Prototype: In the Health Law, an Open Door for Entrepreneurs

The hopeful include founders of start-ups who otherwise wouldn’t have access to affordable health insurance — people like Rajeev Jeyakumar, a co-founder of Skillbridge, a Manhattan-based online job marketplace for business consultants.

Mr. Jeyakumar is uninsured. But unlike many people who were thwarted by the government’s faulty health care website, he was able to sign up for individual coverage three weeks ago. He will pay just $74 a month, after tax credits, for his new plan through the New York State exchange.

His story illustrates how, when finances are tight, new entrepreneurs often place the health of their businesses over their own health. “In the early days, a venture is often very much self-funded,” Mr. Jeyakumar says. “You always trade off between the money you need to survive in terms of paying rent and food. And when you have health care as an additional cost, it’s always very tempting to not put money into it.”

But come January, Mr. Jeyakumar will have a health plan that “even includes dental,” he wrote in an email. “I’m very pleased with the outcome.” Until then, he’s refraining from using his Citi Bike membership or playing sports, lest he sustain an injury requiring medical care.

And when it’s time to hire employees, he says he will most likely avoid the extra work of administering a company health insurance plan and instead encourage employees to shop the new health care exchanges on their own and bump up their salaries to cover the cost.

Research published in the journal Health Affairs showed that small businesses with 10 to 24 employees have paid 10 percent more than large ones for the same health care coverage, and that companies with fewer than 10 employees have paid 18 percent more until now. Small businesses’ plans were also more vulnerable to rate increases; as a result, they often provided less coverage, if they offered it at all, resulting in a competitive disadvantage in hiring.

Constantia Petrou, owner of Konnectology, a website that provides information on health care specialists, expects the new law to broaden her hiring options. When she started her company seven years ago in Burlingame, Calif., she realized that she couldn’t afford to offer a group plan.

“In terms of hiring, the health care expenses contribute a huge, huge component to your cost of operation,” Ms. Petrou says. So instead of bringing on full-time employees, she relied on contract workers.

She is looking forward to getting price information online from the Small Business Health Options Program, or SHOP, an exchange that was created by the new law. (Currently, business owners can obtain estimated SHOP prices online, but specific ones are only available by mail after filling out and mailing in a PDF downloaded from Healthcare.gov. Some states, including California, have their own SHOP exchanges, and their procedures vary.)

Ms. Petrou says the law could enable her to hire full-time employees, depending on the new costs of coverage. If so, she will either pay for a portion of the individual plans that her employees shop for on the exchange, or she may take advantage of tax credits and offer a small group plan. “We now have options to explore,” she says.

Some experts say this type of flexibility may have a big impact on the economy over all.

“Assuming we get the website working, it’s going to be the biggest step we’ve had in a long time in the U.S. in terms of changing the structure of the economy,” says Craig Garthwaite, assistant professor of management and strategy at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. Mr. Garthwaite is a co-author of one of two recent studies that conclude that the Affordable Care Act could spur entrepreneurship by easing job lock — where people stay in a job mainly for the health insurance.

The act was aimed at people like Jeannie Armstrong, who in 2009 was planning to quit her job within a couple of years to start a private clinic for adolescents with substance-abuse problems. But then her 18-year-old son learned that he had diabetes. Fearing that he would be unable to find individual health insurance, she has stayed in her job so her son could keep receiving coverage under her employer’s health plan.

“We’re talking pre-existing condition, we’re talking no money, we’re talking health care costs out of the roof,” Ms. Armstrong says of her son’s situation.

But in January, her son will be eligible for individual health insurance. That will free Ms. Armstrong to quit her job as a social worker in the juvenile court system of Fairfax County, Va., and to pursue her entrepreneurial dreams. Now, instead of opening a for-profit clinic, Ms. Armstrong has decided to go the social-entrepreneurship route. In September, she founded the nonprofit Center to End Adolescent Substance Abuse Encounters.

Over the next year, she plans to stay in her job while her son finishes school; in her free time, she will assemble a board of directors and write the organization’s bylaws. By next fall, she plans to be running the nonprofit full time.

“I’m not hamstrung by having to stay in this job,” she says.

Ms. Armstrong sees the new law as an opportunity to start something new. But Kevin Kuhlman, manager of legislative affairs for the National Federation of Independent Business, says that while job lock is a real concern for entrepreneurs, he remains skeptical that the new law will be able to solve the problem.

The federation unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that most people obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty,  in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court last year. The plaintiffs were uninsured and didn’t believe that the government could require them to buy insurance.

Certainly, many established small-business owners are not clamoring for information on new health coverage. Barry Sloane, chairman and chief executive of Newtek Business Services, based in New York, says a majority of his customers
haven’t bothered to visit the exchanges.

“The negative publicity that’s come out about the site not functioning has kept people from thinking they can go to it and get a result,” Mr. Sloane says.

Case Study: A Social Entrepreneur’s Dilemma: Nonprofit or For-Profit?

Matthew Staver for The New York TimesSaul Garlick, founder of Student Movement for Real Change, considered closing the nonprofit and starting a for-profit venture after missing a few payrolls.

