4 ms·

Wow...an S-1 with positive net income.

dogma1138 6y ago
Yes but they don’t really have a way to expand outside of the US, they are basically an answer to a uniquely American problem unless they’ll go they’ll target the self medicating crowd that uses the relatively dodgy online questionnaire/chat prescription pharmacies.
- wins32767 6y ago
  So they're a mature, profitable company going public and that's a "Yes, but..."?
  - oxymoran 6y ago
    They seem pretty vulnerable to being obsolete if there is any sort of substantial change in the prescription drug market. And there seems to be quite a push to change the prescription drug market. Just look at how convoluted their revenue generation is, there are like 5 middle men.
    - takeda 6y ago
      That's why they use the money that they mad to hire lobbyists to ensure that policies won't change in any meaningful way. I hate how this world works :/
    - disillusioned 6y ago
      This is true of basically any major healthcare play. On the (at this point extremely) off chance that we move to single payer, for instance, insurance companies face an existential crisis. On the off chance that we fix prescription drug price gouging and absurdly inconsistent pricing and all of these problems that GoodRx solves for patients simply by _cutting them in on the scam a bit_, then GoodRx faces an existential crisis. The fact that there are 5 middle men is... more of a moat in this case? They've solved a complex, intractable problem profitably. Does this mean they're a 20-year company? Eh, not without some significant additional revenue streams or pivots into different areas, and to that point I agree with you about their vulnerability. But for the next 10 years? These are good margins building a business that only incrementally reduces the fucking over of the consumer.
- chimeracoder 6y ago
  > Yes but they don’t really have a way to expand outside of the US, they are basically an answer to a uniquely American problem The US accounts for 45% of global pharmaceutical sales. Even if they're limited to "only" half of the global pharmaceutical market, that doesn't sound like the worst position to be in.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    I think that’s for North American and it’s in revenue not in actual sales, but yes that is currently the case but it’s also clear that the US health system cannot continue as it does for much longer. So overall while they can clearly profitably operate in the current market I’m not so sure about their longevity.
    - gvhst 6y ago
      The market size and business opportunity is not measured by units sold but by overall revenue. Am I missing something?
      - dogma1138 6y ago
        Yes you are missing the point that this company can only operate because of just how utterly broken the US healthcare system is, and sooner rather than later there will be sufficient political pressure to change that.
    - edoceo 6y ago
      Because their risk is dramatic health-care reform? In the USA?
      - dogma1138 6y ago
        Medicaid for All almost made it into the Democratic Party manifesto this time, it was cut but realistically it will make it into the 2024 or 2028 one especially once the longer term effects of COVID-19 will be more apparent because many of the recovered will suffer long lasting effects potentially for the rest of their (hopefully long) lives, and overall once all the bullshit settles down people will see it as a pretty good wake up call.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  Yeah, because the American market is so inconsequential. They're barely pocketing tens of millions each year - it might be 1 or 2 years before they break a hundred million in annual profit! Fuck this company - let's put more billions into the cash fire that is Uber.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    The issue I’m seeing is that many people would prefer a US where a company like that couldn’t exist, and yes the Dems killed Medicaid for All from their manifesto for this round but I’ll wager that the US will move towards universal and single payer system within the next 10 years.
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      Admittedly my comment was snarky, but you're speaking of ideals and we're speaking of solutions. Right now GoodRx is a very successful company solving a very real problem. Meanwhile the US government has completely fucking failed to fix it's healthcare issue. You can keep waiting for a government solution. In the meantime I will continue to be a happy customer of GoodRx.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > yes the Dems killed Medicaid for All from their manifesto for this round “Medicare for All”, and while it's not part of the current platform (which focussed on a public option), removing federal program barriers to states enacting universal plans while participating in the various federal plans is part of the platform, and state policies providing models for federal progress is a common thing. But, more immediately, even without Medicare for All, the Democratic 2020 has a plan for universality centered around a public zero-deductible option that all Americans would be able to buy into via existing exchanges and with existing exchange subsidies and some low income Americana would be enrolled in automatically with no premiums.
    - hakfoo 6y ago
      My father went into his chosen profession because he expected the US to get on the universal health care bandwagon imminently. That was in 1970.
- ponker 6y ago
  This is not really a problem. If they were in a situation where they didn't have a way to expand outside of say, Burundi, that would be a problem, but the US is 25% of the global economy.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Why is that a problem? Companies don’t need to be international.

