners to continue and be pretty stable moving forward. On a related point, we would say that COVID is certainly having an impact on consumer behavior. I'd say most notably around the sensitivity of consumers, how they may utilize their plans, and how carriers are kind of adapting or addressing this evolution in the market. From a risk to managed perspective, we are seeing consumers, they may not fully understand or fully utilize the plan benefits that they actually have, that they may not know about, or there's perceived benefits in another plan. That's causing some of that behavior for consumers to shop or switch.
That's the continued work that we need to do at SelectQuote to be right in the middle of that dialogue with the consumer, and that's what we certainly intend to do. I think from an opportunity perspective, through COVID, we are seeing consumers that are more willing to engage in things like virtualized care models, and we're seeing that trend. We'd expect that trend to accelerate in the future. We're seeing that kind of uptick from our carrier partners as well. That, quite frankly, provides us yet another opportunity to partner at an even deeper level and offer more services that leverage our core advisory and agent and technology capabilities.
Net from all this, we are experiencing slightly lower policy persistency, but we shouldn't lose the fact that platforms like SelectQuote are certainly benefiting significantly from these additional policy volumes, and some of the consumer behavior that's in the market. We're also recapturing a significant amount of business. Again, we are going to stay very focused internally on improving retention, customer satisfaction, working with our carrier partners, healthcare providers, and progressively, also, we think can make a real positive impact on health outcomes.
Great. Very helpful to give the backdrop. Maybe with that, we can dive a little bit further into SelectQuote specifically and your fundamental operations. With that evolving senior background, how has the core business improved over the last year? What's improved on the technology side, maybe in terms of lead procurement, filtering, routing, and plan matching? What's improved on the agent side with recruiting and training, as well as productivity and retention?
Jeff, that's a great question, and I'll really kind of hit each of those things in order, and start with our logistics or lead scoring and kind of front-end technology. As far as lead scoring and routing, we've really built additional automation and AI into our lead routing process, so that we're able to determine and route leads even better at scale than we're at today, right? We've gone from kind of in the hundreds of agents to thousands of agents relatively quickly. We always had best-in-class routing technology. We hired a new head of data science, that actually came over from another company in Kansas City, Black & Veatch, and had been at Amazon prior, and really helped us take that to a new level.
To ultimately change the way that we score and distribute to reduce abandon rates and ultimately increase occupancy, and better routing for our top agents. That's really improving close rates, which we've seen in our more recent quarters. As far as plan matching, the way we've always said, we focus a ton of effort on how we match plans to consumers' needs in the most effective way. Whether that's the unique drugs that they're on, doctors that they see, whether they're on low-income subsidy or they are kind of a normal switcher that's dissatisfied with something. We've added a lot of emphasis in the ancillary benefits that now exist as of 2020 and other things in order to take a person's full scope of needs, and make a better plan recommendation based off of that.
Then also on the back end, really understand after they buy based on their profile, if they have a higher likelihood than others of being dissatisfied or having issues arise, which we can really tell based on the amount of information we collect up front, which allows us to better target on the back end to save consumers. You can see that really in our recapture rates and our consumer economics, not necessarily lately in our policy economics, because as we've said, with the introduction into more and more plan benefits and more and more choice, we are seeing people want to move towards their current needs a little bit more frequently than we had. Needs do evolve and change. One year you may have less of a need for dental services, that may evolve as you have issues come up and need more benefits.
We want to make sure that we target those consumers effectively and give them really what they need in that plan matching process. I'd also say we've made a really big investment in our enrollment process as well to try to make sure consumers are completely aware of exactly what they're buying, the pluses and minuses of that, how to utilize it more effectively, and then ultimately just streamline that process. We know that one of the reasons that we've been better throughout the years as far as retention and other servicing aspects is because of our enrollment team, and we want to continue to enhance their technology and their ability to help consumers. I would say another big leap that we've made is actually on the recruiting front. This is a challenging environment, and we've shared that we haven't had many challenges within it.
