Why aren’t therapists paid fairly?

September 2, 2014 by Geoff Gray

One reason why therapists are not paid fairly is because of the actions of a secretive committee of doctors run by the AMA which advises the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on reimbursement for medical procedures. The committee’s full name is the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee or RUC for short. RUC members vote by secret ballot on reimbursement for over 10,000 procedure codes. CMS accepts most RUC recommendations and most insurance companies follow the guidelines closely. Consequently, the rates for most medical services in the private sector are fixed by RUC.

The role of this secret committee dates back to 1992 when the US government—specifically the CMS— turned over this function to the AMA (which represents a minority of American physicians) which in turn turned it over to the committee it had formed, RUC. RUC has 29 members, 23 of whom are appointed by major national medical societies. There is currently one non-MD on the committee, a Chiropractor.

Medicare fees are based on the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS). The RBRVS formula includes physician work (52%), practice expense (44%), and malpractice expense (4%). The RUC committee reviews medical procedures every year and decides the value of each component. Physician work is valued more highly if it is more complex, requires more training or involves more time. For example, RUC has determined that brain surgery involves 50 times the work units than a routine office exam that a PCP might provide.

A major problem with RUC is that the majority of doctors that make up RUC have conflicts of interest. One is that most RUC members are specialists who provide procedures such as surgery or diagnostic interventions. Specialists value their work more highly than they do the work of clinicians such as PCPs or psychotherapists who provide non-procedural services or cognitive services such as diagnosis based on history and presenting symptoms or psychotherapy. Not surprisingly, RUC has endorsed a reimbursement system that pays specialists much more generously than it does PCPs or other providers of non-specialty services. (A quick look at the super high specialist fees in the US compared to other industrialized countries bears this out). As Dr. Robert Berenson of the Urban Institute in DC, who was a member of the RUC in the early 1990s, said, “RUC’s basic method of relying on a specialty society to give a non-biased appraisal … is fundamentally a flawed concept.” The RUC committee represents “regulatory capture” –political corruption that comes about when a regulatory agency, in this instance CMS–which was created in the public interest– becomes controlled by an interest group–medical specialists– who then fix prices that benefit the insiders, themselves.

Another conflict of interest that RUC members have is that about half of them work full or part-time for drug, biotechnology, device and health insurance companies. Several are executives of health care corporations and large hospital systems. It is reasonable to infer that these physicians, loyal to their employers, value corporate interests more highly than ordinary physicians who do not work for corporations, with the result that patients’ and the public’s health takes a backseat to corporate concerns.

A third conflict of interest is that the AMA has a vested interest in maintaining RUC’s secretive, proprietary and non-transparent methods. RUC meetings are closed to the public and records of the meetings are not published. The product of RUC (the AMA effectively owns the CPT data) earns the AMA about 70 million dollars a year. Were the AMA to open the meetings up to public scrutiny, it is very likely that there would be a debate about the value of healthcare services. RUC might even be scrapped and a fairer system put in its place.

Since 1992, when RUC gained a disproportionately large role controlling what Medicare pays physicians and other clinicians. Specialists who provide procedural services have made out at the expense of PCPS and others who provide mainly cognitive services. Psychotherapists are well aware of the consequences. Between 1990 and 2010, inflation as measured by the CPI increased from $116 to $189 (63% increase), yet the average amount that managed behavioral health care companies (MBHOs) reimbursed for psychotherapy decreased from $81 to $54 (a 33% decrease). Thus, therapists who rely on MBHOs saw their gross income (after inflation and before overhead expenses) fall 59%. Net income, after overhead, has fallen even more.

The hidden hand behind the decline in psychotherapists income has been the RUC committee. RUC misserves the public and it misserves clinicians who provide cognitive services. Fortunately, there is growing recognition that this committee is part of America’s healthcare cost problem–not its solution. A spate of recent articles have shed light on the workings of this committee, including a major story in Politico http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/health-care-costs-110184.html#.VAQq_vldXhE. The best outcome would be an end to RUC and the establishment of a public, open, and transparent committee that represents all stakeholders in healthcare, not just the interests of the elite few.


  1. James Genovese, LPC, LCADC says:

    What compounds this problem for professional counselors, is the relatively small lobbying effort in Washington that is put for by the American Counseling Association, in comparison to that of the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers. Both organizations have, for years, lobbied to keep counselors excluded from the VA and from the Medicare and Medicaid panels.

    While counselor job descriptions have now been added by the VA, most private and public hospitals continue to bar counselors from doing inpatient clinical work.

    As a result, professional counselors–despite having the same level of credential as LCSWs, earn an average of $14,000 less per year than the paltry salaries their social worker colleagues make.

    If we are to break the RUC stranglehold on behavioral health services, two things must take place: one, counselors, social workers and psychologists must abandon the financial martyr complex so many of us seem to have, and start demanding adequate pay as qualified, essential professionals.

    And two, we must end this professional backbiting and present a united front in advocating for all behavioral health clinicians, whatever initials happen to follow their names.

Comments are closed.

From Our Community

"I have been in practice full or part time as a Psychologist for over 28 years. The CarePaths system is the most efficient system of record keeping, patient and practice management, authorization tracking, claims management, and billing that I have ever used. With the addition of features recently added to the system, my office will be nearly paperless. As I anticipate retiring in several years, the problem of record repository will not be a significant issue. The customer service at CarePaths is exceptional. Any processing difficulty is usually solved within a day. This system is head and shoulders an improvement over the two forms of proprietary practice management systems I used in the past."

~Patrick Quigley, PhD, LSAC

“I have used many systems and yours is a hidden gem! I really love the functionality, features, and layout!”

~Melissa D. Michel, MSCP, NCC, LPC

“The referral portal is a huge benefit. The Cleveland Clinic uses it to schedule next day appointments for us from the emergency department. It's worked wonderfully.”

~Cara Daily , Ph.D.

"I am a very satisfied user… and I would like to express my strong satisfaction with your product."

~Loren Andrews, LCSW