This site is intended for health professionals only


Think tank report suggests new NICs charge for GP partnerships

Think tank report suggests new NICs charge for GP partnerships

A policy think tank has proposed a national insurance contributions (NICs) increase which would affect 96% of GP practice partnerships and raise £250m.

The increase, proposed in a report from the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), would raise an estimated £1.9bn from partnerships including GP practices, solicitors and accountants.

It advocates ‘Partnership NICs’ as an equivalent to employer NICs already paid by businesses that operate as companies, which would raise an estimated £1.9bn in 2026/27. 

The Telegraph reports that the plans have been ‘presented’ to the Treasury for consideration as a way to raise revenue in November’s Autumn budget.

The CenTax report says: ‘The lack of an Employer NICs equivalent on partnership profits is a particularly conspicuous anomaly.  

‘The resulting wedge in effective tax rates is an accident of history rather than a conscious policy choice to favour unincorporated businesses over those that operate as a company.’ 

GP practices would be affected more than any other type of partnership, with 96% of partnerships liable to pay extra in ‘Partnership NICs’, according to the report.

This is because most GP partnerships have total profits exceeding the Partnership Allowance and profit-share per partner exceeding the £5000 Partners Exempt Amount, it says.

But it also suggested GPs could be reimbursed with some of the revenue raised via an increase to their funding settlement. 

‘If the Government wished to avoid reducing the net pay of GPs, then the approximately 10% of revenue that comes from this group could be “recycled” back to GPs as an adjustment to their funding settlement.

‘In that case, the net revenue from the reform would be reduced to approximately £1.7bn. We take no position on this issue, or more generally on the use of any revenue raised’, it said. 

It said 98% of the revenue raised would come from individuals in the top decile by total income, and 58% from the top 0.1% alone. 

But Dr Adam Janjua, chief executive officer at Lancashire and Cumbria LMC, warned of the impact on GP partners ‘already on their knees’ if the Government were to consider the proposal.

Dr Janjua said: ‘It will devastate GP partners, accelerate practice closures and drive doctors away from partnership – the backbone of NHS general practice.’

The global sum funding boost agreed as part of the 2025/26 GP contract was intended to cover extra NIC costs, according to GP leaders.

In June, a Pulse survey found over 60% of GPs were unsatisfied with the Government’s handling of general practice with respondents pointing to insufficient funding and NIC costs.

A Treasury spokesperson told Pulse it does not comment on speculation around future changes to tax policy.

The spokesperson said: ‘As set out in the Plan for Change, the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8bn and cut borrowing by £3.4bn.

‘We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last Autumn’s Budget, we protected working people’s payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.’


			

READERS' COMMENTS [5]

Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles

Bob Hodges 8 September, 2025 7:19 pm

This will work out to an addition £4.50 per patient year (approx) for my practice that’s about £150,000.

Anyone who imagines that that won’t result in the delivery of £150,000 (or more) worth of healthcare is deluded. It will certainly lower the priority place by GPs in reducing system costs through referral, admission and prescribing practice, and could cost the system multiples of the tax revenue raised.

Be careful what you wish for.

David Church 8 September, 2025 7:20 pm

As a self-employed locum now, and previously Partner, I certainly did/do pay self-employed NICs based on profit/ net income, so I think there is something awry here.
It would require an increase in funding to even maintain GP Partner income, and in many places would be a crisis point for continued existence!

Adam Crowther 9 September, 2025 6:40 am

Presume they are suggesting making all self employed people their own employer or we go back to multiple single handed gp contractors not operating in partnership. I imagine their next thinking is to increase income tax bandings to a top band of 120% over 125,000 🤦🏼‍♂️

David Kynaston 9 September, 2025 7:18 am

Govt is hell bent on ending the partnership model most likely to make way for corporate healthcare. Bankrupting and forcing closure of practices so mega community health centres can develop as per the 10 year health service plan.

Richard Williams 13 October, 2025 4:13 pm

I agree with the cynical comments here. The reimbursement for the NIC for our staff was not given in a transparent way – creating a situation where we are singled out . Interestingly with the new hubs being introduced Wes Streeting said they would not replace GP partnership where partnerships were working well but deliberately destabilising partnerships with a move such as this would open the door for big heatlhcare companies to run primary care. Of course the other way to consider this is that the Chancellor will blunder her way into it without consideration for the knock on effects due to incompetence and then there will be a crisis of her own making. I am nearly 56 and work part time as a partner , like many of my peers such a move would probably force retirement on me and we will lose the highly skilled trained staff that are essential for good healthcare.