That's because we really took our core direct-to-consumer technology and plugged it into our recruiting process and really view that as its own direct-to-consumer business. We've made a ton of headway into each funnel within that business. That's really, if you think about our business high level, it's a lot of chasing and logistics, which is the recruiting world as well. When we enhance that, we've seen really good results out of that, and our recruiting team has been much more efficient in the process.
Excellent. All very helpful and just I think great perspective on how the business is iterative in some respects, but also you guys are just trying to make the right steps up in performance all around. Maybe try to translate that into the financials a little bit and get Raff involved in the conversation. I want to dive into how the Senior renewal activity has been impacting results. With the third quarter results, your fiscal third quarter, you were giving a heads up that there might be a negative tail adjustment for the FY 2019 cohort, and there ended up being one in line with your general expectations. Back at that time, you were also saying that cohorts from other years were performing in line or above expectations. In the most recent quarter in late August, you kind of raised the caution flag on more recent cohorts.
Curious, what changed from May to August, particularly with respect to the more recent cohorts?
Yeah. I think we've been saying that we've been experiencing lower persistency on newer cohorts since fiscal 2019. Until we released our fourth quarter earnings, we'd only given guidance for fiscal 2021, and the tail adjustment this year, largely related to the 2019 cohort, which is what we've been talking about. Now that we're sort of looking forward and providing guidance for fiscal 2022, we wanted to highlight the potential risk for tail adjustments during the year. What has changed is that we did anticipate that after OEP this year, we would see lower lapse rates, especially relative to last year, as we didn't have an SEP election period this year. That really didn't happen. Sort of lapse rates sort of stayed at a level that was slightly above where it was last year. That's one thing that changed.
We also received data from our carriers later this year than we have in the past. That has dragged down persistency from where we thought it was several months ago. Each of those renewal periods, they're down 1% or 2%, but on a cumulative basis, it does add up a little bit. While this didn't really impact the 2020 cohort this year, as effectively the constraints mostly offset the pressure and persistency, as we're looking towards next year, we want to highlight that there's a risk that the constraint may be used for some of those cohorts, and if that's the case, that that could trigger a cohort and tail adjustment for that 2020 cohort. In addition, we did onboard a new carrier last year, that we've had some onboarding and sort of data issues with.
While most of these issues have been resolved at this point, there is a risk that some of the policies we sold last year could generate a cohort tail adjustment as early as next year. While we've seen some pressure on recent cohorts relative to our original expectations, if you sort of go back to slide 13 of our earnings presentation, which is our updated cohort slide, the slide shows that while we've had to make some tail adjustments, reducing sort of the expected total renewal commissions, we remain on a solid path for each of those cohorts, again, to break even within sort of two or three years and to deliver really solid and attractive IRRs and very predictable cash flows. That's kind of what we're seeing in the market right now.
That's helpful to give that kind of update from what you guys were discussing in May to August, and what's changed and how it impacts things looking forward. To stay on the forward outlook, you alluded to it, you put a placeholder in your fiscal year 2022 guidance for a potential $65 million negative tail adjustment. Are the persistency assumptions underlying that $65 million placeholder similar to your persistency assumptions for new policies that you've approved in FY 2022, or are they more conservative in any way? I guess the way I like to boil it down, can investors reliably view that $65 million placeholder as essentially a worst-case scenario?
The $65 million is based on what we're currently seeing. I would not categorize it as a worst-case scenario. Persistency could be better or worse. It's based on the best information that we have right now. It's mostly driven by the new carrier that we onboarded, and some of the initial onboarding issues we had with them, as discussed, and the 2020 cohort. The constraint from that cohort has offset this lower persistency that we've seen to date, but we're highlighting there's a potential risk that next year we could lose the constraint, and that could generate a cohort tail adjustment. Those are the primary drivers. I think there may be a little bit more of the 2019 cohort that comes through next year.
As we said, once you've taken a cohort adjustment, the magnitude of future cohort adjustments relative to that specific cohort should go down as there's less and less renewal dollars at risk, and you enter the curve that has higher persistency and lower variability of persistency. Even with these cohort adjustments, all the cohorts are on track to generate very attractive returns. With respect to the calculation, it's arguably a little bit more conservative, as it's using the best information we have as of right now versus a 36-month weighted average. Even with the 36-month weighted average, it has a heavy weighting towards the most recent experience. Lower persistency is getting baked into LTV calculations as we go forward. In addition to that, we have increased our constraint as well as sort of first year, midyear renewal provisions for losses.
Excellent. That really helps. I think I heard you describe it earlier as kind of a multipronged approach to increased conservatism with some of the assumptions, and how operations are flowing through to the financials. I think that's a helpful view for investors. I did want to dig a little bit further on that $65 million placeholder. The last earnings call, you pledged to be transparent about it and provide updates through the year, but I know much of it is a kind of year-end analysis and update. I would love a little bit more detail on how visibility in that number will progress during the year, such that investors might not need to wait until after fiscal fourth quarter results to have confidence in your performance versus that placeholder.
When you think about intra-year lapses, they tend to be front-end weighted, with sort of January through March having more lapses and then it tailing off throughout the year as there's less and less ability to switch, and as you approach AEP. We'll have some additional information on intra-year lapses over the next five months, and we'll update people on what we're seeing as we go along here. Having said that, usually over 40% of the persistency event does come from the January renewal event, and you really need to get through that to understand what the persistency was for the year and how many policies ultimately renewed. We'll have some visibility to that, obviously, in the third quarter. It may take into the fourth quarter just pending getting some of the data from carriers.
We are working on two different initiatives to try and accelerate some of that data gathering. Again, as soon as we have information to share, we'll be transparent in sharing it with the investment community.
Excellent. I appreciate all that color. Maybe one more for now on the accounting assumptions. You've disclosed that the constraint that you apply on approved policy LTV to, the way I think of it, is it effectively creates a reserve, is increasing from 5% to a more conservative 6%. Could you provide some context, either relative to SelectQuote's historical performance or relative to any of your peers on why that 6% constraint should be viewed as conservative?
Look, I think we're increasing the constraint by 20%. To be fair, you can't really look at the constraint in isolation. It's more than just a constraint, right? It's a combination of factors. We're baking in lower and lower persistency into the LTV calculation. We are using sort of higher first year and renewal year provision rates. Relative to cohorts that were sold a year or two ago, there are multiple things that are making the calculation more conservative in fiscal 2022 relative to a couple of years ago. The biggest factor by far would be the lower persistency, which we are baking into the calculation.
Excellent. Appreciate that. Switch gears a little bit, but not too far. I want to talk about the various IRR numbers that you've put out there, different cohort analysis. I think all really helpful stuff in your investor deck slides. Maybe also try to connect it to the progression of cash collection that you've also provided enhanced disclosure on. I think help investors balance through both your growth and your profitability objectives. First question on this front, what's driving the year-over-year variance in IRR? Maybe you could help us parse out fluctuations in LTV versus what I would think of as the denominator of that IRR calculation with agents and lead costs that'll influence the number. Last part of this would be any context you can give us of what's baked into your FY 2022 guidance in terms of IRR for next year's cohort?
Yes. I mean, the biggest driver of differences in IRR would be margins, and then the timing of when we receive cash. If you look at the 2019 cohort, which has the highest IRR, that year our senior margins were in the high 40% range. That's by far the biggest driver of what the ultimate IRR is. The IRR is a little bit lower in more recent cohorts, in part based on our strategy to actually drive higher incremental absolute revenue and EBITDA at slightly lower margins. That's been part of our strategy that we've talked about since the IPO. If you think about some of the drivers, historically LTVs have been relatively stable. Certainly, in the last couple of years, lower persistency sort of being offset with rates. That's not a huge driver in terms of some of the variances.
