Article archive / September 1, 2010
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 1. Source pages: 9, 10.
The political issues surrounding Act 251 created much of the news reported over the past year. The following are some events covered in the Times.
• July 1st 2009 the governor signed Act 251 into law, transferring the regulation of medical psychology, and the practice of psychology by medical psychologists, to the state medical board.
• Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists (LAMP) designed the bill in collaboration with the state medical board. LAMP leaders viewed the legislation as a success, “formally integrating their RxP expertise with medicine.” And saying, “The Eagle has landed.”
• At a conference in November, 2009 Dr. Quillin explained the reason for 251 was a “moral issue,” based on the realization that the practice of medical psychology had evolved into something more than it was originally designed to be. He said that 251 created a “new, hybrid healthcare profession.”
• The LSBEP was never officially contacted or consulted about Act 251 by those designing the bill. Four of five board members were MPs and believed to be members of LAMP.
• Dr. Glenn Ally, MP and Chair of Legislative Affairs for the psychology board reported on April 10, 2009 that “there was not anticipated to be any legislation presented at the 2009 Regular Session that would affect LSBEP”.
• On May 8, 2009, Dr. Ally brought Act 251 to the attention of the board. It was discussed and the board asked their attorney for an opinion. By the following meeting (June 12) Ally reported that 251 had been sent to the governor.
• In a call to APA Practice Directorate they indicated that they had not been consulted about 251, and that it was “very unusual for APA not to be involved.” They stated they recommend against dual regulation of psychology. APA has taken no formal position either for or against 251.
• In July 09 Dr. James Childerston, President of the Academy of Medical Psychology (AMP) and President of the American Board of Medical Psychology (ABMP) wrote the Louisiana Attorney General and objected to the restriction in the use of the term “Medical Psychologist.”
• Non-MP psychologists in LPA were taken by surprise by the passage of Act 251. A flurry of postings and
debate began in June 09 on the LPA listserv. A member wrote, “And the #1 reason to pay your LPA dues– So you can continue to watch, or even participate in the firework show on the list-serv.”
• Gradually it became clear that LPA officials, mostly medical psychologists (MPs), had known about Act 251 but had followed instructions from LAMP to remain silent for political reasons. Dr. Jim Quillin was both chair of legislative affairs for LPA and a key figure in negotiations with the medical board.
• Questions arose about LAMP’s lobbyists Courson & Nickel, who were also the lobbyists for Louisiana Psychological Association (LPA) at that time.
• LSBEP sent a list of questions regarding dual regulation, among other things, to the state Attorney General. No reply has been received as yet.
• Reports indicated that APA had supplied over $527,700 to LPA during the last decade. Dr. Tom Hannie commented, “In short, APA and LPA funds were used to create a new profession.”
• By August 09 frustrated LPA members formed “Grassroots Initiative” in response.
• Writing on behalf of Grassroots, Dr. Kim VanGeffen asked LPA to apply for an emergency grant from APA to fund defensive actions against Act 251. No response was received.
• Drs. Ally and Dammers resigned from the LSBEP, effective for September and December 09.
• Responding to a call in September 09, APA Practice Directorate personnel said that they were not aware of any other state where the practice of psychology is regulated by the state medical board.
• In September Dr. Julie Nelson published the first issue of The Psychology Times.
• Pressures caused both those supporting and those opposing 251 to seek help from parliamentarian Alan Jennings. He refused to work with either “faction” alone, and both agreed to work together in the state association.
• Late 2009, Medical psychologists files were prepared for transfer from the LSBEP in January. The Medical Psychology Advisory Committee was being developed with Drs. Quillin, Lowe, Ally and Bolter as members.
• A statewide election was held in December to fill three vacancies on the board. Six names were submitted to the governor. None were MPs.
• In November, Dr. Susan Dardard submitted a resolution to the EC to establish a bylaws revision committee. It passed. Alan Jennings commented, “I’m engaged by LPA because there are complex questions for the association to decide and an internal climate of impassioned division of opinion.”
• In LPA the first official response to problems came on December 13th, with a town hall meeting called by then President Judith Levy. Drs. Quillin and Lowe were absent. Conflict arose over the contract with lobbyists Courson & Nickel.
• Around February Drs. Quillin and Lowe resigned their LPA positions. Dr. Jessica Brown took over in legislative affairs and LPA hired a new lobbying firm.
• In their February the board of directors of the Association of Medical Psychology, a national group, told its members that maintaining a license to practice psychology from their state board was required for board certification in medical psychology.
• In March 2010, Dr. Tony Young was appointed to the LSBEP. Dr. Dammers was “reappointed.” This reappointment was questioned by Grassroots. Dr. Dammers then re-resigned. Top vote getter Dr. John Simoneaux was then appointed. Dr. Rita Culross was appointed to the third and final opening on the board.
• In April LPA members passed the bylaws changes by a seemingly unanimous vote at the convention, making the organization more representative and limiting the power of the president.
• In April 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.
• The Interdivisional Healthcare Committee (IHC), a group of representatives from seven APA divisions, published a list of concerns about Act 251. The authors called for action by three APA bodies.
• CAPP made a statement opposing the use of the term ‘medical psychologist’ exclusively by psychologists with prescriptive authority.” Division 55 concurred in a later statement.
• In May 2010 at the end of the legislative session, Dr. Simoneaux was not confirmed, surprising and disappointing many. Dr. Lee Matthews was immediately appointed by the governor.
• The Times publisher asked questions about 251 and reported on the board’s presentation in April 2010. This prompted complaints about her methods of reporting from the Vice Chair. She wrote back, and then spoke at the board meeting about ethics. A follow-up written inquiry about the events surrounding the board and Act 251 from the Times was answered by the board, but provided little additional information.
Dr. James Quillin (L) and Dr. Mike Chafetz discussing Act 251 at NAN presentation. Dr. Quillin explained that MP practice had evolved past its original design.
Members of the state association voted in April 2010 for a more democratic organization.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.