In 2002, at the age of 18, Saul Garlick started a program to fight poverty by building schools in rural South Africa. By 2004, his vision had broadened and he started an organization, Student Movement for Real Change, to encourage entrepreneurship in third world communities. Through this organization, he sent students to live with local families, hunt for water sources, farm alongside villagers and absorb the day-to-day nuances of life in a developing country with the goal of building social businesses along with the local residents.

The time and effort spent on fund-raising for a nonprofit has left its founder debating whether it is worth it to change the group.s business model.

Over the last two years, Mr. Garlick and his team have produced some 50 such “microenterprises” — including one that finances water projects in Kenya, one that sells charcoal and stoves in Rwanda and a cocoa nursery in Ghana.

THE CHALLENGE By 2009, Mr. Garlick’s social enterprise, renamed ThinkImpact, was raising about $400,000 a year to support the cause. But along with running the enterprise, it had to raise funds, monitor and evaluate programs, and provide transparency. Its employees were paid below-market wages, the hours seemed endless and the organization would soon be missing payrolls. “Nothing about that scenario was sustainable,” Mr. Garlick said. “And scale depended solely on fund-raising ability.” He was convinced there had to be a better way.

THE BACKGROUND In 2007, Mr. Garlick started taking a salary. He was 23, out of school and working full time for his organization — mostly to find supporters for the cause. The workload grew and he hired another recent graduate to run daily operations.

“I thought that was going to make everything easier, but it didn’t,” said Mr. Garlick, expressing a common frustration for nonprofits: the endless pressure to raise funds takes away from time spent doing the organization’s work. “Many of the aspirational young nonprofit employees become beggars. They are seeking a way out of a tortuous financial reality where they are building the plane while flying it.”

Adding to the pressure was the way Mr. Garlick and his team were encouraged to raise funds. They were advised not to “place all their eggs in one basket,” by relying on a sole funder or a single government agency. Instead, ThinkImpact diversified its reach and sought donations in smaller denominations. Eventually, Mr. Garlick realized that trying to please hundreds of stakeholders was a rather chaotic way to raise money and run a business. “In actual fact, unless you’re running for president, or have a team that exists to raise small dollars, you can’t meet payroll that way,” he said. “People give $20 and think they own your decision-making.”

On the ground, ThinkImpact broadened its reach. More than 100 young people worked with the organization in Africa, primarily in South Africa and Kenya, where they established a strong presence. In addition to developing a curriculum for social enterprise educational experiences, they were adapting to local needs, providing health workshops that reached hundreds of villages in Kenya, and building more than 50 homegrown development projects with the participation of the local community.

But in 2010, after attending a weeklong workshop where he met fellow social entrepreneurs and investors, Mr. Garlick started asking serious questions about his own business model. The questions included: What is our specialty? What value do we produce in people’s lives? How big can we get? How do we arrange for sufficient financing to let us focus on our real work?

THE OPTIONS After missing a couple of payrolls in 2010, Mr. Garlick concluded he had three options.

Option 1: Remain a nonprofit. With contracts from two universities for about $50,000 and funds from donations, grants and foundations expected to bring in $25,000 to $100,000, Mr. Garlick felt constricted. To really grow, he estimated that he would need $200,000 to $250,000 more. But raising that money would be exceedingly difficult using traditional methods and would keep the company almost endlessly locked into fund-raising mode.

DealBook: Entrepreneurs Help Build Start-Ups by the Batch

Peter DaSilva for The New York TimesRon Palmeri and Allison Rhodes Messner of MkII Ventures.

Just two years after its conception, Prism Skylabs has made enormous strides.

The 20-person company, based in San Francisco, uses video surveillance equipment to give retailers Web-like data on customer behavior in their brick-and-mortar stores. It has secured more than $8 million in financing from investors like Pacific Partners and Andreessen Horowitz and has contracts with 70 retailers.

But like many start-ups finding success in Silicon Valley and across the country, Prism Skylabs is not the brainchild of a rookie entrepreneur who risked everything. One of its founders is Ron Palmeri, a longtime Silicon Valley executive. He is among a growing group of professed company builders who are parlaying past successes — along with their own capital and thick Rolodexes — into operating companies and venture funds that work on multiple companies at the same time.

“There’s a group of us who are serial entrepreneurs who know a lot about building something and scaling it,” said Mr. Palmeri, who previously worked with CNET’s founder, Halsey Minor, at Minor Ventures. Minor Ventures used this model to build companies like GrandCentral, now Google Voice, and OpenDNS.

In 2010, Mr. Palmeri started his own operating company, MkII Ventures, with Allison Rhodes Messner, formerly of OpenDNS. The company is working on building out four different ideas.

The concept — often referred to as parallel entrepreneurship — is not entirely new. Back in the dot-com days there was CMGI, which once had a market value of more than $40 billion before dying a slow death and eventually being absorbed by one of its portfolio companies. Idealab, based in Pasadena, Calif., has been doing this for more than a decade, though with mixed results.

