- Joined
- Jun 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,000
- Reaction score
- 264
I hope it isn't true but over the last few years, it seems most partnership tracks are highly flawed, unfair, and eventually lead to nowhere. The outcome is arguably as bad or worse than private equity employment with many tracks leading to that anyway with no recourse.
In ophthalmology, what makes a "fair" partnership track? Should the salary be "market rate" employment or is it justifiably lower since the associate is paying "sweat equity"? Isn't that what good will pays for? "Is it true that "good will is going away"?
What happens if the partnership track leads to nowhere as most do? (are there any statistics on this?) Is this just a gamble/leap of faith every potential partner has to take? It seems most of the large groups have been sold to private equity and the ones that haven't are structured very similarly (corporate) anyway and if the small ones involve you actually running everything, why not just start or buy your own practice? If you just need more experience before starting on your own, why not just join a large employed practice and gain your experience with a well functioning practice there? There is a looming shortage of ophthalmologists. Why should one waste several years of one's life when it's actually not that hard to start your own practice?
What are reasonable terms to make potential partnership tracks more fair? Some things I have considered over the last few years.
Market rate salary
Restricted covenant (or lack thereof)
Production bonuses paid regularly rather than only once a year (is there any reason to not pay regularly other than leaving open the option of not paying?)
Continuing to be paid your proportion of collections that come in once you leave.
In ophthalmology, what makes a "fair" partnership track? Should the salary be "market rate" employment or is it justifiably lower since the associate is paying "sweat equity"? Isn't that what good will pays for? "Is it true that "good will is going away"?
What happens if the partnership track leads to nowhere as most do? (are there any statistics on this?) Is this just a gamble/leap of faith every potential partner has to take? It seems most of the large groups have been sold to private equity and the ones that haven't are structured very similarly (corporate) anyway and if the small ones involve you actually running everything, why not just start or buy your own practice? If you just need more experience before starting on your own, why not just join a large employed practice and gain your experience with a well functioning practice there? There is a looming shortage of ophthalmologists. Why should one waste several years of one's life when it's actually not that hard to start your own practice?
What are reasonable terms to make potential partnership tracks more fair? Some things I have considered over the last few years.
Market rate salary
Restricted covenant (or lack thereof)
Production bonuses paid regularly rather than only once a year (is there any reason to not pay regularly other than leaving open the option of not paying?)
Continuing to be paid your proportion of collections that come in once you leave.
Last edited: