A American startup arrives in Brazil. This month, a proposal stands out for its format: an online crowdfunding platform to cover medical expenses. Instead of paying for a traditional plan, the user contributes a fixed monthly fee and gains access to a collective fund to pay for consultations, exams, surgeries, and other procedures.
The promise is to attack two pain points at once: the cost and scarcity of individual plans for many people, and the long lines for those who depend exclusively on the public system. At the same time, the model comes with restrictions and shortcomings that, in practice, may reduce who can access it and what can be used.
What is CrowdCare and how does “medical fundraising” work?
CrowdCare is an American healthcare startup that operates using a crowdfunding system. The logic is simple: participants contribute fixed monthly amounts, and depending on the fund’s total, the platform provides coverage for medical expenses.
The minimum reported contribution for Brazil is R $ 250 per monthThe company presents the platform as an alternative to health insurance plans and the SUS (Brazilian public healthcare system), with a focus on private care.
“It is not health plan”: how the company defines the service”
According to the Brazilian operation, CrowdCare does not position itself as a health insurance plan.The company states that members are treated as private patients and that the platform seeks to reduce barriers associated with health insurance plans.
This positioning is central to understanding the product: the user is not buying a traditional health plan, but joining a collective fund with its own rules of use, eligibility, and waiting period.
Why is the startup targeting Brazil now?
The arrival comes at a time when complaints about health plans are growing, and also in a context of bottlenecks in public healthcare.
The company states that, even with a universal system, there are obstacles such as long lines, regional inequality of access, lack of professionals and limitations for those who depend solely on the SUS (Brazilian public healthcare system).
From the private market perspective, the company highlights a recurring problem: Individual plans can be expensive, especially for informal workers., and they would be becoming scarcer.
The model is directly dependent on scale. The logic presented is that The more people participate and the more money goes into the fund, the higher the spending cap can be. for private medical services.
In practice, the appeal lies in trying to make private healthcare viable with a more predictable monthly fee, especially for those who cannot or do not want to pay for traditional health insurance plans.
Restrictions that could hinder “broad access”
Despite the promise of breaking down barriers, the source text describes points that tend to limit entry and use:
Maximum age for membership: The company does not accept new members over 18 years of age. 64 years, precisely a group that usually requires more medical attention.
Higher monthly fees for older age groups: for people of 54 the 64 years, the reported minimum rises to $ 450 monthly.
High cost requires higher payment: More expensive procedures may require larger contributions, according to the product rules.
Not everything is eligible: There are procedures that are not included, as stipulated in the contract.
Deficiency and pre-existing conditions: the most significant factor in daily life.
Another critical aspect is that the platform provides shortage in some cases, such as for the treatment of diseases diagnosed before the association and for costs related to prenatal care and childbirth, in a logic similar to what occurs in many plans.
In practice, this defines the type of user who can benefit most quickly: those who come in healthy and with a plan, versus those who already need immediate care.
What does this new feature really change for those without a plan?
The potential impact depends on how the platform will operate in real-world use: membership volume, eligibility rules, speed of reimbursement or release, dedicated support network, and contractual clarity.
The promise is grand and the positioning is aggressive, but the model itself carries a contradiction: To function well, it needs a lot of people contributing, but this restricts a portion of the audience with the highest demand..
Would you pay to join this type of collective fund, or would you prefer the predictability of a traditional plan even if it means paying more?
