Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.