From a margin perspective, we've seen sales and fulfillment expenses have actually gotten more efficient throughout 2021. On the marketing side, that's where some of the expenses have increased over the last year, again, consistent with our strategy to grow absolute EBITDA at lower margins. Ultimately, we're looking to manage the business to IRRs at sort of 20% and above. As we look to sort of fiscal 2022 and beyond, as we scale the SelectRx business, the IRRs, including the lifetime value of new SelectRx members added in the period could push IRRs back north of 30%. We'll have to see how that progresses as that business scales.
That's it. It's a helpful data point, and again, to reference something you guys mentioned earlier today, thinking a little bit more about customer economics and the other segments and the leverage you get on the other divisions in the company beyond Senior as we think of maybe a more holistic IRR or ROIC. Taking it one step further on the IRR side that you've shown for cohorts in the Senior segment, I'd say we've got a little bit of pushback about the costs that are included in those IRR collections. I don't believe that IRR collection includes corporate or overhead costs. How should investors think about cohort IRRs for the other segments? What pitfalls would you call out for investors that want to revise the IRR calculation to add in corporate overhead costs to those year one Senior costs?
Yes. I mean, I think we've always looked at the IRRs relative to the investments we're making in our Senior business. That's the largest division and drives the vast majority of our profitability. We're trying to show you how we think about the business, which is sort of the incremental returns on a dollar of investment in our Senior business, which is where the incremental investment has gone for the last couple years. The other businesses mostly offset the cost of our corporate expenses. Again, we do sort of fully allocate direct costs for data centers and telecom and health and benefits and all that kind of stuff. Our corporate expenses do support all the businesses. If you wanted to partition it out, it's not a big needle mover. I think the IRRs would be a couple percentage points lower.
That's kind of how to think about it.
Very helpful. We'll throw in one from the audience on this topic, and they say that you provide very helpful disclosures in the most recent earnings and give you a thank you for that. I want to include that for the two-part question. The first is what is the cash EBITDA and/or free cash flow margin of the business expected to be over the medium to long term, and why? The second part is, could you frame for investors how to map out the annual cash flows expected from your present long-term commissions receivable balance relating to 2022, 2023 and beyond?
Yes, I think what we've talked about is that we do see a path towards becoming sort of cash EBITDA positive in fiscal 2024, and free cash flow from operations positive in fiscal 2025, depending on sort of the relative growth rates of SelectRx, and then the growth of our Senior business. Those would be sort of some of the biggest drivers there. I think over the next couple years here, you will see sort of cash EBITDA still be negative relative to the growth rate of the business. We don't anticipate the business to grow at 60%, 70% forever. I mean, the growth rate of the Senior business will come down over time, and that will sort of accelerate some of the free cash flow in the business. From a working capital perspective, you'll see that flow through in terms of cash from operations.
In terms of next year, well, fiscal 2022, this year, we're looking at around $225 million use of cash from operations, just based on the level of growth during the course of the year and the working capital dynamic of growing 100% last year. Again, that'll go down over time as the commissions receivable balances sort of catch up with a lower growth environment. In terms of how that commission receivable balance comes in over time, it actually matches pretty closely sort of the cash flows that we laid out, I think it was on page 12 of our investor deck. You sort of got it.
If you think about just the renewal piece. Page 12 showed the upfront and the renewal piece, but if you just think about the renewal piece, between 20%-25% of that renewal lifetime value will come in the first year, mid to high teens the second year, low to mid-teens the third year, and then it sort of tails off from there. That would be consistent with how the book, if you didn't sell a new policy, would sort of wind down as well.
Excellent. Very helpful. Switch gears a little bit. Just want to talk about another disclosure around the recapture rate. You've typically provided some specific numbers and color on that as well. Last quarter, I just heard that it was increasing. I was hoping you could provide some more detail on what recapture rate was for FY 2021, maybe historical context on that, and whether that metric will see a change in definition or disclosure with the change to policy-level persistence this year.
