Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 9. Source pages: 1, 5.
In an April 4, 2011 memo from the APA Board of Professional Affairs (BPA) to Dr. Robert Glueckauf, Chair of the Interdivisional Healthcare Committee, BPA outlined its opinions regarding issues with Louisiana’s Act 251. In spring 2010, the Interdivisional Healthcare Committee (IHC) published a report of concerns with 251 and asked three APA bodies to review the concerns and give opinions. These bodies were APA’s Board of Professional Affairs, Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice, and Board of Educational Affairs.
In the April 4 memo for BPA, Board Director Ms. Mary Hardiman said that the board had reviewed the documents submitted by IHC and they had had an “extensive discussion of the issues raised in this important item.”
The memo noted, “1. The first issue was the use of the title ‘Medical Psychologist’ that has recently been restricted in Louisiana to psychologists with prescriptive authority. Prior to the Louisiana law, the title of Medical Psychologist was used to describe psychologists who use behavioral treatments for patients with physical problems. This term has been widely used by psychologists across the states. After consideration of this item, BPA concluded that it was in concurrence with the recent statement issued by CAPP. BPA does not support the restriction of the title of Medical Psychologist to those with prescriptive authority.”
And, “2. The second issue was that Louisiana law now places prescribing psychologists under the Medical Board. BPA discussed the negative implications of this ruling on the identity of psychologists, and on the oversight and regulation of the professional practice of psychology. BPA concluded that APA through the Practice Directorate and through the Board of Directors and Council need to continue to address the implication of this ruling for psychology and take steps to avoid extension of this action into other state regulations.”
In June 2010, Dr. Sanford Portnoy Chair of CAPP wrote to Dr. Glueckauf saying, “CAPP opposes the use of the term ‘medical psychologist’ exclusively by psychologists with prescriptive authority.” CAPP had created a working group in response to the IHC concerns, which included concerns both for the public and the profession.
In November 2010, APA’s Board of Educational Affairs Chair, Dr. Janet Matthews, responded to IHC’s concerns, writing that “…the term ‘medical psychologist’ should not be used exclusively by psychologists with prescriptive authority,” and that the “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.”
The Academy of Medical Psychology and the American Board of Medical Psychology raised similar objections in July 2009 before Act 251 was passed.
The Interdivisional Healthcare Committee is independent of APA, but composed of representatives from seven APA divisions: Health Psychology, Rehabilitation Psychology, Clinical Neuropsychology, Society of Pediatric Psychology, Society of Clinical Psychology/Clinical Geropsychology, Counseling Psychology, and Family Psychology. The committee is well known for establishing the billing codes that allow psychologists to be reimbursed for their treatment of physical conditions.
Related stories can be found in Times Vol 1 No 3, 9,10,11 and Vol 2 No 4 at psychologytimes.com.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.