RCGP calls on Government to ‘break down barriers’ to GP partnership

The RCGP has called on the Government to take action to ‘break down barriers’ to GP partnership, amid concern that a recent decline in partner numbers could destabilise the model entirely.
In a new report published today, the college said it has been considering the future of the partnership model, as GP partner numbers have fallen ‘by 25% over the past decade’.
It stressed that the model ‘has the potential’ to offer the flexibility many younger GPs are seeking, if ‘key pressures’ such as workload and liability are addressed.
Addressing issues that are ‘discouraging’ GPs from taking on partnership ‘should be a priority’ for the Government, the college said, including:
- The risks of holding unlimited personal liability
- Concerns around becoming the ‘last partner standing’
- The financial burden and associated risks associated with owning or leasing premises, and feasibility of buying into property for early career GPs
- Complexity of HR and other management responsibilities related to running a business, employing staff and managing workloads, and premises.
The report said: ‘We are now at a point where we are seeing a declining number of GP partners, with an increasing number of newly-qualified GPs not wishing to enter into the traditional partnership model, due to concerns about financial risk and overburdening bureaucracy associated with running a practice.
‘This poses a real possibility of an environment in which there are too few GP partners available to support a partnership approach to delivering general practice.
‘These are areas where targeted action from governments and system partners could make a meaningful difference.
‘In 2024, 55% of RCGP members said that reduced financial risk would make becoming a GP partner more attractive.’
It mentioned the Darzi review which found that the health service is in a ‘critical condition’ but can be saved, with increased general practice funding. The review also argued that GPs ‘have the best financial discipline’ in the health service family as they cannot run up large deficits in the belief that they will be bailed out.
The RCGP said that different ways of approaching the partnership model should be ‘carefully scrutinised’ by the college, the Government and the BMA, as well as ‘piloted and evaluated before wider roll-out’.
And key principles should be safeguarded ‘while considering any alternative approaches’, including:
- Practices should retain relative autonomy, with an agreed budget, in decisions relating to the organisation and delivery of patient care, with the ability to act as powerful independent advocates for patients, and the flexibility to innovate
- Patients should remain connected to and have a personal relationship with their neighbourhood GP practice, with at-scale working being ‘behind the scenes’
- Practices should be physically connected with and accountable to a community
- Practices should continue to be supported to deliver continuity of care
The report also summarised some of the different models currently being explored across the UK, including associate and super partnerships, GP federations and community interest companies.
It added: ‘Some of these structures are well established while others are more novel and remain in development.
‘Each model offers different strengths and limitations, which we have considered in relation to our principles to support the GP partnership model, whilst acknowledging that local context is essential in determining the suitability of any approach.’
RCGP chair Professor Kamila Hawthorne said: ‘We know there are elements of the traditional GP partnership that can be improved and modernised, while retaining its core strengths.
‘Members tell us they are concerned about the unlimited personal liability exposure involved with being a GP partner, the financial risks associated with owning or leasing premises, and the burden of management responsibilities related to running a business and employing staff – particularly at a time when the number of patients needing care is soaring.
‘The RCGP wants to safeguard the future of general practice – and that means looking at ways to remove these barriers to partnership that members tell us about, while also being open to exploring alternative ways of approaching partnership.’
Earlier this year, primary care minister Stephen Kinnock committed to a future for the GP partnership model.
Speaking at Pulse Live, he said that although partnership is ‘not always the model that works best’, the Government is ‘not in the business of trying to micromanage what works best at a local level’.
Prior to Labour coming into power, health secretary Wes Streeting had expressed doubt concerning the future of the GP partnership model, arguing the ‘murky’ GP contract should be ‘ripped up’. However, he has since said he wants to ‘engage’ GPs in the discussion.
Pulse has contacted the Department of Health and Social Care for comment.
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [5]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
The RCGP are wrong on this.
I promise you that the main reason partner numbers are shrinking is to help the current partners maintain/increase their income.
Being honest, with a good management team running a practice is pretty straightforward. Many practices work very similarly to each other and the injection of ARRS staff should have helped most practices tick along.
Obviously some risks with illness etc but why not maximise income while you can?
A salaried model will fix this issue 🤣
RCGP is fundamentally mistaken on this issue. The decline in GP partner numbers isn’t due to lack of interest—it’s because there are virtually no partnership offers available in the current market. Most practices are unwilling to share profits by taking on new partners. Instead, they opt to hire armies of Physician Associates and nurses to meet appointment quotas. Even PCNs run by partners themselves don’t bother distinguishing whether those appointments are with qualified GPs or ‘Noctors’. Frankly, it appears that RCGP is turning a blind eye to this, if not outright colluding with a subset of self-serving partners—certainly not all, but enough to cause serious concern.
As a partner, I can absolutely say the issue is with lack of interest. As our partners have retired we have always put out adverts for partner / salaried GP with a preference for the former. The only interest has been in being taken on as salaried. This is despite trying to ease the buy-in burden of taking premises out of the equation. I think most partners would much rather share profits with a few more partners to help out with the partnership related work as the increased income just gets massively taxed anyway. The factors involved in there being less interest are multifold but the major ones we come across are the burden of CQC, fear of being last man standing… and why bother with all the hassle when the BMA’s salaried GP contract T&Cs are so good.
A Basic Practice allowance should be paiid to practices for every partner – so it is cost effective to have more partners, rather than salartied staff.
Partners willing to work harder and take on the extra workload of being a partner and running a business deserve the extra renumeration – and this should be shared with the next genreation coming through otherwise we will see the end of continuoty of care and primary care as we knew it, turning it into a souless trawl of minors for A&E departments with doctors and allied staff working 24hour shifts to see the worried well.