Our recapture rate is in the high 20% range, which is up year-over-year. Again, for context, if you go back a couple of years ago, that would've been sort of the mid to high single digits, then sort of into the teens, then into the low 20%s, and now we're sort of in the high 20% range. We do think that that is sort of industry-leading. With respect to that recapture rate and the shift to policy-level persistency, it actually has no impact, because that recapture rate was always done on a policy-level basis anyway. That change to sort of policy-level persistency for LTVs going forward really doesn't change the recapture rate. It just impacts the LTV of new policies and then the amount of policies that are being approved going forward.
Yeah, since we started the Medicare business, we've always placed great focus on sort of building strong and long-lasting relationships with our customers, and I think that that's reflected in our recapture rate where it is right now. In terms of customer relationships, yeah, we think we lead the market by a wide margin.
Excellent. Very helpful. One follow-up from the earlier question on the cash EBITDA margins. I think it flows well with the discussion of the strong customer and carrier relationships and how those play out over time. The specific question is, how high do you expect cash EBITDA margins to get over the very long term? Is mid to high 20% reasonable?
Yeah. I think over time, as the growth of the business is more stable, right? We don't have differences year-over-year in terms of growth. I think that the cash EBITDA margins will kind of approach what the sort of ASC 606 EBITDA margins are. As we think about that on the senior side, it's really on the core Senior side, margins in probably the high 20% range or so, without SelectRx. Then as you add SelectRx, which we think has huge growth opportunity in terms of revenue and EBITDA, albeit at margins that are probably 15%-20%, the combination of those two things might settle out in sort of the mid-20%s or so.
Excellent. Very helpful. Another one from the audience here asking how your commission rates might be changing to reflect the renewal dynamic in the market. Really, I think more on your relationships with carriers and not on the LTV accounting side of things.
Do you want to do that one?
Yes, totally. Really, if you think about the way that our commission stream works, it goes down as we see renewal rates go down, not because the rate is going down, just because the really factor that we put on a consumer and how long they're with that specific policy goes down. Really, we haven't seen any impact on that and don't anticipate to see any impact on that, especially given kind of the overall quality of what we do and the type of consumer that we deal with.
I think one of the things that we've worked on with our carriers is, as we're proving to them that we can add incremental value to them, right? Drive incremental volume for them, we've been working on incremental economics, and that can take multiple different forms, but one of them has been new commissions going forward and sort of adding on to what we have done in the past. I think that just shows the value that the carriers see in the model, the attractiveness that they see working with us.
Excellent. Very helpful. We'll throw one quick policy type question in there. I've just seen this a lot in current events and news flow recently. Any early thoughts from your end on how adding dental, vision, and hearing benefits to Medicare fee for service would impact SelectQuote, either through Medicare Advantage or Medicare Supplement policies that you help connect consumers with carriers on?
Sure. I'll take that one, Jeff. We'll have to speculate, right? There's still details that haven't been released and significant debate if we can get this through the $3.5 trillion package in a divided Congress, if you will. If the expansion were to occur for dental, vision, hearing into Original Medicare, it would make these plans marginally more competitive with existing MA plans. We don't think that that would have any significant impact on MA sales. As we all know, there's many inherent benefits to MA plans versus fee for service, benefits like prescription drugs in many plans, out-of-pocket caps, and other items. If it became a reality, we'd also reasonably expect most carriers to minimally match
Any enhanced benefits that ensure that the package is comprehensive, if you will.
No, makes sense. I appreciate the thoughts there. Turning back to the business, you had mentioned this earlier, I want to circle back on it. You had started working with a carrier in FY 2021 that appears to have grown pretty quickly, about 15% of the business. You expect it to be a similar level of revenue in FY 2022. Any more detail that you can provide on the data issues and how you're able to work to resolve those to, I think maybe more than anything, give you a little bit better visibility into the performance of the business with that carrier going forward?
