Article archive / September 1, 2010
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 1. Source pages: 1, 5.
The “Behavioral Health Professionals Working Group” met in July and August to begin their efforts to comply with the Senate’s Concurrent Resolution 100. The resolution asked the two boards to work together to develop language for legislation that clarifies the LPC (Licensed Professional Counselor) scope of practice.
Minutes from the first meeting on July 28th, with Dr. Joseph Comaty as recorder, indicated that co-chairs
are Dr. Tony Young, the Vice Chair of the psychology board, and Mr. Michael Gootee, the chair of Government Relations for the Louisiana Counseling Association.
The minutes noted that the group discussed ways to approach the task, including looking at professional practice issues, such as similar settings, duties, and work as members of multidisciplinary team.
The minutes also noted the discussion of existing models including the MP model, the podiatric model, models from other states such as Kansas, and the “Superboard” model.
According to the minutes, the group discussed differences and similarities between the two boards, and how each regulates its members.
The minutes also noted, “The medical board regulates 17 other professions and physicians make up only about half of the number of professionals regulated. Dr. Marier explained the advantage to MPs of being regulated by the medical board which included a pathway for the development of enhanced practice (independent practice). But, to do this required them to meet numerous requirements, national exam, etc. Dr. Marier stressed that it would be important to think about where we are going with health care in the future and how we would develop areas of practice that would meet the needs of the community as we move forward.”
Among other topics the minutes listed discussion regarding: how the LPC board regulates their members and how they determine the validity of complaints; how both boards require members to pass a national exam; and how psychologists have national licensing standards from APA and ASPPB, while the counselors do not have similar national licensing groups.
The minutes also listed a discussion of what was expected by the legislature and “the impression is that the legislature
would like the groups to settle this in a way that would not require a repetition of what occurred this year in subsequent years. The members concurred.”
Mentioned also was, “Current issue of disagreement involves how the two disciplines interpret the LPC scope of practice language: …” It was noted that psychology interprets the language “to limit the diagnostic scope to non-Axis I disorders and maybe adjustment disorders, …” While counselors view the language as broader. “There is also a difference in what is considered to be the minimum required level of credential for independent practice and scope: …”
It was noted that, “Description of the practice of psychology is quite broad in the law and therefore, there is a lot of overlap with the scope of practice of counseling.”
“Dr. Comaty expressed the opinion that in an ideal progression, training, experience, and demonstration of competency would precede and support any change in scope of practice legislation. However, in the cases cited thus far (adding psychotherapy to scope for SW and LPCs) for example, the cart was put before the horse and the law was changed to expand scope based on fiscal and political expediency without any change in training, experience, or demonstration of competency to support added scope.” Then, “Some members felt that this was incorrect…”
Noted was a recommendation to “bring in respective laws governing practice to examine differences in language,” as well as preparations for future meetings.
(Minutes are available at the state boards and commissions website.)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.