to think that all GP's (Doctors) work part-time?

[popcornwizard]

Based on my tiny personal knowledge of 4 GP's that are friends, and a couple of others that are friends of friends etc, I'm coming to the conclusion that they all work part-time hours. Is this real? Or is it just the ones that I know. I have no idea whether any of the GP's at 'my' practice work full-time or not, but at least 3 of them work only two days/week.

So AIBU to think that they're a bunch of part-timers? And what causes this? Stress or lucrative locum contracts?

Teacher here. I work 4 days but do 40hours over those days so not part time hours. I take my bloody hat off to everybody like doctors because although my hours can be long, I can at least take advantage of holidays. I can totally see why many people in the profession would be part time. It must be the only thing keeping them remotely sane.

Hoping this (attached photo) will work. You’ll be waiting even longer next year

They may be part time in patient-facing roles but will use the other days/hours to write up notes, do referrals etc etc. They are not being paid for these extra hours. The GPs I know are extremely conscientious and really focus on the patient during consultations, making brief notes and then have all the necessary admin to do after surgery or on days off. The hours on surgery days and the stress levels mean that for many a part time role is the only one compatible with family life.

I imagine a lot of GP's work "part time" in their main practice but with additional clinics, locum, out of hours work on top?

All the GPs in my gp surgery are part-time. I actually think that's a good thing. It means that they have a decent work/life balance. They're better able to do their jobs well than if they were exhausted and resentful, working 70 hours a week and rarely seeing their families, as often used to be the case.

Yes, you're right, OP. But remember the 1st Mumsnet commandment: Thou shalt not criticise the NHS!

Legally, salaried partners are employees.

saltpans in eg a Law firm a salaried partner would still have joint and several liability if the firm holds them out to be a partner. In that sense they would have the risks of partnership and would therefore not be the same as employees.

Yes, I am aware of that; but that is only if the partnership holds them out as partners. What if the partnership doesn't hold them out as partners? A salaried partner may not get to see the partnership accounts, may not have a say in the running of the partnership and may not even know the extent of the liabilities, when they become a salaried partner?

Are salaried partners employees or self employed?

Does the HMRC treat a salaried partner's salary as subject to PAYE and NI, which are allowable against profits for tax; thereby reducing the tax liabilities for the equity partners; or as they counted as part of the partners' profit shares?

I can only speak from my experience @SaltPans

The salaried partners we had, saw the accounts before signing up. They were PAYE for the first 6 months and their views were taken as a partner but all parties had a 6 month withdrawal agreement. This benefited all parties. Incoming partner had a say in the business but not liability/profit and could withdraw or remain with agreement of other partners and then take on profit/liabilities after 6 mths. Who would want the liabilities until they really understand the personalities and work environment and issues etc

ITA, I can't understand why anybody would want to be a salaried partner, where they are jointly and severally liable, but don't have a say in the management of the partnership?

I believe for LLPs (so relevant to many law firms but I think not GP "partnerships") tax rules changed in the last 2 years. This had the effect that the PAYE salaried partner status has largely changed because of adverse tax consequences for LLPs. The salaried partners in those LLPs have had to become more of a real partner although I think they are still paid some kind of fixed amount rather than income fluctuating with profits. Some LLPs have reverted to traditional 1890 Act partnerships as a result and some limited companies. Some people with limited companies separately have moved to be sole traders (or partnerships) because of the extra taxes on dividend income too. It is a very fasat mjoving and hot political topic at present but the bottom line is that anyone who makes profits or has a reasonable income the state wants a lot more money from you.

"Does the HMRC treat a salaried partner's salary as subject to PAYE and NI, which are allowable against profits for tax; thereby reducing the tax liabilities for the equity partners; or as they counted as part of the partners' profit shares?"
In answer to the above - yes although as I say above the taxation rules for LLPs have changed such that a lot of what were salaried partners are now not employees any more. Some of us on here are lawyers and constantly battle with trying to find out the legal status of entities. I probably have to assess it almost every week. Some organisations do not even make it clear on their website which is the law. It shoudl say full sole trader's name or limited company number and name etc or partnership or LLP or whatever it is. Even just from a data protection point of view people need to know the precise details and full name of the entity which controls their data etc Dr Jones and Shah trading as JS GP Partners Harlow, a partnerhip. Or Xcel Medical (Excel Medical is the trading name of Dr John Smith ) etc.

