Comparison shopping: Is neuropsychological evaluation more expensive than neuroimaging?

Relatively undervalued: Comparing the work relative value units of neuropsychological evaluation to other services

Objective: We examined work relative value units (wRVUs) and associated revenue of current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for evaluation and management (E&M) services, neuropsychological evaluation (NPE), psychological evaluation (PE), and psychotherapy. Method: CPT code wRVUs were aggregated for E&M (99202-99215), NPE (96116, 96132, 96133, 96136, and 96137), PE (90791, 96130, 96131, 96136, and 96137), and psychotherapy (90791 and 90832-90837 with and without the complexity modifier, 90785). Per minute wRVUs were calculated for each CPT code. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2023 conversion factor ($33.8872) was multiplied by wRVUs to examine reimbursement per hour and per prototypical four-hour clinic slot. Results: The wRVUs per minute showed the following ranges: 0.032-0.07 for E&M services, 0.015-0.063 for NPE, 0.015-0.124 for PE, and 0.043-0.135 for psychotherapy. Average hourly revenue ranged from $72 for NPE to $132 for psychotherapy with the complexity modifier. Revenue for prototypical four-hour clinics ranged from $283 for NPE to $493 for psychotherapy with the complexity modifier. PE and psychotherapy services were valued at 124-184% of NPE. Conclusions: E&M code wRVUs increase with case complexity reflecting greater work intensity, and a modifier to PE and psychotherapy captures additional effort needed in complex cases. In contrast, NPE codes lack a complexity modifier, and NPE wRVUs are lower than those of PE and psychotherapy, the latter of which can be billed by master's level providers. NPE is undervalued compared to PE and psychotherapy based on wRVUs currently assigned to the CPT codes used for the respective services.

The California Cognitive Assessment Battery (CCAB)

Introduction

We are developing the California Cognitive Assessment Battery (CCAB) to provide neuropsychological assessments to patients who lack test access due to cost, capacity, mobility, and transportation barriers.

Methods

The CCAB consists of 15 non-verbal and 17 verbal subtests normed for telemedical assessment. The CCAB runs on calibrated tablet computers over cellular or Wi-Fi connections either in a laboratory or in participants' homes. Spoken instructions and verbal stimuli are delivered through headphones using naturalistic text-to-speech voices. Verbal responses are scored in real time and recorded and transcribed offline using consensus automatic speech recognition which combines the transcripts from seven commercial ASR engines to produce timestamped transcripts more accurate than those of any single ASR engine. The CCAB is designed for supervised self-administration using a web-browser application, the Examiner. The Examiner permits examiners to record observations, view subtest performance in real time, initiate video chats, and correct potential error conditions (e.g., training and performance failures, etc.,) for multiple participants concurrently.

Results

Here we describe (1) CCAB usability with older (ages 50 to 89) participants; (2) CCAB psychometric properties based on normative data from 415 older participants; (3) Comparisons of the results of at-home vs. in-lab CCAB testing; (4) We also present preliminary analyses of the effects of COVID-19 infection on performance. Mean z-scores averaged over CCAB subtests showed impaired performance of COVID+ compared to COVID- participants after factoring out the contributions of Age, Education, and Gender (AEG). However, inter-cohort differences were no longer significant when performance was analyzed with a comprehensive model that factored out the influences of additional pre-existing demographic factors that distinguished COVID+ and COVID- cohorts (e.g., vocabulary, depression, race, etc.,). In contrast, unlike AEG scores, comprehensive scores correlated significantly with the severity of COVID infection. (5) Finally, we found that scoring models influenced the classification of individual participants with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI, z-scores < -1.50) where the comprehensive model accounted for more than twice as much variance as the AEG model and reduced racial bias in MCI classification.

Discussion

The CCAB holds the promise of providing scalable laboratory-quality neurodiagnostic assessments to underserved urban, exurban, and rural populations.

Time is money: Examining the time cost and associated charges of common performance validity tests

Objective: This study presents data on the time cost and associated charges for common performance validity tests (PVTs). It also applies an approach from cost effectiveness research to comparison of tests that incorporates cost and classification accuracy. Method: A recent test usage survey was used to identify PVTs in common use among adult neuropsychologists. Data on test administration and scoring time were aggregated. Charges per test were calculated. A cost effectiveness approach was applied to compare pairs of tests from three studies using data on test administration time and classification accuracy operationalized as improvement in posterior probability beyond base rate. Charges per unit increase in posterior probability over base rate were calculated for base rates of invalidity ranging from 10 to 40%. Results: Ten commonly used PVTs measures showed a wide range in test administration and scoring time from 1 to 3 minutes to over 40 minutes with associated charge estimates from $4 to $284. Cost effectiveness comparisons illustrated the nuance in test selection and benefit of considering cost in relation to outcome rather than prioritizing time (i.e. cost minimization) classification accuracy alone. Conclusions: Findings extend recent research efforts to fill knowledge gaps related to the cost of neuropsychological evaluation. The cost effectiveness approach warrants further study in other samples with different neuropsychological and outcome measures.