Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. And welcome to the Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Ms. Kate Sidorovich, Vice President of Investor Relations. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon. And thank you all for joining us today either by phone or by webcast for a discussion about eHealth, Inc.’s fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020 financial results. On the call this afternoon, we will have Scott Flanders, eHealth’s Chief Executive Officer; and Derek Yung, Chief Financial Officer. After management completes its remarks, we will open the lines for questions. As a reminder, today’s conference call is being recorded and webcast from the IR section of our website. A replay of the call will be available on our website following the call. We will be making forward-looking statements on this call that includes statements regarding future events, beliefs and expectations, including statements relating to our expectations regarding our capabilities and market opportunities, our strategy to drive Medicare enrollment growth, increase quality of enrollments and achieve high lifetime values, our expectations regarding our Medicare business including Medicare enrollment growth and consumer demand, our investments in technology and retention initiative and expected returns of these investments, our ability to grow our internal agent force, increase agent productivity and improve customer engagement, our sales and marketing strategy including online strategy and strategic partnership channels, our expectations regarding our financial performance, the profitability of our business, seasonality, churn, lifetime values, life persistency, member estimates, total acquisition cost per member and operating expenses, and our outlook for the first quarter of ‘21 and our full year 2021 financial guidance. Forward-looking statements on this call represent eHealth views as of today. You should not rely on the statements as representing our views in the future. We undertake no obligation or duty to update information contained in this forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Forward- looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in our forward-looking statements. We describe these and other risks and uncertainties in our annual report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which you may access through the SEC website or from the IR section of our website. We will be presenting certain financial measures on this call that are considered non-GAAP under SEC Regulation G. For reconciliation of each non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures, please refer to the information included in our press release and in our SEC filings, which can be found in the About Us section of our corporate website under the heading Investor Relations. And at this point, I will turn the call over to Scott Flanders.

Thank you, Kate, and welcome all. As outlined in our preliminary report three weeks ago, the fourth quarter marked a soft ending to a strategically important year. Although, 2020 presented challenges, eHealth made notable progress building out our capabilities, evolving our strategies and positioning the company to capture significant market opportunities ahead. With that in mind, and as we enter a new fiscal year, I want to take a step back and speak to what we have built, where we are going and why we are confident that the actions we are taking will help address the issues that affected our performance last quarter and springboard eHealth into our next phase of growth and success. eHealth has a strong foundation that is differentiated from others in our industry. We are an organization rooted in technology with a best-in-class consumer-facing ecommerce platform. Over the last four plus years, we have executed a deliberate plan that has enabled us to drive significant growth. We grew our approved Medicare members at a compound annual growth rate of over 40% between 2017 and 2020, while continuing to rapidly accelerate online penetration. Our Medicare revenue and segment profit have grown at a compound annual growth rate of 54% and 66%, respectively, over the same time period. We ended 2020 with an estimated 876,000 Medicare members and over $790 million in commissions receivable. At this stage of eHealth’s evolution, we are enhancing our focus on driving quality of enrollments, customer engagement and higher lifetime values, while we continue to scale and profitably grow our share of the important Medicare market. Part of this strategy, in 2020, we launched two strategic initiatives aimed at strengthening our value proposition. The first was an investment in new technologies to dramatically improve our ability to analyze consumer needs and provide…

Thanks, Scott, and good afternoon, everyone. On today’s call, I will go over our fourth quarter financial results in greater detail, provide our 2021 annual guidance and assess the key drivers behind our 2021 projections. We expect the impact of the operational enhancements outlined by Scott will translate into meaningful improvements in on Medicare unit counts this year, allowing us to drive high quality Medicare enrollment growth, while increasing our profitability. Throughout today’s presentation, I will be making references to our fourth quarter and full year 2020 growth rates relative to 2019. As a reminder, in the fourth quarter of 2019, we worked with an external corporate valuation consultant to increase the accuracy of our Medicare Advantage lifetime value estimates with an emphasis on improving our member retention forecasting by incorporating statistical tools. As a result of enhancements to our LTV model, in Q4 of 2019 we booked a $42.3 million positive revenue impact from a change in estimate for expected cash commission collections for Medicare Advantage plans since we began selling these products and through the third quarter of 2019. For the purposes of year-over-year comparisons in my remarks today, I will be excluding this $42.3 million in revenue from our 2019 results. Fourth quarter 2020 Medicare segment revenue was $269.9 million or 12% year-over-year growth excluding the $42.3 million in Q4 of 2019 related to the enhancement of our Medicare Advantage lifetime value model. Full year 2020 Medicare revenue was $516.8 million, an increase of 28% compared to a year ago, excluding the $42.3 million in 2019. Medicare revenue growth was driven primarily by an increase in approved Medicare Advantage members of 30% and 39% for the fourth quarter and full year 2020, respectively. It also reflects an increase in non-commissioned revenue. In particular, revenue generated from our…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of George Sutton from Craig-Hallum. Your line is now open.