What is new is the number of prominent entrepreneurs and investors who are now going this route rather than staking their fortunes on single follow-up acts or taking less active roles as angel investors or venture capitalists.

“Venture doesn’t allow us to explore, only to accept and deny,” said Michael Jones, chief executive of Science, a builder platform in Santa Monica, Calif. He and a longtime entrepreneur, Peter Pham, started Science in 2011 with $10 million in venture backing, followed by $30 million from the Hearst Corporation.

Most of these investors-cum-inventors are motivated by personal passion to create companies. Under this model, entrepreneurs often tap their own networks and wallets to finance their ideas.

“I don’t have any hobbies,” said Max Levchin, a co-founder and former chief technology officer of PayPal. “This is what I do.”

His first version of this model, MRL Ventures, helped start the mobile business-rating platform Yelp and created Slide, a personal-media sharing service that Google bought for a reported $182 million but has since shut down. His new project, called Hard, Valuable, Fun, or HVF, will focus on a few big ideas with longer time frames.

Like Mr. Levchin, many of the builders came out of the recent wave of technology successes. Garrett Camp, a co-founder of StumbleUpon and Uber, has started Expa to develop new products and services and build teams to scale them. In Chicago, two Groupon founders, Brad Keywell and Eric Lefkofsky, put $200 million, primarily their own money, into Lightbank, an operating company. Lightbank has a staff of 20 and 60 projects in its portfolio, including Belly, a loyalty platform, and Frank & Oak, an online men’s clothing retailer.

Company builders say they provide a missing link in the life cycle of start-ups and do so more effectively than incubators. “The primary difference is focus,” Mr. Camp said. “I plan on creating just a couple companies per year, and spending significant time with all of them.”

Hunter Walk, a former director of product management at Google, said, “What’s often needed at the early stages isn’t more capital in a vacuum, but people with operational experience who can give their full attention to these companies.” Mr. Walk is raising a venture capital fund, called Homebrew, with another former Google executive, Satya Patel.

Once an idea gains traction, builders typically turn to venture capital firms for additional financing while gradually giving individual teams more autonomy. “It’s like raising children,” Mr. Palmeri said. “There’s a point where they eventually need their own space, but you’ll continue as a trusted adviser.”

Some company builders invest in a mix of their own ideas and early-stage concepts that fit a particular theme. Others, like Mr. Palmeri’s company, focus almost exclusively on homegrown projects, though they will recruit co-founders and teams to expand the companies into independent entities.

“It’s a highly collaborative process,” Mr. Palmeri said. “By the time we look for outside funding, the idea may have taken many different shapes.”

This approach resembles product development at large companies, like Apple or Google, only on a smaller scale. “The cycle of entrepreneurship can be pretty slow, so why not work on several ideas at one time?” said John Borthwick, chief executive of Betaworks, which was founded in early 2008 and is based in New York. (The New York Times Company is an investor.)

“Over time, you can build common tools, databases, analytics — all the things that give each idea a head start in the marketplace,” Mr. Borthwick said.

One of the biggest advantages to working on several companies simultaneously is the ability to share resources.

“The dollars used in the early stages of start-ups are often highly inefficient because you spend a lot of time and money just to get the business going,” said Mr. Jones at Science. His operating company has 25 people on its staff, specializing in areas like human resources, marketing and real estate.

“The early days of a company should be spent thinking about strategy and technology, not worrying about negotiating leases,” Mr. Jones said.

When start-ups fail, he said, often it is not because the ideas are flawed but because management did not have the tools or resources to execute the idea, were pulled in too many directions or did not move fast enough. Mr. Keywell and Mr. Lefkofsky noticed the same pattern in previous companies they had started or financed.

“We decided to bring those competencies inside of Lightbank,” Mr. Keywell said. “The whole model is designed to reduce risk and increase reward.”

Though some of the large venture capital firms have invested in ideas hatched by company builders, the concept has its skeptics.

“It’s very difficult to manufacture innovation,” said Andy Rachleff, a lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, former general partner at Benchmark Capital and chief executive of Wealthfront, an online financial advisory firm. “The reason most start-ups are successful is they had great insight, and the likelihood of having that killer insight more than once in a career is exceptionally low.”

While this approach allows individual teams to focus on ideas without having to worry about the nuances of running a business, it can pull the company builders in too many directions.

In 2011, Evan Williams and Biz Stone, who founded Twitter, and Jason Goldman, another former Twitter executive, restarted Mr. Williams’s Obvious Corporation as a builder platform. Recently, however, they said they would each focus more on individual ideas rather than work on several ideas at once.

“Turns out, we like focus,” Mr. Williams wrote in an explanation on the company’s Web site.

Nevertheless, proponents of parallel entrepreneurship argue that the odds are better for those who pursue multiple ideas. “The percentage of companies that are successful should be greater than the traditional portfolio,” Mr. Jones said.

Venture partners can regard company builders as “a monstrous insurance policy,” he added. “If something goes wrong with one of our portfolio companies, we can quickly dive back in and make things work.”

Entrepreneurs Starting Up With Fewer Employees