IBJNews

Q&A

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Joe Guzman is a co-founder of Indianapolis-based Ascend USA, the new trade adopted after Guzman merged his benefits brokerage, Benefits Strategies Inc., with benefits business Steven Goodin. The eight-person firm expects to hire as many 15 new employees in the next year. Those workers will help Ascend diversify from health benefits into brokering commercial insurance products, such as property-casualty, worker’s comp and general liability, as well as to offer a new cost-analytics service to help with purchasing efficiencies.

IBJ: A lot of brokers are getting out of the business, selling their brokerages to larger outfits. Instead, you’re diversifying. Why?

A: Being bought out has never held any appeal for us because of the TLC we give our clients. I’m not willing to put my clients at risk. I know many other folks who have sold out and I’ve heard first hand the tales of what has happened.  … The [new] lines complement each other. We’re dealing with the same decision makers [as with health insurance] in most organizations. To that end, it seemed like a natural progression for us. We’re not having to develop a new relationship. And our mission on the commercial side is the same as it has been: reduce administrative drag.

IBJ: How much did the new health law impact your decision?
A: Health care reform has had no impact whatsoever in the strategic direction we’re now taking. [But] as the intricacies of health care reform begin to roll themselves out over the next several years, I think there’s going to be a lot of questions, and yes, a growing need for independent representation and strategic planning. I’m bullish about it.

IBJ: Are you making these changes in response to or anticipation of changes in how health insurers pay brokers?

A: Do I think that there is going to be some margin trimmed wherever possible? Yeah. This area is going to be under not just continued scrutiny, but increasing scrutiny. But I’m not concerned about what happens to the remuneration basis as it concerns our role. I’m much more concerned with being well positioned on an expanded scope to bring value to our clients.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT