The employment versus self-employment debate misses the point. Every few months some moron declares that employed clinicians are more committed or that self-employed clinicians are more money hungry, and the debate goes round in circles because both sides are answering different questions.
As a clinician, you're building a career. As a founder, you're building a business. Those aren't the same thing.
For donkey's years I built an employed business. We invested heavily in training, leadership and career progression because better people build a better business. Simple stuff, done well. Looking back, I absolutely know that was the right strategy. Not because employment is morally superior, but because I wanted to build something worth buying.
Most founders don't build a business hoping it never has any value. If you've poured decades of blood, sweat and tears into something, why wouldn't you want it to be worth buying?
When somebody acquires a business, they're not buying today's profit. They're buying confidence that the business will still produce profit after you've gone. If your clinicians are genuine contractors, much of the goodwill sits with them. Their relationships are theirs. Their reputation is theirs. If they leave, a chunk of the value leaves with them, and admittedly this happens both ways. An employed team is different. The knowledge, culture, leadership and patient experience are far more likely to stay inside the business. That's an asset, and that's what buyers pay for.
None of this is an argument against self-employment. It's recognising that founders and clinicians optimise for different outcomes. One is building a career. The other is building something that can outlive them.
That's why I'd still employ people, if my ambition was to build a business.