Also there are profession specfic rules too. I had a dental client (limited comapnies) and they were selling the businesses. Unlike with other limited companies where you can sell the assets (or shares) the license to practice was held by an individual, not the limited company. I have seen that in some other areas too like fostering I htink it was or Govenrment training scheme which can make it hard to sell the assets of limited copany as you also need that person and its not easy just to swap to someone else - the new buyer who may have no reputation or track record (so a very good thing you cannot just swap them over)

Lawyers (and accountants) were previously all partnerships because they were prevented from limiting their liability, this is not the case anymore and (with authorisation) can form LLP's or ltd companies.

The change in dividend policy is to try to fairly tax people who use limited companies to pay themselves through dividends rather than PAYE thereby saving the NI on all amounts dividended. (Massive oversimplification) - it isn't particularly that you're being targeted because you make profits, it's levelling the playing field with people who are employed who pay NI.

If you take a combination of salary and dividend you will STILL pay less tax than someone solely employed.

(Not sure this is totally relevant to OP and most people probably dozed off a while ago)

I for one love a good company structure discussion but agree it's a bit niche. Not entirely off point though. There are a lot of throw away comments re privatising the NHS by stealth and the GP structure. Truth is it always has been privatised. Lots of other aspects of the NHS, medical eg pharmacists and non-medical eg IT, are also sub-contracted to the private sector. That's even before looking at how dentists and opticians have changed recently - and then it feeds into the whole debate prompted by Carillion.

Definitely think the debate is going to develop around working practices, reward structures, risk sharing and ownership structures and related regulation, management and accountability.

As DS says, NHS reorganisations (so far) have only ever affected NHS staff; everything stays the same for patients!

I think it's been very interesting. When I started in law were also only allowed up to 20 partners as well (so firms could never be very big) and that changed too.

I suspect a lot of NHS contracts for the GPs who own the practice attach to an individual not a partnership and certainly not a limited company although I am pretty sure some doctors have formed limited companies to provide various medical services including to other bits of the NHS. I bet there are some rules about conflict of interest on that however.

Actually I know of a practice, very high earning, that offeds salaried partnerships, get the poor sod to do all the work for little money and there is never an equity partnership on the table. A couple of years later the GP figures it out and leaves. There are not many of these around but there are some.

GPs don't go home or on the golf course as soon as the last patient is out of the door. At my surgery the Dr's provide early morning app starting at 7-30am and are also open later a couple of days a week. During the day they provide various clinics and minor surgery.

I think one of the issues is that partnerships can be quite small, and individuals are personally liable. So, there is a great fear of becoming the 'last man standing' who will then be liable for everything including long term tenancies and redundancy payments if the practice folds.

This is a real fear because it is so difficult to recruit in some areas.

It may have been said above but I am write that unlike in other professions such as solicitors NHS GPs are not allowed to operate the GP practice through t alimited partnership or through an LLP and therefore those that own the practice have to be either a sole trader (which is how I trade) or a partnership? (I mean those who own the practice here, not those who work in it and I think dentists can operate through limited companies)

As an aside - I once sat in a bank branch waiting for an appointment to open an account and I could hear the meeting before me in the glass office 5 feet away. It was a GP who was setting up an account to be a sole trader and was asking the 12 year old bank person if he could later turn the bank account account into a partnership bank account if he took on a partner.

Youth was giving him shockingly awful advice and it was all I could do not to shriek though the gap in the glass - "CONSULT A LAWYER OR ACCOUNTANT - DON'T LISTEN TO SONNY JIM THERE".

No-one ever appreciates accountants and lawyers till it's too late.

Maybe should add I am a chartered accountant. I hate going to see estate agents, banks and financial advisers and having them (wo)mansplain complete nonsense at me.

Also hate admitting my profession in public as personal tax affairs are not my field of expertise, especially in relation to plumbers, electricians and taxi drivers.

Great deal of sympathy with off-duty GPs. I actually have a playground Mum friend who is one but I never show her my verrucas or pass judgement on the NHS in the playground.