Thank you for the interest. You're right that there are many providers interested in telehealth, but filtering for quality folks and keeping them from churning is a non-trivial problem. In addition, it is a very supply-constrained vertical in medicine, so these problems are especially pressing. Part of the reason our current partners use our solution is because we do the upfront filtering, and we de-risk churn to a large extent. If you only want to use 20 hours a month from a great provider in NM, you don't have to worry that they're going to run off for a better offer, because we use their other time with other partners – and they remain satisfied.

Regarding continuity of care: these providers mostly have recurring availability, which makes it very easy to schedule them in advance for CBT or other types of recurring visits. We lean into continuity, rather than trying to avoid it with async approaches.

Regarding folks going around our platform to see our providers: frankly, that would more a liability to our customers than it would be to us, because they are the ones trying to maintain patient stickiness. Oftentimes, these services are employee benefits, so there's less problem here with patients trying to go around the platform. But the long term answer is we want to make it SO much easier for providers to see patients via our channels that they don't have any reason to go around us (and have to deal with malpractice insurance, payments, scheduling, and video infrastructure on their own).