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).
ABSTRACT
Objective: This retrospective analysis assessed regression-based reliable change (RC) of cognition in a sample of essential tremor (ET) patients who underwent unilateral deep brain stimulation of the ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus (VIM-DBS).Method: Thirty patients (mean age at pre-evaluation = 70.4 ± 6.3 years) underwent neuropsychological evaluation pre- and post-unilateral VIM-DBS placement (mean time between pre and post-evaluation = 13.1 ± 4.0 months). Paired samples t-tests and RC analyses were employed.Results: No significant within-group differences were observed when cognitive scores were compared between evaluations. The vast majority of patients demonstrated stability across pre-and post-surgical evaluations (i.e. 29 out of 30); however, those with high-risk co-morbid medical conditions may be vulnerable to post-surgical cognitive decline as indicated by RC measures.Conclusions: The use of regression-based RC indices to assess individual cognitive changes between pre and post-surgical evaluations control for systematic and measurement errors that can occur over repeated evaluations, and may be able to identify cognitive changes that evade detection in traditional within-group comparisons.