Thank you. I wanted to address what you just said about your online goal for 2021 being 43%. You ended Q4 with 43%. I’m curious why that number isn’t higher given that as clearly a strategic advantage you have in the market?

Well, we hope it proves conservative, George, and we did end the year with 43% in Q4. But historically, it’s -- that percentage is weighted to the fourth quarter. So we’ve always started off below our annual target and then made it up in Q4.

Got you. You mentioned you’re HIG investment will give you well, more cash than you need to operate the business. But you did say it would give you opportunities to accelerate your growth or opportunistically accelerate your growth. Can you give us a sense of what that might pertain to?

Really, it’s not intended to be opaque, it’s about our ability to grow faster than the conservative guidance that we’re establishing.

Your next question comes from the line of Tobey Sommer from Truist Securities. Your line is now open.

Thank you. Could you talk about pure online enrollments and whether those are forecasted to grow, sort of as a proportion within that 43% figuring guidance this year?

Right. Tobey. So last year we increased our guidance for Q4. Our expectation for online assisted and non-assisted to a range between 45% and 50% and we came in just shy of that at 43%. It was the unassisted that hit our number but are assisted which are as agent. It’s a partially agent and partially e-commerce enrollment is where we missed. And it’s because the agents were newer and did not deploy our tools with the same efficacy as seasoned agents.

Okay. Could you talk about the, the customer center and maybe catch us up on how you think the rollout went and when this will start to impact the business and how.

Well, it was very encouraging. Certainly, the bright spot of Q4 for us. We launched it in October, we hope, between 20,000 and 25,000 seniors would register. Yes. As you know you’ve reviewed it, it requires two factor authentication at least an hour of data entry on both drugs and doctors and by coming in at over 100,000 registrations, we feel very bullish about it. A good number of our enrollments were - came through customer center. It’s early for us to predict what the benefit will be on retention. But I think if you just think about it logically, a senior that’s invested that amount of time to enter their information we believe will be less prone to responding to a direct mail piece or a DRTV ad and switch when they would have to repeat all of that information over the phone. Where now, they have it in a secure format, password protected. So we feel that this is going to improve our engagement with the seniors, but also we think the persistency will be very long on seniors that have made the effort to enter all of that information.

Okay. Last question from me, have you of strategically, what are your thoughts on the company needing to have some different businesses, to keep your internal agents busy, productive and well paid during the non-Medicare selling seasons.

Yes, I’ll start, but then I would like Tim to weigh in on this. We have relied primarily on an inbound model and we are increasingly deploying outbound efforts and empowering all of our agents with the cloud-based telephony system that enables them to toggle back and forth between inbound and outbound, we’re seeing productivity improvements from that, but, Tim, perhaps you could speak to this a bit.

Sure, I mean you’ve hit an important point, Scott. We are pushing with our internal agents for them to be productive in more ways and more versatile than they have been in the past, and we piloted having outbound agents switch to inbound as Scott just mentioned and saw them be more productive during the AEP then inbound only. We are toggling our agents between retention activities and acquisition activities, but we are also experimenting with other business lines and as we have success, that will provide additional opportunities for our agents to earn in Q2 and Q3. So the workforce is becoming more versatile and as it’s an internal workforce, we’re able to invest in them more aggressively than we could with the vendor workforce.

Your next question comes from the line of Jailendra Singh from Credit Suisse. Your line is now open.

