This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pulse june2020 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

GPs go forth

GPs in their 30s 'being told to cut clinical hours' to avoid pension charges

Younger GPs are being advised by their accountants to cut clinical hours to avoid extra pension charges, the BMA GP Committee chair has warned.

Dr Richard Vautrey told Pulse this is a growing problem across the country that will impact general practice for decades to come.

He said both the BMA and NHS England have been raising the issue with the Treasury, and are calling for changes to the pension scheme to ensure GPs can continue seeing patients without being worried that they are effectively paying to work.

In January, Pulse revealed that health secretary Matt Hancock was in discussions with the Treasury over changing the tax treatment of pensions due to the effect on GP retention, saying it is the ‘biggest concern’ GPs raise with him. However, there has been no reported movement on this issue.

Speaking to Pulse, Dr Vautrey said this is a ‘really big problem’ that does not just impact older GPs, as many younger GPs are now being advised to cut hours.

He said: ‘The issue relates to the annual allowance relating to pension contributions. Many people may think this is a problem for older GPs near retirement, but the big problem is the loss of service from younger doctors.

‘They are being told by accountants and financial advisors that if they are working full-time – nine sessions a week typically – and their earning are above a certain level, then they will be penalised on an annual basis. They are being advised that the best way to tackle this is reduce their clinical commitment, reduce their earnings, and thereby protect themselves.’

Dr Vautrey continued: ‘Doctors in their 30s who have potentially another 30 years to offer the NHS, we are losing them each and every year. It’s having a major impact and it’s one of the reasons why we are struggling to offer enough appointments to our patients.’

‘This is one of the big factors driving the shift towards part-time working. It’s almost costing GPs to work, because of these punitive charges. We have to remove this disincentive for doctors that want and are willing to work.’

Dr Vautrey explained the issue is being repeatedly raised by GPs, as the GPC carry-out the new five-year GP contract roadshows.

The contract – published last month – saw several major changes to general practice, including the move towards primary care networks, something practices will be paid to join.

It also pledged that the BMA and NHS England will lobby the Government together around a partial payment agreement for pensions, meaning GPs would not have to pension their entire income.

Dr Vautrey said they have been in ‘regular’ contact with the Treasury about this.

‘This is happening right across the country, and I think it has become a bigger problem this year, because previously there was an ability to carry forward unused allowance from one year to another, but this has really run out now. So it can no longer protect doctors, so this year it’s become an acute problem,’ he added.

In 2016, the amount GPs were allowed to save into their pension before incurring a tax charge was reduced, from £1.25m to £1m. This led to many GPs seeing little benefit in continuing to pay into their fund, and NHS England heard anecdotal evidence GPs retired early to avoid the new rules.

The recent GP partnership review found tax charges are a common factor for GPs deciding to reduce their clinical commitment, retire early or opt-out of the NHS Pension scheme.

Readers' comments (22)

  • Someones put another gaping hole in the sinking Titanic another Tory cluster F***.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The world has officially gone mad

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As usual one branch of government messes up another.
    No joined up thinking as usual.
    I am afraid we have a barely competent political class with little experience of the real world.
    I would not trust them to run a whelk stall

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • David Banner

    This insanity could be so easily fixed. If raising the thresholds for annual and lifetime allowances are not politically possible, then at least allow doctors to limit their amount of pensionable pay, instead of the “all or nothing” idiocy we have at present.
    But the Treasury thought they were being so clever. After the 2004 contract had (in their opinion) given GPs a far too generous pension deal, they devised these tax thresholds to claw back as much as possible, but without thinking through the consequences. Now we have doctors slashing their hours in a recruitment crisis......utter madness and (sadly) totally predictable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Turn out the lights
    Yes indeed!
    I think the seeds for this were sown by Osborne the towel folding genius who is now editor at the London Evening standard (among several other jobs that he is not fit for)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • At 36, I reduced to 7 sessions to minimise this effect. Working 8 sessions, I was paying a month's drawings a year in "penalty tax" on a pension I may or may not get in 30+yrs. Bonkers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I've just opted out aged 34 for this reason. VCTs are looking attractive...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thanks Pointless for those mumblers (see earlier) . So it's confirmed. Seven sessions is now the full time commitment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sorry numbers not mumblers :-)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • a partial pension will not help this issue if your annual allowance has been reduced. The other insanity is that the annual allowance is not what you put in, but how much your fund increases. If inflation has been high, it increases more. therefore GPs a penalised with higher tax bills when inflation runs high, which they have no control over! The ONLY answer is to increase the annual allowance back up to a high level and accept people should be incentivised to SAVE for retirement!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say