Article archive / April 1, 2011
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 8. Source pages: 17, 18.
(Editor’s note: The following letter from the office of Senator Willie L. Mount, Chairwoman of Health & Welfare, is run as a professional courtesy at the request of the Senator. Letters may or may not represent the position of The Psychology Times.)
“To The Members of the Louisiana Psychology Profession,
I would like to take this opportunity to address the psychology profession directly and attempt to provide some insight concerning the legislation which I intend to file this upcoming legislative session. This legislation proposes to consolidate the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists ("LSBEP") and the Licensed Professional Counselors ("LPC") Board of Examiners into a newly created Louisiana Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board. There are many misconceptions and rumors being passed around, and I hope to provide some factual information and attempt to eliminate such rumors.
It is important to understand the events which have led up to this legislation. For a number of years and with increasing intensity, the LSBEP and LPC board have been engaged in very public disagreement over a number of issues surrounding the extent of the scope of practice of the professions. The disagreements have centered on many issues ranging from psychological testing to whether professional counselors should be conducting child custody evaluations. The constant bickering between these two boards is not in the best interest of either profession. Psychologists and LPC's have a real opportunity to develop some innovative practice techniques if the two regulatory boards would spend even half the time collaborating on how to make their professions better as they have spent on senselessly fighting with each other.
With this background of discord, I introduced legislation in the 2010 Regular Session which sought to clarify the statutory scope of practice of a licensed professional counselor. The statutory scope of practice for the LPC's is very convoluted and I believe that this further exacerbates the disputes as to what activity is within the LPC scope of practice. My hope was that the LSBEP Page 17 and LPC board could come to an agreement which would provide each profession with a very bright line scope of practice. In true fashion, I simply watched a lot of finger pointing and conspiracy theory about how one profession was trying to take over the other. I have never subscribed to the philosophy that the legislature is where a professions scope of practice should be determined. Professionals are in the best place to determine the extent of their scope of practice. In this vein of thought and no compromise identified concerning the legislation, I introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 100 which created the Mental Health Professional Working Group.
The purpose of the this working group was to provide a neutral arena for both professions to collaborate and achieve three explicitly stated goals: (1) Develop a clear and concise scope of practice for the LPC profession; (2) Identify those areas of each professions practice where collaboration would allow for the maximization of behavioral health services which can be provided in the state; and (3) Identify any additional recommendations which may expand public access to presently absent behavioral health services while avoiding service duplication and redundancy. My goal was simply to provide the most optimal starting point possible which would maximize the chances of successful compromise and collaboration.
I was very clear with the representatives from the respective boards and associations that this working group was their opportunity to put the past behind and take both professions into the future. I have also been clear from the beginning that I favor the professions developing the solution. The participants of the working group invested a lot of time and energy and truly showed a good faith effort for which I commend them. To my dismay however, the participants of the working group were unable to propose a solution upon which both professions could agree.
With the history of senseless conflict and fighting and the failure of the professions to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the working group, I am left with no other options other than to introduce legislation to consolidate these boards. The legislation will only consolidate the existing boards and WILL NOT change any other aspect of either professions practice act. Each profession would keep their respective professional titles, and no changes will be made to either professions scope of practice. As proposed, the consolidated board would be composed of nine members with three members representing the psychology profession, three members representing the professional counselor and marriage and family therapists, and three members representing the public who are completely unaffiliated with either the psychology or professional counselor professions. In addition, the membership qualifications and nominating process for potential board members of the Louisiana Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board mimics as closely as possible the existing qualifications and nominating process for membership on the existing boards. It is my strong belief that consolidation of the boards will remove the obstacles that have prevented these two professions from working collaboratively. It is my sincere hope that not only will both professions benefit, but ultimately, the citizens of the state will be better served.
I have made it abundantly clear to both boards and the respective professional associations that I am open to any alternative solution which BOTH professions can agree upon. So far, both sides have indicated that they are against the proposed consolidation, but neither side has been able to propose an alternative solution. The mental health challenges that this state faces are growing in severity every day. Almost the entire state is classified as a mental health professional shortage area and it is incumbent upon the regulatory boards to be the leaders and visionaries in developing strategies to reverse this disturbing trend. The individual professionals regulated by the these boards and the citizens of the state demand it.
I have a very high degree of respect for both professions and because of that I have been very open and transparent about my intentions. I hope as mental health professionals you realize, as I have, that the current state of affairs between these two boards is detrimental to the state and moreover to the professions. A collaborative dynamic between these two professions fostered by a consolidated board will only make each respective profession stronger and more viable.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.