MHConcierge requested community info – and got 373 responses!
Copyright MHConcierge 2021 – you are welcome to share the link to this post but use for commercial purposes without permission is forbidden.
BACKGROUND
I did an initial survey about fees charged by Minnesota mental health clinicians in 2017. The idea for the survey came from an article in the APA journal Practice Innovations, Koocher, & Soibatian, (2017). “Understanding Fees in Mental Health Practice.” Practice Innovations, 2(3), 123-135. The authors recommended “being aware of “the normative fees for mental health services in your geographic area” as one important factor for setting your own fees.” 99 colleagues responded to my invitation to participate, all Doctoral psychologists. Quite a few potential participants informed me, sometimes in pretty strong language, that they declined to participate due to concerns about somehow getting into trouble based on “I have heard that you can get into trouble for discussing fees.”
Legal Issues
For the initial survey I invited colleagues to participate by posting on several professional listservs and social networking sites. I received very strong pushback from a representative of the Minnesota Psychological Association, who was concerned that I would put the association at risk for “anti-trust activity” and also that I was putting myself at risk (by just inviting members to participate in a survey about fees).
I consulted an attorney who is contracted with MPA, who did a lot of research and eventually concluded that groups of providers or, in particular, members of professional organizations who discuss fees with the intent of organizing in order to lobby for increased reimbursement by managed care organizations are indeed at risk for anti-trust troubles. In particular, a professional organization would risk losing their tax-exempt status, which would probably put the organization out of business. But, the lawyer opined, this is not what I was doing, and he was “neutral” about my survey but he also opined that it I provided a disclaimer about anti-trust issues “you will probably be OK.”
It appears that the clearest risk would be for professional organizations allowing, or promoting, discussion of setting fees on the organization’s official listserv. Here is a document from the American Psychological Association with examples of what is “OK” and “not OK” (with some discussion of fees actually allowed).
So, I proceeded with the initial survey, did not get into trouble, and received a lot of support for doing it. I therefore planned to do a follow-up survey in a few years to update and expand the info.
Here is my current disclaimer:
Use of the results of this survey by groups of clinicians with the goal of acting together to set fees as a group is prohibited, and doing so may create risk of anti-trust consequences for the discussants. The results are intended to be strictly “FYI,” with the intent of helping you, perhaps using the very helpful information from the Koocher et al article, think about your own fees in an informed manner. No action beyond this is implied or intended.
RESULTS
Many thanks to the 373 colleagues who responded to the survey. The majority of responses, 357, were from psychologists (267 doctoral, 90 masters). I received 16 responses from Social Workers, LMFTs and LPCs. I will provide the results in three categories: doctoral psychologists, masters psychologists and miscellaneous clinicians.
The results are aggregated, with no access to individual responses. The data was aggregated for the entire State, without information about regional or specific community results. The results are rounded to the nearest full digit for ease of presentation and analysis.
INFO ABOUT RESPONDANTS
Interestingly, 75% of the respondents are in independent or small group practice (which I categorized as 1-5 clinicians). This is identical to the results of the first survey. The rest of the respondents were about equally in the remaining work setting categories.
RESULTS FOR EACH SERVICE – in dollars
Service Current responses 2017 Responses
90791
Doctoral Psychologist 220 200
Masters Psychologist 189
Miscellaneous Clinicians 188
90832
Doctoral Psychologist 106 95
Masters Psychologist 88
Miscellaneous Clinicians 89
90834
Doctoral Psychologist 156 140
Masters Psychologist 137
Miscellaneous Clinicians 129
90837
Doctoral Psychologist 187 169
Masters Psychologist 162
Miscellaneous Clinicians 162
90847
Doctoral Psychologist 173 155
Masters Psychologist 156
Miscellaneous Clinicians 163
90853
Doctoral Psychologist 73 73
Masters Psychologist 68
Miscellaneous Clinicians 55
Psychological Testing (per hour)
Doctoral Psychologist 172 149
Masters Psychologist 142
Miscellaneous Clinicians 154
Neuropsychological testing
Doctoral Psychologist 163 133
Masters Psychologist 137
Miscellaneous Clinicians 156
HBAI – assessment, per hour
Doctoral Psychologist 53 39 (per ¼ hour)
Masters Psychologist 52
Miscellaneous Clinicians 52
HBAI – intervention
Doctoral Psychologist 34 not asked
Masters Psychologist 35
Miscellaneous Clinicians 28
Sliding fee scale offered
– not dollars, percentage
for this one only
Doctoral Psychologist 58 % 50%
Masters Psychologist 58%
Miscellaneous Clinicians 80%
And, finally, here is a little info about forensic fees. Unfortunately, I forgot to add a question for this category, but fortunately three respondents added info about their fees in the narrative section: $250, $280 and $350, for an average of $293.
I leave you to do your own analysis of the info above. Many thanks to the participants.