Productivity measurement in psychology and neuropsychology: Existing standards and alternative suggestions.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The Relative Value Unit (RVU) system was initially developed to account for costs associated with clinical services and has since been applied in some settings as a metric for monitoring productivity. That practice has come under fire in the medical literature due to perceived flaws in determination of "work RVU" for different billing codes and negative impacts on healthcare rendered. This issue also affects psychologists, who bill codes associated with highly variable hourly wRVUs. This paper highlights this discrepancy and suggests alternative options for measuring productivity to better equate psychologists' time spent completing various billable clinical activities. Method: A review was performed to identify potential limitations to measuring providers' productivity based on wRVU alone. Available publications focus almost exclusively on physician productivity models. Little information was available relating to wRVU for psychology services, including neuropsychological evaluations, specifically. Conclusions: Measurement of clinician productivity using only wRVU disregards patient outcomes and under-values psychological assessment. Neuropsychologists are particularly affected. Based on the existing literature, we propose alternative approaches that capture productivity equitably among subspecialists and support provision of non-billable services that are also of high value (e.g. education and research).