Yes but they don’t really have a way to expand outside of the US, they are basically an answer to a uniquely American problem unless they’ll go they’ll target the self medicating crowd that uses the relatively dodgy online questionnaire/chat prescription pharmacies.

wins32767 6y ago
So they're a mature, profitable company going public and that's a "Yes, but..."?
- oxymoran 6y ago
  They seem pretty vulnerable to being obsolete if there is any sort of substantial change in the prescription drug market. And there seems to be quite a push to change the prescription drug market. Just look at how convoluted their revenue generation is, there are like 5 middle men.
  - takeda 6y ago
    That's why they use the money that they mad to hire lobbyists to ensure that policies won't change in any meaningful way. I hate how this world works :/
  - disillusioned 6y ago
    This is true of basically any major healthcare play. On the (at this point extremely) off chance that we move to single payer, for instance, insurance companies face an existential crisis. On the off chance that we fix prescription drug price gouging and absurdly inconsistent pricing and all of these problems that GoodRx solves for patients simply by _cutting them in on the scam a bit_, then GoodRx faces an existential crisis. The fact that there are 5 middle men is... more of a moat in this case? They've solved a complex, intractable problem profitably. Does this mean they're a 20-year company? Eh, not without some significant additional revenue streams or pivots into different areas, and to that point I agree with you about their vulnerability. But for the next 10 years? These are good margins building a business that only incrementally reduces the fucking over of the consumer.
chimeracoder 6y ago
> Yes but they don’t really have a way to expand outside of the US, they are basically an answer to a uniquely American problem The US accounts for 45% of global pharmaceutical sales. Even if they're limited to "only" half of the global pharmaceutical market, that doesn't sound like the worst position to be in.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  I think that’s for North American and it’s in revenue not in actual sales, but yes that is currently the case but it’s also clear that the US health system cannot continue as it does for much longer. So overall while they can clearly profitably operate in the current market I’m not so sure about their longevity.
  - gvhst 6y ago
    The market size and business opportunity is not measured by units sold but by overall revenue. Am I missing something?
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      Yes you are missing the point that this company can only operate because of just how utterly broken the US healthcare system is, and sooner rather than later there will be sufficient political pressure to change that.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    Because their risk is dramatic health-care reform? In the USA?
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      Medicaid for All almost made it into the Democratic Party manifesto this time, it was cut but realistically it will make it into the 2024 or 2028 one especially once the longer term effects of COVID-19 will be more apparent because many of the recovered will suffer long lasting effects potentially for the rest of their (hopefully long) lives, and overall once all the bullshit settles down people will see it as a pretty good wake up call.
Judgmentality 6y ago
Yeah, because the American market is so inconsequential. They're barely pocketing tens of millions each year - it might be 1 or 2 years before they break a hundred million in annual profit! Fuck this company - let's put more billions into the cash fire that is Uber.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  The issue I’m seeing is that many people would prefer a US where a company like that couldn’t exist, and yes the Dems killed Medicaid for All from their manifesto for this round but I’ll wager that the US will move towards universal and single payer system within the next 10 years.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    Admittedly my comment was snarky, but you're speaking of ideals and we're speaking of solutions. Right now GoodRx is a very successful company solving a very real problem. Meanwhile the US government has completely fucking failed to fix it's healthcare issue. You can keep waiting for a government solution. In the meantime I will continue to be a happy customer of GoodRx.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > yes the Dems killed Medicaid for All from their manifesto for this round “Medicare for All”, and while it's not part of the current platform (which focussed on a public option), removing federal program barriers to states enacting universal plans while participating in the various federal plans is part of the platform, and state policies providing models for federal progress is a common thing. But, more immediately, even without Medicare for All, the Democratic 2020 has a plan for universality centered around a public zero-deductible option that all Americans would be able to buy into via existing exchanges and with existing exchange subsidies and some low income Americana would be enrolled in automatically with no premiums.
  - hakfoo 6y ago
    My father went into his chosen profession because he expected the US to get on the universal health care bandwagon imminently. That was in 1970.
ponker 6y ago
This is not really a problem. If they were in a situation where they didn't have a way to expand outside of say, Burundi, that would be a problem, but the US is 25% of the global economy.
manigandham 6y ago
Why is that a problem? Companies don’t need to be international.