Just first quick clarification on your comment that your target of having 10% external agents in 2021 versus 43%, 2020 and just curious why not go all internal agents. Are there any contractual obligations with any of these vendor agent groups? Just curious about that 10% figure.

Yes. I understand the question. And it’s logical. What we found when we terminated over a third of our external agents and as we came into the year, the New Year, we typically let go a vast majority of the seasonal agents. But we have over 100 that are performing at rates higher than our average internal agents. So, when you staff up to that magnitude of external agents, some of them are going to be outstanding. And that’s why we think it could be as much as 10% of our capacity might be third party agents. We don’t have anything against it Jailendra. It’s just that it did not, that model did not perform for us last year and so we’re going to materially reduce our reliance on the third-party agents.

That’s fair. And you did give the figure like how many total agents you plan to add this year in 2021.

It’s a lot, Tim.

Well, we’re not giving a specific number but it will be - our ramp is entirely focused on the internal agent side. So we will have the flexibility and ongoing relationships with our vendor partners. But the intention is to just keep the high performers and to build our ramp on the internal side and we’re starting earlier this year. Our first class has already been hired. So our ramp is already underway for the AEP and we’ll will provide more guidance later on in the year.

Okay. And then one last one, can you flush out a little bit more about your outlook with respect to non-commission business which you expect to be flat year-over-year in 2021. Some of your peers have talked about expanding these dedicated partnership with health insurers to drive these non-commission business. Just curious about your thoughts there. And how do you think about long-term growth prospects in that non-commission piece of the business?

Tim, I’ll let you take that one.

Well, I think the non-commission piece. It really, in some ways lags the performance. And so with us having underperformed in Q4, we have modest expectations of how much we can expand the non-commission line but as we’re able to see the benefits of this shift in strategy and outperform expectations, then we think that can expand again in the future.

Your next question comes from the line of Dave Styblo from Jefferies. Your line is now open.

Hi, good afternoon and thanks for the question. Scott or Derek, a question for you on just the margin outlook over time. It wasn’t until long last year that you guys talked about growing the business from a - from almost a mid 20% margin in 2020. So something that would, that would approach 40% in 2024 and then operating cash flow, turning positive in 2022. So can you give us a sense of how you feel about those longer-term targets? Is the business change in a way that it’s going to make it much harder to achieve those objectives. They are outlined in such a way that the glide path there will be slower, or that those peaks or just might not be attainable.

Yes, I’ll start and then pass it to Derek. We are a year behind. So the, the issues that we dealt with last AEP have extended out a period by which we will achieve cash flow positive for sure, but the issues that we face, Dave, were really isolated and they’re not industry issues. So we just ran into the natural end of our ability to make the seasonal agent model work. And so the, the underlying margins are actually our opportunity to improve. We commented in the formal script that notwithstanding our missed in Q4, our internal agents improved productivity by 12% over 2019. We had projected that they would improve productivity by 10%. So we had a 20% overperformance in our productivity compared to what we expected. So we see plenty of margin room. Will we get to the 40s in the out-year maybe not, but will it be high 30s. I have no doubt that we will achieve those levels. Derek?

Yes so, Dave. Scott is right that we are roughly a year behind in terms of the cost, cash flow expectations relative to what we have previously stated in terms of where we are cash flow breakeven on our operating side. On the margin which ties closely to the unit economics, implied in our guidance is an improvement in new economics to levels that we saw in 2019. So again, about a year behind on where we’ve been tracking to that. Now with that said, we did succeed in or unassisted online enrollment targets for 2020 which is an area of biggest cost leverage as we expand online. So that is still an item that will give us favorable traction in terms of ability to leverage online to get more financial leverage.

Okay, got it. And then on the guidance, you guys talked about the MA LTVs increasing 6.5% that’s embedded in the outlook, can you give us a sense of how much of that is rates versus the improved retention and a follow-up question on the retention area there. I know you guys are encouraged by some of the signs that you’re seeing. I guess one concern I would have is in the fourth quarter. Can you tell me about the productivity and the quality of the business that those external agents produced. Obviously you decided to eliminate a third of them. But is there any risk that those folks there would be just not having duration as long as you would expect and how do we just get comfortable that you’re going to really capture that retention improvement that you’re expecting to?

