Article archive / June 1, 2010
Originally published: . Volume 1, No. 10. Source pages: 1, 4, 5.
The Interdivisional Healthcare Committee (IHC), a group of representatives from seven APA divisions, published a list of concerns about Act 251, citing issues about confusing the public as to meaning of “medical psychologist.” Also noted were issues about psychologists falling under medical boards, and problems 251 creates internal to the profession in regard to unfair competition. The authors call for action by three APA bodies: Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP), Bd of Psychological Affairs (BPA), and Bd of Educational Affairs (BEA).
Dr. Rob Glueckauf, Chair of IHC, told the Times last week that the position statement and action requests were unanimously supported by representatives from all seven divisions. He stated, “We have submitted the report to CAPP, BEA, and BPA. CAPP has already taken action. They have a working group that is investigating the current and long-term practice implications of the legislation [Act 251], as well as the consequences of licensing prescribing psychologists under state medical boards. Both BEA and BPA have said they would seriously review and consider the information.”
IHC is independent of APA, but is composed of two representatives from each of the APA divisions of Health Psychology, Rehabilitation Psychology, Clinical Neuropsychology, Society of Pediatric Psychology, Society of Clinical Psychology/Clinical Geropsychology, Counseling Psychology, and Family Psychology.
According to Dr. Daniel Bruns, IHC member and lead author of the report, members from the APA Division of Health Psychology prepared the initial draft, and then IHC completed the analysis. He said that IHC “functions as a think tank for those in psychology who use psychological methods to treat individuals with physical illness.” He pointed out that the IHC is “best known for its development of the Health & Behavior codes. These are the billing codes that allow a traditional medical psychologist to be reimbursed for treating diabetes with behavioral methods, for example.”
A main concern cited in the IHC report is that Act 251 writes into law a different definition of what it means to be a medical psychologist. The report notes that for eighty years the term medical psychologist has been used to describe a practitioner who applies psychological modalities to treat patients with physical problems, such as diabetes, brain injury, asthma or obesity.
The report goes on to describe that with Act 251, the same term, “…refers to a psychologist who has been trained to treat psychiatric disorders with medications.” And that, “This will confuse the public and other professionals.”
Dr. Bruns commented to the Times that Act 251 has “…almost reversed the definition of the term medical psychology.”
Authors of the IHC document also wrote that Louisiana’s new law, “… excludes almost all traditional medical psychologists, and may misrepresent what prescribing psychologists actually do…” And that, “…A person trained in RxP and called a Medical Psychologist would appear to have expertise in rehabilitation psychology, clinical neuropsychology, health psychology, primary care psychology, etc. Further, by virtue of being licensed by the medical board, MPs would appear to be more qualified than traditional medical psychologists, without having training in these other disciplines.”
In July 2009, Dr. James Childerston, President of both the Academy of Medical Psychology (AMP) and American Board of Medical Psychology (ABMP), raised similar objections in a letter to Louisiana’s attorney general.
The IHC report listed concerns about the move of psychologists to medicine. “Act 251 transfers control of credentialing, training requirements, scope of practice and oversight of the medical psychology profession to the medical board, and this is a radical paradigm shift involving some loss of control over our own profession. Similarly, Act 251 creates two classes of paraprofessionals (psychometricians and psychological assistants) whose credentialing, training requirements, scope of practice and oversight fall under the auspices of the medical board.”
The IHC authors also pointed to concerns about unfair economic advantages that appear created by 251, citing examples such as authorizing medical tests and hiring psychometricians. They give an example of an MP ordering an MRI where a traditional neuro- psychologist may not, even though he/she may be more qualified than the MP. This, the authors noted, “…could lead to unfair competitive advantage…”
Find full report at http://www. healthpsych.com/ihc/medpsych.pdf
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.