Article archive / March 1, 2011
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 7. Source pages: 1, 4, 5.
The “Behavioral Health Professional Working Group” (BHPWG) gave its final report to the Senate Health and Welfare Committee in February. The group was created by a Senate resolution in 2010 which asked psychologists and licensed professional counselors to work together to develop specific language for the counselors’ legislation.
The BHPWG reported they made progress in clarifying standards for mental health professionals, and
also in building better collaboration between the two groups, one of their goals. However, they were not able to develop specific language, according to the final, nine-page report.
Authors noted, “The means by which to translate the identified mental health practice standards toward legislative language relative to diagnostic scope for the licensed professional counselors remains an area for further work within the BHPWG, as there persists a difference of opinion regarding the current standard and the level of required expertise to provide comprehensive mental health diagnoses.”
The core of the differences between the two groups, as described in the report, revolves around diagnosing mental illness. Authors wrote, “The counselors believe that the current statute authorizes counselors to diagnose and treat mental and emotional disorders.” However, “The psychologists disagree and hold that the current practice act for counselors granted a limited diagnostic scope of practice to counselors that is commensurate with their current master’s degree level of training.”
Over nine meetings and interim discussions, the group reviewed differences and similarities between the two professions and developed a list of essential standards for practice and regulation that both groups agreed on.
“Within the BHPWG,” the authors wrote, “the following considerations were determined to be essentials for practice evolution and effective regulation of professional activities: (i) enhanced educational requirements, (ii) enhanced training requirements, (iii) specialized supervision, (iv) requirement of a standardized national examination focusing specifically on clinical diagnostic skills, and (v) a formal mechanism for the designated regulatory board to examine the competency of providers prior to licensure.”
Based on discussions, the counselors proposed changes in their standards and credentialing process. These changes included increasing degree hours to equal national standards, requiring specific education units for certain areas such as diagnosis and ethics, and installing a national exam for new licensees.
“Representatives from psychology agree that such additions could strengthen the counseling profession,” the authors wrote. “The psychologists maintain, however, that some aspects of these strengthening measures could be further refined and translated into a tiered licensure system with an advanced practice
certification in counseling and that this would provide significant clarity and indicate providers capable of diagnosing and treating major mental disorders. Similar models of tiered counseling practice are available in other states.”
Authors wrote that, “Psychology representatives believe that setting common advanced practice standards and a single regulatory authority for advanced tiers of mental health practice are needed to avoid current and future conflicts between psychologists and counselors.”
The Senate resolution, sponsored last June by Senator Willie Mount, from Lake Charles, also asked the group to address ways to maximize the mental health services to the state’s citizens and to develop collaborative practice methods.
“While the BHPWG did not reach consensus on all of the group’s charges as outlined in SCR100, the dialogue promoted and encouraged a more collaborative approach across mental health professions,” the authors noted.
“Through collaborative and interdisciplinary panels like the BHPWG, it was realized that professions should be working to identify gaps in coverage, gaps in training within the state’s educational institutions, and developing models to most effectively deliver behavioral health services in the state.”
The authors also wrote, “Several potential models to more effectively manage this [scope of practice] issue
were discussed during the course of the BHPWG, although there was no consensus on an accepted model in Louisiana.”
The group explored potential models, “… (i) a combined regulatory authority for all mental health practices, (ii) an interdisciplinary advisory panel to review rules and regulatory conflicts that arise across mental health professions, or (iii) advanced certification in mental health practice regulated by the psychology licensing board. Although these models were discussed within BHPWG, there was no consensus across group members on these models.”
The counselors supported their autonomy, the authors writing, “Counselors would advocate that each board remains autonomous in its decision making, but all professions would have the benefit of this consultation and collaboration process.”
The working group included Drs. Joe Comaty and Tony Young, chair and vice chair of the Psychology Board, and Drs. Jessica Brown and Darla Burnett who represented the Louisiana Psychological Association.
Representing the Louisiana Professional Counselors Board of Examiners are Drs. Gloria Bockrath and June Williams. Michael Gootee and Cindy Nardini represented the Louisiana Counselors Association.
Also attending many of the meetings were Jacqueline Shellington from the state board for social work and Dr. Robert Marier from the medical board, as well as members of the public and the press.
The full report can be obtained from the Senate Health & Welfare Committee.
The BHPWG’s final report was provided to the Senate Health & Welfare Committee in February.
Working Group members discussed different models for advanced practice and single regulatory authority.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.