Okay, go ahead. Go ahead, Derek.

Yes, I was going to the LTV and I’ll pass it back to you, Scott. And Tim as well on the expectations relative to improvements in retention. So on the LTVs, Dave, it is important to keep in mind that seasonality of the LTE improvements, which I commented on in the prepared remarks, so the important benchmark is the 6.5% that you talked about in full year basis, but behind that is the 10% improvement or more in Q4, given that, that is the biggest impact that we expect given the retention efforts and also obviously the quarter where AEP happens and within that 10% at least 5.5%. So more than half of that will come through as the rate increase given what CMS has determined in terms of maximum rate increase for this year. If you recall, and when we outlined full set of retention and churn initiatives - churn improvement initiatives earlier last year, the aggregate of the potential improvements of those initiatives plus the rate change would actually drive us to be better than what we have implied in our guidance. So we are actually hoping that that will come through. But obviously our guidance is below that level.

All right. What I would add to that is, we had 68% of our enrollments in 2019 fulfilled by internal agents which have of course higher persistency, than the external agents and this year was 81% of our enrollments. So we had a significant mix shift toward internal agents, which should in addition to all of our other initiatives, the retention team to changes to sales compensation and lead segmentation being revised from just focused on conversion to focused on total LTV and profitability. All of those factors, Dave, really should contribute to significant LTV upside for us.

Your next question comes from the line of Greg Peters from Raymond James. Your line is now open.

Good afternoon, this is Marcus [ph] calling in for Greg, can you guys hear me okay.

Sure. Yes.

Excellent. My first question is on churn and congratulations again on that number down in the fourth quarter. And if I heard correctly Scott, you mentioned that approved membership here so far in the first quarter is about 50% better than last year. I think that in the fourth quarter of last year, you reported - the first quarter of last year, apologize, you reported some similar growth rates, and that ‘s when churn - and that’s when churn spiked. So I guess the question is as you guys are sitting here, over half of the first quarter being done, how should we be thinking about churn of this first quarter, as it relates to what happened last year?

Yes. So we believe that the churn that we experienced last year when we learned that we had elevated churn, that it related to the 100% MA growth that we generated in the 2019 AEP. So the, the churn was happening in Q1, but it was related to enrollments in Q4. So, bottom line is, we are expecting to show a healthy decrease in churn when we reported at the end of Q1. But, we don’t have a read on exactly what that number will be. I mean both Derek and I have tried to point out that there is a lag in reporting on these churn statistics. And so we don’t want to go out on a limb today and speculate on what that number is, but all indicators are that churn is continuing to track favorably, was slightly favorable in Q4, down from 42% TTM to 40. But we’re expecting a more significant decline after Q1.

Excellent. That’s really helpful. My follow-up is in slide 9 of your presentation, and I’m looking here at the green line that commission cash collections. And last year, it dipped down, but this year it remained stable in a pretty, pretty healthy clip. Is there something different there? Could you guys give us some more color on that number? Was there any pull forward, anything you could add there would be helpful.

There was not any pull forward Impact, operationally as we have improved our data and analytics around monitoring churn, it does also have a corollary effect on our ability to collect cash, so that’s not a coincidence since cash collections is an indicator of whether someone is still on a policy for us or not. So we’ve been making improvements from that perspective. There has been some operational improvements also along the lines of reconciling our data to whether we are retaining broker record status with our carriers, which will allow us to continue to collect commissions. That’s also reflected an improvement.

Got it. If I can just squeeze one more in. So the outlook does not include the impact with the agreement for the special dividend. Does it include the dividends we’ll be paying on the preferred shares and go to be taken out of operating EPS?

Yes, that’s a good question. So you’re right, it does not impact the - include the impact of the investment and the impact of investment would not affect our guidance as it is today. On the revenue EBITDA side, it was below EBITDA. It’s a complicated security. So there could be a range of impact in terms of line items below EBITDA. I expect that we will see the impact on the dividend payout, which will be below net income in terms of what would be between EBITDA and net income. And then I would expect the impact on diluted shares because it is a convertible that is, has the ability to convert in the common which will fluctuate depending on the strike price and also the stock price given the current valuation.

