Article archive / December 1, 2011
Originally published: . Volume 3, No. 4. Source pages: 1, 2, 3.
At its regular meeting on November 12, 2011, the Louisiana Psychological Association (LPA) Executive Council passed a motion supporting the “reinstatement of the regulation of the psychological aspects of the medical psychologists’ practice under the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists.” They put this item into their legislative agenda, according to sources.
The November action followed a similar effort by opponents of Act 251 at an April 2011 Town Hall meeting of LPA. But that effort stalled over the last six months. The November LPA council motion outlined the political objectives for the organization. Included was the LPA goal to defend the psychology licensing law during the current 2012 Sunset threat. The motion also laid out the organization’s goal of protecting psychology’s scope of practice. Sources indicated to the Times that the item to reinstate the psychology practice of medical psychologists to the psychology board was opposed by members sympathetic to the medical psychologists. Also those who wanted an end to controversy within the association opposed the move or abstained. The controversy has been continual since the passage of Act 251 in 2009.
The motion, obtained by the Times from an undisclosed source close to the council, passed with a 6-2 majority, according to one source. “The reinstatement of the regulation of the psychological aspects of medical psychologists’ practice under Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. In pursuit of this goal, LPA will seek to collaborate and find common ground with Louisiana medical psychologists, the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists, and the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.”
The source indicated that the move was “aspirational” only, and that it will likely take several years to achieve. The source also said that LPA has little political clout to go up against the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists (LAMP) or medicine.
The recent November action follows a similar effort made at a Town Hall meeting in April 2011 when Dr. Tom Hannie proposed that LPA talk with the state medical society, the medical board, and the psychology board, and discuss “…finding a way for psychologists to regulate the psychological practice of all psychologists, while leaving physicians to regulate the prescriptive practice of medical psychologists.” After adding LAMP to those negotiating a solution, the motion passed with an overwhelming majority of those attending, including medical psychologists.
Dr. Hannie explained to the Times, “There are no apparent reasons for any of these groups to oppose this idea. If that is the case, next year legislation for this could go through with little or no opposition. If there is opposition from any of these groups the reasons might be of interest to us all.” LPA President Dr. Phil Griffin, following the directions of the April motion, told the Times of several attempts to open a conversation with LAMP president Dr. John Bolter, but no discussion about Act 251 was agreed to or occurred.
On November 18, Griffin also noted to the Times that he had contacted the state medical board and that they said they would “take up my request at their next meeting.”
Griffin also contacted the Louisiana Board of Examiners of Psychologists (LSBEP). He told the Times that he received a November 15, 2011 letter from them saying that they had discussed his request.
“They indicated that the Board could make no such change and that would be a legislative matter,” Griffin told the Times.
“LSBEP Chair Tony Young pointed out that the LSBME and LSBEP entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, that allows both parties to cooperate on matters pertaining to the practice of psychology,” Griffin explained Young’s message to the Times.
Griffin said, “Dr. Young further adds that there ‘have been no problems with this arrangement.’ He [Young] furthermore describes ‘an excellent working relationship’ with LSBME. In closing Dr. Young added ‘…we know of no threat to the public posed by the arrangement,’” Griffin related to the Times.
Griffin said, “My question to them was more about the feasibility of having two boards monitor the two aspects of practice of the Medical Psychologists and their reply was that things are working out fine in their opinion and the current arrangement poses no risk to the public.”
Some in the community have questioned the medical psychology influence on the psychology board and on board appointments.
Dr. Young, the Chair, is in training as a medical psychologist, and two other board members are MPs, licensed under the medical board, and contributors to LAMP-PAC.
The LSBEP view is not shared by several national groups who have criticized the regulatory changes brought by Act 251 that place the practice of psychology by MPs under a different profession.
Some of those noting concerns with Louisiana’s statute include the Interdivisional Healthcare Committee, an independent group composed of seven APA divisions.
The APA Board of Professional Affairs and the APA Board of Educational Affairs have also noted concerns with aspects of 251.
When speaking about supervision issues, the Executive Director of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards noted concerns. The Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice and the American Board of Medical Psychology have also expressed concerns.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.