A Practitioner’s “Retirement”: How to Proceed with Succession or Closure Without Failure (Page 2) – Nikkei Medical

The Nikkei Medical article presents two options for the inevitable management challenge of a practitioner's retirement: succession or closure. Amid concerns about the impact on regional healthcare due to a lack of successors, the importance of "continuation" through business succession, rather than simple "cessation," is highlighted.

From the perspective of medical M&A and business succession, this article encourages management to consider more proactive options by contrasting "closure costs" with "consideration from business succession." Closure incurs tangible costs such as restoration expenses and various notifications, and also results in the loss of intangible assets like long-cultivated contributions to regional healthcare and relationships with patients and staff. On the other hand, third-party succession can potentially yield consideration generally ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 times annual sales, and can be a beneficial option for more stakeholders, including the continuation of regional healthcare, maintenance of staff employment, and the succession of the role as a primary care physician for patients.

For medical institution managers facing succession issues or practitioners considering future retirement, this article suggests the importance of exploring business succession possibilities early on, before readily choosing "closure." Succession requires a certain period (4-10 months for clinics without beds, according to the article), making planned preparation essential. It is advisable to begin by consulting with experts to objectively assess your institution's value and succession potential.