Your next question comes from the line of Elizabeth Anderson from Evercore. Your line is now open.

Can you talk about, I know last year in 1Q and 2Q, you did have some shift in terms of some of the churn numbers, I just wanted to make sure that we understood those numbers so that when we get to 1Q that we’re sort of comparing on an apples-to-apples basis?

Yes Elizabeth, that’s a good reminder. We had reported in Q1 last year a TTM churn rate for Medicare Advantage of 38% and then in subsequent disclosures, we have commented that we had 20,000 additional churn that was our observed post reporting that really happened in Q1. So on an adjusted basis, the Q1 TTM number in 2020 should have been closer to 43% and that is the right comparison for this year as we get into Q1 2021.

Got it, that’s super helpful. And can you just clarify maybe one more thing on the sign ups in terms of the persistency of that you were talking about online versus Telephonics. Does the online persistency, was that ahead of both the internal and the external agents in the quarter?

Scott. I’ll take that one. Yes, historically online enrollments have had higher persistency than any telephonic method.

Any telephonic. Okay. I just wasn’t sure whether it was just external or internal and external. It’s just sort of should have pointed to the emphasis of the growth there.

Yes.

Next question is from Yaron Kinar from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.

I guess my, most of my questions have been answered, but one thing I wanted to ask about was the onboarding pressures that you called out in the external agency. Why wouldn’t those pressure points impact the internal agency as well as you are onboarding new agents internally as well?

Tim?

Yes. So we think the primary reason is that the hands-on management that our subject matter experts deliver to the vendor agents in season just wasn’t able to be done in the same way or with the same effectiveness as it has in previous years and so we did not expect to see such a divergence because our internal remote agents were actually on par with the rest of our workforce. So it was that we weren’t able to be on site with them coaching them in the same way that we have in years past that we feel like they were less effective.

Okay. So if you were to measure the productivity of first year internal agents this year compared to prior years, how would you compare the productivity or the measurement of success?

They were higher than previous years because they were a large portion of our overall internal mix, our internal workforce. We saw the internal workforce in total be more productive than we expected it to be. And so, those first years were ahead of expectations as well.

And then maybe I’m thinking about it incorrectly. So any help there would be appreciated. And when, Derek. I think you had mentioned that you expected LTVs really kind of lap and start improving in the second half of this year. I guess where I’m confused a little bit is, you have churn improving. I think you have the 2018 cohort lap lapsing or coming off the LTV measurement, why wouldn’t we see the LTV improve earlier than the second half?

Yes. So the way our prediction model works, which is, is by looking at actual observations. So until we see the data coming out of AEP 2020 which are people who just have policies that became effective in January 2021, that will not get picked up on the LTV projection. So with expectations that churn for that group will be lower, that will drive LTVs being, improving in the quarter that those was enrollments will come in the following year which will be Q4 this year.

Right. But, don’t you have the data around the churn and the observations by the second quarter?

We will, but those data reflects cohorts that are enrolled in Q4. So the prediction is also on a monthly cohort all year on. So when we predict we say, hey, how do we expect persistency to be different for someone who enrolled in October for January effective and based off of what we’ve seen historically. So you’re right, we’ll have seen our historical observations, that we have to be against the month that those cohorts are measured again.

Next is from Jonathan Yang from Barclays. Your line is now open.

Thanks for taking my question. You mentioned shifting away from DIRECT TV channels, but can you provide any color on, and generally, and then more normal year. How much pull through that channel had on your approved member count and if your shift to other channels will kind of make up for pulling out of that channel?

Tim?

Sure. So that channel used to be a much larger portion of our mix up to a third in some of our previous AEP seasons and when we pulled down that TV spend this year due to the challenges we saw, there was demand available in other channels. We just weren’t able to convert it because of the poor performance of the vendor agents, the ones that we cut. So as we’re into Q1, we are seeing, we’ve mix shifted away from DRTV. We’re seeing healthy growth rates and strong performance of our agents on these other lead sources. So we feel like there is plenty of available offsets as we take down DRTV and lessen our dependence on it.

And then I know you’re not giving a specific agent count or hiring count for the year, but I mean, is the goal at least, to get back to where you ended the year at, considering you’re cutting a fairly significant amount of external agents.

I’ll take that. I mean, we will be in the vicinity of where we finished the year, but it will be much more heavily shifted towards internal, people who have joined earlier and who are using in more versatile ways.

Next question is from George Hill from Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.

I guess Scott or Derek. I’ll start off with one on the financing with HIG I suspect I know the answer to this, but can you talk about how you guys came to the route that, that was the right kind of way to go raise capital, 8% seems pretty excess - seems a pretty expensive cost of capital in this market. So I guess I’d love to ask about that and then I have a follow-up as well.

All right. Yes, from my perspective, George, it was early about getting the right partner and wanting someone who had an equity stake in eHealth who was aligned with both our investor base institutional as well as management and HIG, this was a competitive process. There were other alternatives. We went with them, because they invested in understanding the business. They had a tremendous excitement that they expressed for it. That was contagious with us and they see a very substantial opportunity as we do, and we thought that bringing them onboard would accelerate our operating improvements, but also give us the capital to act on those opportunities.

Okay, that’s helpful. And then I guess, Derek. I know it sounds like you guys have the capital to meet the growth targets in the near term, but if I look at my model you probably if the business grows, the way it should, you guys probably might be in a position again to need capital, and let’s call it 18 months. I guess I would ask is that, how you guys think about the business as well and does the agreement with HIG kind of give them the right of first refusal on subsequent capital raises?

Yes, that’s a good question, George. So you’re right that this year was not the year that we would expect a need for capital to pursue the growth that we had outlined. When we look out another year and a half materials, so the capital we raised from HIG is important to drive growth. But we would of course only do that if we make the improvements that we are seeing and that we’re expecting right now in terms of both LTV improvements and also unit cost improvement. So I don’t want to get too far ahead of ourselves in terms of just thinking about where growth rates will land until we kind of have more discussions around where we are heading, and what we’re seeing in terms of LTV to CAC improvement.

Okay. But I guess the question is do they, do they kind of have the right to buy, to put the next dollar in before public market investors do?

No, the answer is no. So there are provisions in the agreement that allowed us to raise that capital without their consent or and there is no, first of all, refusal within that provision.

And then my last one, I guess would be is that you guys talked about the new enrollments, the new applications that were completed in the 4th quarter to drive LTV increases in the back half of next year and retention should be higher. I guess I would ask, I know that more than came in online, which seems to have a better persistence, but I guess, can you talk about what gives you confidence in that assumption, I understand there is kind of the back testing of the model. Are you able to put in more color around, kind of what has been the persistence of the online enrollee versus the over the phone enrollee and given the underlying market tends to be pretty forward, just would love to hear what gives you the confidence that those numbers are going to go up.

I’ll let Tim take it.

Sure. So there are the sort of mixed factors that you called out that give us confidence. So the fact that more of our enrollments came from internal agents, more online growth, better channel mix. All of those things based on past experience should be helpful to churn. But what’s probably even more impactful and exciting is the retention teams and the efforts that they’ve been going through to connect with our consumers. And there was a clear GAAP in our customer experience where existing customers would call back and not get the experience they needed, the questions answered that they had. And we’re doing a much better job proactively following up with customers on an outbound basis whether it be by phone or by email to understand if they still have questions and there is ways that we can help them. So we have a better read of what’s going on in our book than we’ve ever had before, and the early signs from July onwards of things like the compensation plan and some of these teams indicated they should be meaningful movers of churn and so we’ll be, we’re sort of cautiously watching the numbers and, but every sign suggest that it should be getting better.

And then just to add, I’m going to ask you a quick follow-up. Are we differentiating between churn and retention here because I know that while we’ve talked a lot about churn, I at least tend to think of churn as something that happens as a result of the MA market and retention is something that should be in your control. So I guess if you could just kind of, if you could differentiate for me targets to reduce churn versus targets to improve retention.

