Physician Collaboration Models: Employed, Multi-Site and Advisory
Three Models Compared
| Model | Advantages | Costs / risks |
|---|---|---|
| Employed full-time | Stability, cultural fit, continuity | High fixed cost; concentrated departure risk |
| Multi-site practice | Flexible peak coverage, brand halo | Complex scheduling; uncertain priority and loyalty |
| Advisory agreement | Technology transfer, training, complex-case support | Limited presence; cannot carry daily medical responsibility |
Compliance Points
- Registration match: multi-site filing requirements and location coverage (the scope entry).
- Clear responsibility chain: treatment liability and complication-response duties written into agreements.
- Client-source attribution: physician-brought versus clinic-cultivated clients, divided by contract.
- Non-compete edges: agreed within locally enforceable limits.
Configuration Advice
- Localize core medical responsibility: at least one full-time/resident physician carries daily care and emergencies.
- Multi-site physicians add increment: peak capacity and specialty programs — never the sole medical dependency.
- Advisors build capability: quarterly guidance, complex-case consults, team training.
FAQ
Multi-site physician never available?
Contracts set minimum clinic commitments (frequency + time blocks) and change-notice periods; booking systems surface their schedules transparently — never sell uncertain availability.
Who owns the advisory physician’s plans?
The advisor advises; the executing physician owns responsibility — liability follows execution, expressed in both contract and workflow.