Yes, maybe I'll start to financially and then hand it over to Bob on the operations side. I think you referenced 15%, right, of revenue in fiscal 2021. We onboarded this new carrier about 18 months ago, and they now comprise sort of high teens percentage of new business going forward. We did discover some onboarding and data issues with them, that we've been actively working to resolve. Because they're a new carrier, when we onboarded them, we used the average carrier persistency, consistent with our policy, for the LTV calculation. Since then, we've now had some renewals that have come through, and those renewals have come in lower than the persistency than we expected. That's kind of what's driving what we've highlighted on our earnings call and earlier today.
Despite some of these issues, though, they're actually a great partner to work with and we think have lots of future potential in some of the new issues that we're working on. Bob, you want to touch a little bit on some of the operational things?
Yeah, just one thing actually, too, real quick before we start that on the persistency side of the house, from financial side of the house. We are booking them at lower persistency now, which I do think is a key thing to point out. Operationally, we have done a ton with that carrier. They've been a great partner on addressing some of the data concerns and actually some of their onboarding concerns. They've been very open to work with us, understanding that we do sit center pivot to a person's kind of both healthcare decision and onboarding process, and we have a higher likelihood of getting a hold of that consumer after sale than actually they do.
We do feel like in partnership with them, we can not only kind of get it to average, but have a big opportunity to improve, especially considering we're booking them, at lower persistency now than we were before. We feel really strong about the service that they provide to the consumer, and again, have addressed the majority of the issues that we had with that carrier and then are continuing to address and enhance their process, and then how they can add value to a consumer's life.
Excellent. Appreciate that, Bob. We'll switch gears a little bit, but I think ultimately relates to your strong relationships with the carriers and the consumers and your efforts to leverage the assets you have in terms of leads and relationships and the agent force and the customer care advisors with your population health initiative, and now with the SelectRx as the main financial engine for that for at least the time being. I think really exciting growth area for you guys that's been underappreciated from investors. To dive in there, I went back and compared the different scenarios that you called out as medium-term in nature when you announced the SelectRx deal versus the run rate that you've guided to exiting fiscal year 2021.
It looks like you're forecasting that you could exit fiscal year 2021 at about, or excuse me, fiscal year 2022 at about halfway to the medium-term target of 50,000 members while coming in ahead of your initial projection on revenue per member and margin. With that context, what have you observed about uptake from consumers, acuity of patients, the implied PMPM, and the profitability of that business?
Maybe I'll quickly touch on some of the financial pieces and then let Bob touch operationally. The biggest driver of that difference really is we're seeing higher average drugs per member. I think, originally back in May, we were looking at sort of eight drugs per member, and I think we're seeing something a little bit north of nine right now. That obviously increases the revenue, but it also increases the margin profile of the business pretty dramatically. Bob, anything else operationally you want to touch on?
I'll just say that one thing that definitely gets undervalued a little bit is the technology that we built, which created a really unique chase process for our own consumer base, right? We have really, really high contact rates, as you know, Jeff, relative to what other people in kind of call center space and call center services have. That's allowed us to move quickly within this space. We did take our technology stack and within 90 days plugged it in and pretty much replaced every piece of technology that SelectRx has, which has allowed us to scale faster than we've really seen anybody in this industry. Partnering with some of the robotics firms and things like that that help us, they've really said, "Hey, you guys have really brought a very unique perspective to solving the biggest problem within this space," which is that chase process.
There's a lot of consumer coordination that goes into packaging all of their drugs and shipping them out, right? Because you have to look at last fill date, all the doctors they're on, where they're filling their drugs from previously, all of those things. We know this leads to really, really good outcomes for the carriers, and that's a big financial impact for us. We're really proud of what we built on the technology side, but even prouder that we can use it in spaces that make a big difference on a consumer's life.
That's great. Great to hear on the integration front, and that it's making an impact on the fundamentals of the business already. Let me just dive in a little bit further there. In the last investor deck, you showed that there's about an incremental $500 per approved core policy, and that SelectRx members, if I have the math right, they'll contribute about an average of $5,000 per member, I think potentially per year. That'd be implying about 10% of policyholders qualify for SelectRx and then adopt the service. Is 10%, is that the right way to think about a long-term uptake rate goal for that business?
It's in the right ballpark. I think relative to getting to the $2,000, it's actually a lower attachment rate, certainly from a goal perspective, I think that's in the right ballpark. Tim, what else would you add to that?
Yeah, I would just say there's a lot more to come here, Jeff. We are very encouraged by a strong consumer interest rate in the SelectRx program. I think it's blown away our original thesis. Bob has highlighted some of the great work that he and his team are doing to expand our capacity to increase our state footprint, and really work through all of the logistics and operational aspects of building a true tech-driven pharmacy. If you look at those kind of medium-term goals relative to what we're seeing in opt-in rates, when we pitch a consumer, inquire about SelectRx, we're seeing an opt-in rate of around 70%. We need something significantly lower than that to achieve these medium-term plans that we've articulated on the earnings call. I'd also add, it's not part of our workflow today.
It will be over time, but there's certainly a potential to leverage our large existing customer base as well as a lot of leads that, for whatever reason, don't purchase an MA policy, but may indeed find SelectRx to be a very helpful medication adherence solution.
Excellent. Great to hear. One from the audience here on SelectRx. I think it'll be an interesting one to get your perspective. Just I think helping understand the different pieces of the business and balancing that in terms of the insurance component of the business that you're trying to be as productive as possible for your agents, get them the right leads, and have really high close rates, and they're trying to be efficient in doing that. How do you balance the efforts for efficiency on the broker side with having these more detailed, longer conversations on the population health side to learn more about members and ultimately enhance the relationship and make it one with stronger long-term economics for SelectQuote?
That's a really good question. Just as a reminder, we had talked about this a while ago, but our agents do not have any involvement in the population health process. That is a completely separate business. That relationship on there is managed by what we call a CSA, so customer success agent. Just looking at agent economics in general, right? What we are trying to do is maximize time and efficiency on the phone relative to ROIs. Even if they were doing that and it took an extra 20 minutes from their time, that would still be a huge net positive for us, even though that would cost them potentially, quote, "taking a lead or two leads a day." The gross margin of that seat would go up.
Again, they're not doing that, but I think it's a good example of how we view our business, is really just the efficiency out of a seat. Even if some things take extra time, we weigh the ROI of that extra time and try to figure out if it's better for them to take less time or more time. A lot of the things that we're doing today try to drive persistency up or contact rates on the back. They may take a minute or two extra, but we always weigh the value of that, and then that value may pay off significantly more than potentially just taking another lead. Specific to population health, I think one thing that gets missed in that business is that's a separate opt-in, and even if they drop their membership with SelectQuote, they stay a member of that service.
We still have the ability to call that consumer and help that consumer with healthcare kind of decisions depending on the plan they're on.
Excellent. That really helps. I'm going to sneak one more in on the population health front, and it kind of mirrors a question that we got from the audience as well. I think it speaks in part to how this part of the business should help expand and improve your relationships with carriers, which is very important. Could you frame the revenue potential for additional population health use cases beyond medication adherence with SelectRx? I know you've talked about health risk assessments. I've also heard discussion of primary care referrals, but it's not quite clear to me if those are generating revenue today and how we should think about the long-term revenue generating potential for those and maybe incremental use cases as well.
Each ecosystem for us really has its own opportunity. I'll use the first one, carrier data collection, which we've talked about a lot, that we have a significantly higher likelihood of collecting an HRA than a carrier because we have such active engagement with our consumer base. Those have low revenue profiles to them on an individual basis on that side. We also have to look back at our core business to see, is it helping with follow-ups? Is it helping with persistency? The overall revenue for us on an HRA so far is actually significantly better than what we get paid for that data collection on the carrier front and other carrier data-related services to help enable them to do their job better could have similar outcomes for us. That's its own ecosystem that we are evaluating with carriers.
