Article archive / November 1, 2011
Originally published: . Volume 3, No. 3. Source pages: 1, 3.
At their October 28, 2011 meeting, members of the psychology board discussed a letter from Dr. Phillip Griffin, President of the Louisiana Psychological Association. The letter concerned the Louisiana Psychological Association’s (LPA) attempt to “open a dialogue” about the regulation of psychology between psychology and medicine.
Dr. Griffin’s letter to the psychology board was one step in carrying out a motion passed in April 2011 by the members of LPA.
Baton Rouge psychologist, Dr. Tom Hannie, made the motion at an LPA Town Hall Meeting this past April. The motion passed overwhelmingly and called for the association to initiate a conversation among members of four groups: the Louisiana State Medical Society, the Louisiana Psychological Association, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, and the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (LSBEP). Members agreed later to add the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychology to the groups to be involved in the conversation.
At the October 28 LSBEP meeting, the psychology board members reviewed Dr. Griffin’s letter and came to the general conclusion that their role is one of regulation only. One member commented, “If LPA has a position on the matter it is their job to look into that.” Another member said, “We don’t represent, we regulate.”
Several members stated that the job of the board is to follow the law and that currently the LSBEP actions regarding the regulation of medical psychologists is guided by a “Memorandum of Understanding.” One member noted, “This points out the pecking order.”
The bulk of the discussion centered on the role of the LSBEP as a regulatory body and not a group that creates laws or changes laws. But one member said they would be writing the new law for the Sunset process.
The board members considered how to reply and decided to write to Dr. Griffin confirming that the psychology board is just a regulatory body. “If LPA puts force a plan then we’ll be called to testify,” one member said.
The “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) is a document developed by both boards during 2010 “in order to facilitate cooperation on all matters pertaining to the shared regulatory role over the practice of psychology,” as noted the psychology board’s minutes from their March 2010 meeting.
The Medical Psychology Advisory Committee, an advisory group under the medical board, wrote in their May 2010 minutes that the MOU was “to establish a cooperative agreement between both Boards regarding the regulation of the practice of psychology as it pertains to medical psychologists who maintain dual licenses with both Boards.”
The motion that prompted Dr. Griffin to address the psychology board was previously explained by Dr. Hannie to the Times. Dr. Hannie noted that the motion directed that a “conversation would be initiated to explore ways to address the dual licensure issues created by 251.” His motion also included that “there would be a particular focus on finding a way for psychologists to regulate the psychological practice of all psychologists, while leaving physicians to regulate the prescriptive practice of medical psychologists,” said Dr. Hannie.
The Psychology Board at their October 28, 2011 meeting.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.