The average non-surgical aesthetics patient spent $1,576 in 2025, according to Guidepoint Qsight, and only 52% of the patients seen in 2024 came back the following year. Those two numbers are the whole reason med spa membership pricing gets discussed at all. A membership is a bet that a monthly charge will move the second number without giving away too much of the first.

At a two-room practice the bet has a third term: room time.

Almost every plan on the market is one of two designs. In a banked-credit plan the monthly fee is the patient's own money, held as treatment credit, usually with a small member discount on top. In a discount-tier plan the fee buys a perk bundle and a percentage off everything else. They behave very differently on the books.

Start from what patients already spend

Qsight's $1,576 works out to about $131 a month. The American Med Spa Association's 2024 State of the Industry report put the average visit at $527, so, putting the two datasets side by side, the average patient is making roughly three visits a year ($1,576 divided by $527 is 2.99). The figures come from different samples and years, so treat that as a rough estimate.

That sets the ceiling for a banked-credit fee. Charge $129 a month and you collect $1,548 a year, which is 98% of what the average patient was going to spend anyway. Nothing new has been sold. What changed is when the cash arrives, and it is now awkward for the patient to drift off, which is the point.

Charge $199 and you are asking the average patient to commit to $2,388, about half again what they spend now. Some will. Most of the sign-ups will be patients who already spend that much, and for them every dollar of member discount is a dollar you used to collect.

A worked example with the arithmetic shown

These are illustrations, not benchmarks. The fees, the perk cost and the member's spend are our assumptions; swap in your own.

Plan A is banked credit: $129 a month, banked dollar for dollar, plus 10% off anything beyond the bank. Plan B is a discount tier: $49 a month, one included perk a month that costs the practice $15 in product and staff time, and 15% off all treatments.

Take a member whose treatments would cost $1,900 at list price over the year. On Plan A she uses her $1,548 bank, then pays 90% of the remaining $352, or $316.80. The practice collects $1,864.80, which is $35.20 less than list. On Plan B she pays $588 in fees and 85% of $1,900, or $1,615. Take off $180 of perk cost and the practice is at $2,023, which is $123 more than list.

Member's spend at list pricePlan A vs. listPlan B vs. list
$1,576 (Qsight average)-$2.80+$171.60
$1,900-$35.20+$123.00
$3,162 (six visits at $527)-$161.40-$66.30

Plan B's fee nets $408 a year after perks. A 15% discount eats that at $2,720 of list-price spend, a little over five average visits. Past that point the heavy user is getting a better deal than the fee pays for.

So on cash alone, B wins in every row. Plan A only makes sense if it keeps patients who would otherwise have left, because a retained average patient is worth $1,576 a year and the plan costs almost nothing to hold her. We found no independent benchmark for how much a membership changes retention or how fast members cancel. The figures in circulation come from software vendors' own customer bases, so treat them as what vendors report and measure your own.

Where it goes wrong

Booking banked credit as income is the first mistake. Money collected for treatment not yet delivered is a liability until the member redeems it. Say 200 members each carry two months of unredeemed credit: that is $51,600 in treatments the practice owes. For scale, average annual revenue in the AmSpa report was $1,398,833, or about $116,600 a month, so the practice is carrying roughly 44% of an average month as a debt to its own patients. Whether unused credit can ever expire depends on the agreement and on state law. Don't budget for breakage until your accountant and attorney have both signed off.

Rooms get forgotten too. If Plan B's monthly perk takes a room for 30 minutes, 200 members use 100 room-hours a month. Two rooms open 40 hours a week (again, an assumption) give you about 347 hours. Close to 30% of your capacity is now committed to a $15-cost perk before a single full-price appointment goes on the schedule. I'd pick a perk that doesn't need a room.

What depends on your state and your contracts

Then there is the cancellation flow. The FTC's amended Negative Option Rule, the so-called click-to-cancel rule, is not in force. The Eighth Circuit vacated it on July 8, 2025 in Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC, No. 24-3137, finding the commission skipped a required procedural step. (The National Association of Spa Franchises was among the groups that filed in support of the challengers.)

That did not clear the field. The Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act still governs recurring charges sold online, and 15 U.S.C. 8403 has three requirements: clearly disclose all material terms before taking billing information, get the consumer's express informed consent before charging, and provide a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges. Latham & Watkins' alert on the ruling says state automatic-renewal laws, including California's and New York's, and Section 5 of the FTC Act continue to apply. And on March 11, 2026 the FTC announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on negative option marketing, the first formal step in what could become a new rule.

This is general information. Auto-renewal rules differ by state, and so may the rules on prepaid medical services and on discounting them. Have a health-care attorney in your state read the agreement and the sign-up screen, and ask your payment processor what its own recurring-billing terms require.

Decide in writing whether member pricing stacks with manufacturer loyalty rewards and seasonal promotions. If the answer is yes, rerun the table with the stacked discount, because the breakeven in Plan B moves fast. Retention itself is harder to model; a 2026 study of 14,916 injectable patients at a 17-clinic Australian group associated a formal, structured facial assessment and stepwise treatment plan with higher six-month retention in an adjusted model, although the raw retention percentages ran the other way and the work was funded by Galderma (our summary).

Sources