What more and more data do they want that we can help them collect so that they can better understand the risk of a consumer, adjust for RAF scores, if appropriate, work with Medicare if they're under-diagnosing, things like that. Really, ecosystem two for us is care coordination, and we've talked before about referrals to value-based care centers, things like that. That is not an overly broad space yet, right? It touches a pretty low percentage of our consumers today. It's a big opportunity for us over time to impact more and more consumers' lives and help educate those consumers on what value-based care is and is a big opportunity in itself. There's other big opportunities, though, within care coordination as well.
I think, hopefully, everybody saw yesterday, we announced a partnership with Thriveworks, and in the mental health space, there are so many places within that care coordination side that we have opportunities that we really haven't even touched on yet. That could even be things that we do that don't have direct revenue associated with them, like things within social services and other things like that could have a revenue associated with member satisfaction, which ultimately leads to higher retention rates. We have to evaluate it really both ways, even though it's a separate business. Within medication management, again, big opportunity standalone with what we're doing with SelectRx, but that we don't want to eliminate ourselves from helping within other portions of pharmacy as well. We've seen how high of adoption rates we can have, and there's other places in pharmacy that struggle.
We've had questions within specialty pharmacy, other things like that, and we're not really eliminating anything that we can get into because we do center pivot to a consumer's life. We just want to make sure that it's value-added to both our carrier and our consumer, really are the two things that we're looking at when we evaluate partnerships and/or things that we would acquire, buy, partner with and whatever that looks like. Raff?
I think just from an economic model perspective, the biggest opportunity in the short term is from SelectRx. The largest driver of population health in the short term is going to be driven by SelectRx, which we already talked about. The other two components, really sort of this care coordination services or these partnerships that we have with value-based care providers, I think is probably the next biggest opportunity. We haven't really baked much of this into our forecast yet. Generally, we're paid sort of on a per completed action basis. The model, though, is evolving, as are the services that we can provide, and so we are talking to lots of potential partners to drive incremental value.
Until we have more concrete information and traction, there's not much more that we're going to share at this point in time other than we're really excited about the potential, and we think that's a big opportunity in and of itself. Lastly, just on the MA services and HRAs, for example, it's a nice service. We get paid on a per completion basis, generally around $50 per assessment. We could do a couple of them a year. As Bob mentioned, it's more than just those economics. There's other added benefits to follow from persistency that we think could be at play over time. They create good outcomes for the carriers and the patients. I think as we think about the real drivers of revenue and profitability, I think that the two first ones, pharmacy management business and care coordination, have the biggest upside to them.
Excellent. Appreciate that framing and just lots of exciting stuff to watch unfold over the coming quarters and years. We're pretty much out of time, but I want to just thank you guys again. I'll throw it back to Tim, see if you have any closing remarks, anything you want to leave investors with before we end the session here.
Yeah, absolutely, Jeff, and again, we really appreciate it and the opportunity via Piper. Let me just reiterate, our business is very strong. The fundamentals are all there. We're going to continue to drive responsible growth as our fundamental business and engine really support it. I think we've talked today in prior calls that the market's evolved a bit, but we've provided, I think, a lot of transparency for the investment community to see what we see around very attractive returns on invested capital and cash generation profile. We are committed to being, as we became a public company, to being extremely transparent, increasing disclosure. We're trying to take any of the variability out of the results and the likelihood of just future tail adjustments. We talked about that today from a financial perspective with our constrained provision and what's kind of coming into LTVs from our weighted average.
We're going to continue to be very focused on our retention process, both internally with our carrier partners, and then I think we hit on some very important topics later in the conversation around population health. I think you said it, Jeff, maybe it's underappreciated, and again, we will demonstrate the power and kind of show people what this will do in terms of benefits for carrier partners to healthcare providers, and certainly to our overall global customer economics. More to come on that as we see more. Again, Jeff, we really appreciate the opportunity.
All right. Thanks again, and thanks to everyone on the line that joined us today.
Thank you.
All right, take care.