Originally published: . Volume 1, No. 9. Source pages: 1, 3.
Dr. Jerry Suls, President of APA Division 38 (Health Psychology) and Divisional Task Force on Medical Psychology & RxP, wrote to all APA division presidents and called for them to request APA to conduct a “thorough investigation” of Louisiana’s new statute, stating that “…expressing your concern to APA officials is most critical…” In his letter of April 4th, Dr. Suls addressed APA division presidents and other officials, writing, “In recent months, we learned of legislation that took effect on January 1st in Louisiana that placed the licensure of psychologists with prescription privileges in the hands of the state medical board (Louisiana Act 251). In addition to transferring existing authority for the licensing of prescribing psychologists away from the state board of psychology, this new law also granted psychologists licensed exclusively by the medical board the right to supervise others who provide psychological services.”
In his letter Dr. Suls also explained that Division 38 has no position either for or against RxP. He wrote, “Our original concern with the legislation was the (mis)use of the term ‘medical psychologist’ to identify psychologists with prescription privileges. Medical psychology is historically and internationally viewed as a broad category that relates to the application of psychological knowledge to medical settings and problems.”
He went on to point out that 251 restricts the title to those with prescription privileges and so “officially bars a wide range of professionals (e.g., health psychologists, rehabilitation psychologists, neuropsychologists) from calling themselves medical psychologists…”
Dr. Suls wrote further, “As the American Psychological Association continues its lobbying for prescriptive authority for psychologists, we are concerned that Louisiana’s new statute may become a precedent for other states.”
He noted to the other division presidents, “If after learning this, you share our concern, I suggest that you request officials at APA, perhaps via the Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP), to conduct a thorough investigation, particularly with regard to legal, ethical, practice, and educational issues, of the implications of practicing psychologists being licensed by boards other than state psychology boards, particularly medical boards.”
In closing, Dr. Suls wrote that those with questions could contact him, but that, “At this point, however, expressing your concern to APA officials is most critical…” and listed contact information for APA’s CEO, president, heads of directorates, and others.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.