A 40/60 split of gross bills between a clinic and a practitioner has become so common that many people pretend that the service agreement is simply implicit. This means that neither the doctor nor the clinic pays much attention to properly documenting the relationship between them. Failure to document the relationship can expose the clinic to risks such as: A fundamental feature of the agreement is that the doctor pays the service unit for administrative services. In other words, the clinic does not pay the practitioner to practice medicine from the clinic. The documentation of this relationship reflects the fact that the practitioner practices independent medical practice. This ensures that they are not workers for the purposes of pension rights, leave rights and/or payroll tax. The resulting agreement may protect the clinic (and other practitioners) from claims against a particular practitioner. Even well-understood and widespread business structures can pose a risk to a company if no appropriate steps are taken to understand the regulatory framework within which the company operates. If you have any doubts about the effectiveness of the service contract used in your practice, please contact us. As stated above, using a service agreement is not a new development. Practitioners and their accountants have been implementing these structures for years. Faced with the spread of these arrangements, how and why do people always misunderstood them? In the absence of a written agreement that documents the agreement, a decision-maker (for example.B. the SRO, a court, the Fair Work Commission or the ATO) examine the characteristics of the relationship to determine whether the practitioner was a collaborator.
To answer this, they will ask if practitioners are engaged in the provision of work. A practitioner who arrives at a particular clinic, treats patients from that clinic and receives a portion of those patients` gross bills as remuneration is likely considered an employee. Description: This Directive establishes and ensures uniform conditions for the appointment of doctors contracted by healthcare providers to provide medical services to public patients admitted to a public health institution. The Directive imposes as related documents the model medical service agreement to be used by healthcare providers: even if the relationship between a doctor and the clinic is written and is referred to as a “performance agreement” or “independent management agreement”, compliance risks often arise. This is often explained by: Date of entry into force: from 14 February 2018 to 31 January 2021 MP 0079/18 – Commitment of doctors under service contracts (pdf 148KB) The operation of a medical clinic, regardless of its size, can be divided into two main tasks: Applicable: healthcare provider, contracted doctors According to our experience, the following areas pose a risk to clinics: The Directive is part of public procurement policy. . . . Healthcare providers must adapt standard models and adopt models specific to healthcare providers for all classes of engagement of contracted physicians. Healthcare providers must obtain prior authorisation from the Directive holder for specific proposals from the healthcare provider. Day Rate Medical Services Template (docx 68KB). .