The quadruple aim represents an ambitious, holistic vision for the future of health care: improving population health, enhancing the patient experience, reducing per capita costs, and improving the work-life balance of health care providers. While many health care systems have adopted this framework, the widespread use of the relative value unit (RVU) system fundamentally undermines these goals. Far from facilitating the quadruple aim, the RVU system creates a chasm between what health care is and what it aspires to be, making the attainment of these aims seem, at times, almost laughable.
The four pillars of the quadruple aim and how the RVU system undermines them
1. Improving population health: procedures over prevention. The first pillar of the quadruple aim emphasizes improving population health through preventive care, management of chronic diseases, and addressing health disparities. These goals require long-term, holistic care strategies that go beyond episodic, procedure-based interventions. However, the RVU system is fundamentally biased toward procedures and volume-based care, rather than preventive care and long-term patient outcomes.
Why it’s laughable: The RVU system rewards health care providers for doing more procedures, not for preventing them. Providers are incentivized to perform surgeries, diagnostics, and interventions because these actions translate into higher RVUs and, thus, higher compensation. In contrast, preventive services—like diet counseling, chronic disease management, or mental health care—are poorly compensated because they generate fewer RVUs. This creates an absurd situation where the health care system is essentially structured to focus on “sick care” rather than “health care.”
Trend: Chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension have skyrocketed over the past 30 years, yet prevention and management strategies remain undervalued. While public health initiatives are making strides, the RVU system continues to undervalue the very services that would improve population health in the long run.
2. Enhancing the patient experience: rushed, fragmented care
Patients increasingly expect not only competent care but also care that is empathetic, personalized, and well-coordinated. The RVU system, however, pressures providers to maximize the number of patients they see or the procedures they perform, effectively turning health care into an assembly line. This compromises the quality of the patient-provider relationship.
Why it’s laughable: The RVU system puts providers on a hamster wheel of patient throughput. Doctors are encouraged to see as many patients as possible within a limited time frame to meet RVU quotas, leading to shorter visits, rushed care, and an inevitable reduction in the quality of interactions. It’s laughable to think we can enhance the patient experience when physicians are forced to spend more time checking boxes in an electronic health record to document RVUs than engaging with their patients.
Trend: Surveys over the past 30 years, such as those conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), indicate that while patient satisfaction scores have become a prominent metric, the patient experience itself is often degraded by the very system that measures these outcomes. Short visits and fragmented care dominate, making genuine, patient-centered interactions rare.
3. Reducing per capita costs: the perverse incentive of overutilization
Reducing health care costs has been a central concern for policymakers, especially in the U.S., which consistently spends more on health care per capita than any other developed country. The RVU system, however, drives up costs through its emphasis on procedures, diagnostics, and volume—often at the expense of actual health outcomes.
Why it’s laughable: The RVU system actively incentivizes overutilization of health care services. The more tests, procedures, and interventions a provider can perform, the more RVUs they generate and, therefore, the more money they make. This directly opposes the goal of reducing health care costs. It’s an open secret that much of health care spending goes to unnecessary procedures, tests, or repeat visits that generate high RVUs but do little to improve patient outcomes.
Trend: Over the past 30 years, U.S. health care spending has skyrocketed. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), health care spending grew from $1.2 trillion in 1990 to nearly $4 trillion by 2020. This upward trend is largely due to the high utilization of procedures, diagnostics, and tests—all incentivized by the RVU model. Attempts to control costs, such as through bundled payments or capitation models, have not yet been widely enough adopted to counterbalance the pervasive influence of RVU-driven care.
4. Improving provider work-life balance: the burnout epidemic
The quadruple aim added provider well-being as a critical element to emphasize that improving the health care system also requires supporting the mental and physical health of providers. However, the RVU system is a major contributor to physician burnout, which has reached epidemic levels in the last decade.
Why it’s laughable: The RVU system puts intense pressure on providers to maintain productivity at the expense of their well-being. Doctors are often overworked, with more administrative duties related to documenting services and more patients to see, all while dealing with a fragmented and inefficient health care infrastructure. The demand to produce high RVUs leads to emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of accomplishment, classic symptoms of burnout. It’s ironic, if not absurd, to speak of improving provider well-being while tethering them to a system that drains their mental and physical reserves.
Trend: Studies over the past decade have shown alarming rates of physician burnout. According to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, over 50 percent of U.S. physicians experience burnout. Burnout is not just an individual issue—it leads to higher rates of medical errors, physician turnover, and lower quality care, which perpetuates the vicious cycle of a broken health care system. The RVU system plays a central role in this, creating a toxic work environment where productivity is prioritized over professional satisfaction.
The trends: a chasm between the RVU system and the quadruple aim
Over the last 30 years, trends in health care outcomes, costs, patient experience, and provider well-being paint a clear picture: the RVU system is a primary driver of many of the very issues that the quadruple aim seeks to address. The chasm between the goals of the quadruple aim and the reality of the RVU-driven system is wide and growing.
- Health care costs have continued to rise due to RVU-driven overutilization.
- Provider burnout has worsened, with many doctors feeling more like cogs in a machine than healers.
- The patient experience remains fragmented and depersonalized as providers are forced to focus on volume.
- Population health outcomes are lagging, particularly in areas that rely on preventive care and chronic disease management—fields undercompensated by the RVU system.
Conclusion: the quadruple aim and RVU system—an irreconcilable difference
The goals of the quadruple aim and the realities of the RVU system are in direct opposition. The RVU system prioritizes productivity, volume, and procedures, which undermines the holistic, value-based care model that the quadruple aim aspires to. To suggest that health care providers can meet the quadruple aim within the constraints of RVU-driven care is not just difficult—it’s laughable. The trends over the past few decades demonstrate how broken the system truly is and how deep the divide is between our health care aspirations and the perverse incentives that keep us from achieving them.
To truly move toward a health care system that meets the quadruple aim, the RVU model must be rethought, if not entirely replaced, with systems that reward value over volume, prevention over intervention, and well-being over burnout. Until then, the chasm between where we are and where we need to be will remain wide—and laughable in its absurdity.
Mick Connors is a pediatric emergency physician.
