Article archive / December 1, 2010
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 4. Source pages: 1, 4.
The APA Board of Educational Affairs has joined the Interdivisional Healthcare Committee, the Committee for the Advancement of Professional Psychology, and the Academy of Medical Psychology, in voicing concerns about Louisiana’s Act 251.
In a November 3rd letter, Dr. Janet Matthews, Chair of APA Board of Educational Affairs (BEA), responded to Dr. Robert Glueckauf regarding concerns over Louisiana’s new law. Dr. Glueckauf Chair, Interdivisional Healthcare Committee (IHC), on April 21st 2010 had issued a report and a call to action for APA’s BEA, as well as the Committee for the Advancement of Professional Psychology (CAPP), and the Board of Psychological Affairs (BPA). (PT, 1, 10).
In the November 3rd letter, Dr. Matthews responded for her board noting, “BEA members unanimously agreed that these matters were of concern to the education and training community and to all of psychology. Very specifically, BEA was of the opinion that the term “medical psychologists” should not be used exclusively by psychologists with prescriptive authority. BEA noted the historical use of the terms ‘medical psychologist’ and ‘medical psychology’ for a broad range of psychologists working in healthcare settings, for names of administrative units, and for describing education and training experiences that are not associated with preparation for practice with prescriptive authority.”
Dr. Matthews continued, “In forming this opinion, BEA believes it is consistent with the opinion offered by the Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice in June 2010 on this same matter.”
“BEA also expressed strong concerns about the potential implications of oversight of a psychology licensing board by a nonpsychologist health profession board at the state licensing level. Very specifically, concerns were expressed regarding ultimate oversight by another profession of the evaluation of education and training credentials of psychologists and standards for supervision in clinical training.”
In conclusion, Dr. Matthews wrote that it was important to note that these are the BEA’s opinions and not policy statements of APA. “However,” she wrote, “given the importance of the issues raised to all of psychology, BEA has requested that the APA Board of Directors address these concerns at a policy level and make recommendations to the Council of Representatives as appropriate.”
Dr. Glueckauf is Chair of the IHC, a group of seven APA divisions of Health Psychology, Rehabilitation Psychology, Clinical Neuropsychology, Society of Pediatric Psychology, Society of Clinical Psychology/Clinical Geropsychology, Counseling Psychology, and Family Psychology. The IHC may be best known for its development of the “Health and Behavior Codes,” which allow a traditional health/medical psychologist to be reimbursed for behavioral methods in treating physical disorders.
In the April 21st letter and report, the IHC authors noted concerns that Act 251 could confuse the public, concerns about psychologists falling under other boards, and unfair competition, among other issues. (PT, 1, 10)
In June this year, Chair of CAPP, Dr. Sandford Portnoy, wrote Dr. Glueckauf indicating, “CAPP opposes the use of the term ‘medical psychologist’ exclusively by psychologists with prescriptive authority.” (PT, 1, 11)
Dr. James Childerston, President of the Academy of Medical Psychology (AMP) wrote to Louisiana’s Attorney General objecting to the restriction of the title, “Medical Psychologist,” in July 2009. And in February 2010 the Academy of Medical Psychologists notified its members that maintaining a psychology license was required for the specialty board certification in Medical Psychology. (PT, 1, 8)
(Editor’s note: The copy of the letter authored by BEA Chair Dr. J. Matthews was given to the Times by sources outside of the state, and not by Dr. Matthews.)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.