Sure. Yes, I mean we use them a little bit interchangeably in our context because it’s all done on a policy basis. But you’re right that the difference between losing a customer and losing a policy, are very different and that’s where again the development of our retention team to take inbound calls from existing customers and give them a different experience than someone we’ve never seen before, the use of things like the customer center to hold on to data and proactively reach out to customers to say, hey, your plan may not be the right plan for you anymore or the plan you’re in looks pretty good, nothing to do for this season, are things that we just started to do this year and will continue to build on, as we go through ‘21 and beyond. So we expect to do better at retaining customers and we also expect to do better retaining policies with the changes we’ve made.

Next question is from Frank Morgan from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

One follow-up there in terms of the, the changes in the agent compensation. Have you seen any fallout as a result of that from losing the attrition from more productive sales members?

No, I mean we’re really encouraged by what we’re seeing because we built the plan in a way where experienced agents who know how to sell and know how to put people in the right plan have an opportunity to earn more in this system. We score them higher, we route them calls more aggressively. So high performing agents do better in this system than would have in the old system.

And there was also some just discussion on the competitor call about some changes in commission structures to improve the upfront cash collection or the cash receipts. Just curious if you’ve had similar thoughts or what, where are you on that issue.

Yes, I can take that one. So Frank, we also are having similar discussions with our top carrier partners. I mean, I don’t, I can’t say they’re exactly the same, because it was fairly vague also what I’ve heard on the other calls. But in terms of moving to a structure that more closely will align with performance and payments more upfront to help us with kind of manage cash flow given how the life cycle works with upfront cash investment sales and marketing and then commissions collecting later, that is something that we’re actively engaged in with the top carriers.

Okay. Most of them have been answered, but just one is a reiteration. I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly, your guidance for 2021 does not, is not predicated on the investment, the HIG investment and I’ll hop off. Thanks.

No, absolutely not.

Your last question comes from the line of Daniel Grosslight from Citi. Your line is now open.

I’d like to focus back on the lead Gen Strategy. It does sound like there was a bit of an over-reliance here on that direct response TV, so curious if there are any investments on the technology side of the business that you need to make to better shift among various marketing channels when one channel is underperforming.

Tim?

Yes, I think we’ve, I think we’ve made a number of improvements on that side, where we have a better understanding of where a good lead comes from and how to generate it. The issue we had in Q4 was really that we had spent a lot and invested a lot upfront in TV that even though we could move nimbly to other demand and sources. We had already incurred a lot of that expense and then we didn’t have high quality agents to send that additional demand, too. So there was opportunity for us to acquire demand in other places. We just didn’t have the workforce to send it to got you.

And then on the partnership channel, it’s really historically been one of the things you’ve called out in terms of strength, but it seems like this quarter it was a little bit weaker than expected due to lower foot traffic, particularly on the PDP side. But just curious on what the strategy on the partnership channel is going forward and I had thought that most of the benefit you get from partnerships on the provider side is through email addresses and physical addresses, so a reduction in foot traffic wouldn’t be that harmful, but it appears that wasn’t the case. Just curious what the strategy is there going forward.

Yes, let me start and Tim will add in. I remain very bullish on the partnership channel. We signed new hospital systems, absolute top 10 blue chippers, these are 3-year exclusive agreements and yes, we did suffer because of the foot traffic, the lack of signage and brochures that can be handed out physically, we believe hurt us in terms of our response in that channel. We also in the pharmacy channel lost a partnership through an M&A transaction that had been driving a lot of PDP growth for us. I don’t think we called it out specifically, but it was one of the headwinds that we faced in Q4 that we won’t have to lap in 2021. Tim, speak to your view of the partnership channel.

Hi. I would echo your bullish sentiment. I mean it wasn’t, we mentioned that it didn’t quite get to our expectations, but it was our fastest growing channel and our partners are engaging with us every year more and more, our marketing gets better and more targeted every year and more and more providers are engaging in conversations on how we can help them. So there is a lot of momentum in that channel that will build on this year and remain very bullish for how it differentiates us in the future.

Thank you. And there are no more questions at this time. Presenters, I will now turn the call over to Scott Flanders for closing remarks.

Thank you, everyone. I know we ran long but I appreciate the quality of the questions and we look forward to having a much more positive update, after Q1. See you soon.

Ladies and gentlemen that concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now all disconnect. Good-bye.