Exploring Co-Ownership

Throughout history, private practice owners have faced many of the same fundamental challenges. The need for capital and, just as importantly if not more so, the need for time.

For healthcare professionals, time spent negotiating a lease, comparing equipment, interviewing employees, reviewing insurance options, managing vendors, or solving operational problems is time that cannot be spent seeing patients and generating revenue.  Many successful healthcare providers starting their own practices produce well over $1million per year when doing what they do best with patients.  As practice owners, these same individuals often find countless hours absorbed by administrative tasks – ranging from ordering supplies to dealing with broken equipment.  This unaccounted for time comes with a cost – either lost revenue or lost time outside of work, potentially leading to burnout.

While many private practice owners have taken on these challenges and succeeded admirably, but the landscape of ownership is evolving. The choice is no longer limited to working for someone else or taking on every aspect of practice ownership alone.

Today, healthcare professionals looking for the opportunity to have not only a greater piece of the pie, but more control over everything from culture to operations, have access to a growing range of ownership models designed to combine entrepreneurship with varying levels of financial, administrative, and operational support.

If you’re considering ownership now or down the road, let’s talk.  Above all, we’ll help you understand what questions to ask.

Franchise Ownership vs. Co-Ownership

A franchise is a business model in which an individual or group purchases the right to operate a business using another company’s established brand, systems, processes, and intellectual property. The franchisee owns and operates the local business, but does so within the framework established by the franchisor.

In exchange for access to the brand and business model, franchisees typically make an initial investment and may pay ongoing royalties, marketing fees, technology fees, or other charges. The franchisor generally establishes standards governing how the business operates, which may include branding, marketing, technology, purchasing, staffing processes, facility design, service offerings, and other aspects of the organization.

The primary appeal of franchising is that the owner is not starting entirely from scratch. The franchisee may receive an established brand identity, operating procedures, training, marketing resources, technology, vendor relationships, and ongoing business support. This can reduce some of the uncertainty associated with developing an independent business.

That support, however, generally comes with limitations. A franchise owner is an entrepreneur, but not a completely independent one. The franchise agreement establishes what the franchisee may and may not do, and certain decisions that an independent business owner could make freely may require adherence to franchise standards.

In healthcare, these distinctions deserve particular attention. A physician, veterinarian, dentist, or other healthcare professional evaluating a franchise opportunity should understand not only the economics of the arrangement, but also how the structure affects professional judgment, clinical decision-making, staffing, purchasing, pricing, patient or client experience, and the ability to adapt the business to the needs of the local community.

Co-ownership generally means that two or more parties hold an ownership interest in the same business. Rather than purchasing the right to operate someone else’s branded business system, the healthcare professional acquires an actual equity interest in the practice or business itself alongside one or more partners.

The structure can vary considerably. A clinician might own a practice with another healthcare professional, enter into a partnership with an established healthcare organization, or hold equity alongside an operating or investment partner. Ownership percentages, voting rights, financial contributions, management responsibilities, and profit distributions are typically established through the governing agreements for the business.

Depending on the arrangement, a co-owner may participate directly in decisions involving clinical strategy, hiring, equipment, services, culture, growth, budgeting, and the overall direction of the organization. The supporting partner may provide resources such as financing, recruiting, human resources, accounting, marketing, technology, purchasing support, or operational expertise while the healthcare professional maintains an ownership stake in the underlying business.

Co-ownership, however, should not automatically be equated with complete independence. A person can own equity in a company without having equal authority over every decision. A minority owner, for example, may have significant economic participation but limited voting or governance rights.

For that reason, the percentage of ownership tells only part of the story. Prospective co-owners should understand what they own, what decisions they control, how profits are distributed, whether additional capital contributions can be required, how their ownership interest is valued, and what happens if they eventually want to leave or sell.

At its simplest, the distinction is this:

A franchise generally gives an individual the contractual right to operate a business using someone else’s established brand and system. Co-ownership gives an individual an equity interest in the business itself alongside one or more other owners.

That distinction can have significant practical consequences.

With a franchise, the relationship is primarily between franchisor and franchisee. The franchisee receives the benefit of an established system but agrees to operate within that system and typically pays for continued access to it.

With co-ownership, the relationship is primarily between business partners or shareholders. Rather than paying for the right to participate in another company’s system, the parties share ownership of an underlying business, although one partner may still provide extensive operational infrastructure and support.

Importantly, neither term by itself tells a prospective owner whether an opportunity is favorable. A well-structured franchise can provide substantial resources and a proven pathway into entrepreneurship. A thoughtfully designed co-ownership arrangement can provide meaningful equity, professional autonomy, and long-term wealth-building potential. Conversely, either structure can be unfavorable if the economics, restrictions, governance rights, or exit provisions are poorly aligned with the individual’s goals.

The better question, therefore, is not simply “Do I get to be an owner?”

It is “What exactly do I own, what control comes with that ownership, what am I paying for, how do I participate in the financial success of the business, and what happens to the value I build over time?”

Those questions are especially important in human and veterinary healthcare, where ownership decisions can affect much more than financial returns. They can influence professional autonomy, workplace culture, the ability to invest in people and technology, and ultimately how care is delivered to patients and clients.

Yes—but affordability works very differently depending on whether a healthcare professional chooses co-ownership or traditional financing.

With traditional financing, the clinician generally funds the purchase or startup of the practice through personal capital, a bank or SBA loan, seller financing, or a combination of sources. The advantage is the potential to retain greater ownership and control. The tradeoff is that the individual may assume substantially more debt and financial risk and may need to personally fund working capital, equipment, real estate improvements, payroll, and other startup expenses.

With co-ownership, an outside partner may provide some of the capital, infrastructure, or financial backing required to establish or acquire the practice. This can significantly reduce the amount of money the clinician needs to contribute personally. However, lower upfront costs usually come in exchange for sharing the equity, profits, appreciation, and/or decision-making authority with the co-owner.

So, co-ownership can make ownership more financially accessible, but that does not necessarily mean it is less expensive over the life of the investment. A clinician who borrows money to own 100% of a successful practice may ultimately build more personal equity than someone who contributes less capital but owns only a portion of the business.

The most useful comparison is therefore not simply, “Which option costs less to get started?” It is:

How much capital do I need to contribute, how much financial risk am I assuming, what percentage of the business will I own, what portion of the profits will I receive, and how much of the value I create will ultimately belong to me?

Those questions provide a much clearer picture of whether traditional financing or a co-ownership opportunity is truly affordable—and financially worthwhile.

Steps to Co-Ownership: Where Do You Start?

The idea of owning a healthcare practice can be exciting—and a little intimidating. Co-ownership has created another path for physicians, veterinarians, dentists, advanced practice providers, and other healthcare professionals who are interested in building equity and having a greater voice in their professional future, but who may not want to take on every financial and operational responsibility of traditional private practice ownership alone.

If co-ownership has caught your attention, you do not need to begin by choosing a company, signing an agreement, or even deciding that ownership is definitely right for you. The first step is simply learning what your options are.