Article archive / February 2018
Originally published: . Volume 9, No. 2. Source pages: 6.
Courtney P. Newton provided the members of the board a 2.5 hour in- service training on the following topics: LSBEP’s Role in Public Protection; Administrative Hearing Process (Formal Hearings); Reviewing Applications for Licensure; Annual Anti-trust Training
Legislative Oversight Committee: Dr. Lambert reported on his participation with the Medicaid Integrated Assessment Task Force (Concurrent Res. No. 55) stating that the task force sent a survey to members. Their primary focus is integrated care and outcomes. It does not seem to be a far reaching policy.
a. Emeritus Status Rule – the Board discussed the redevelopment of a “true” Emeritus status where a psychologist who is fully retired would not be required to report continuing education and would pay a reduced annual fee to maintain. This initiative was well received by the meeting attendees.
b. Defining Provisional License, Scope and Limitations – The Board discussed developing the regulations to better define the scope and limitations of the provisional licensee. No objections were heard with regard to the Board continuing with this initiative.
c. Inactive License Status – The Board discussed developing an inactive status, the implications and benefits. The Board will continue to develop rules for an inactive status. No objections were heard with regard to this initiative.
d. LSBEP Review/Approval of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) – The Board discussed developing requirements to pre-review and preapprove CPD. Attendees representing LPA expressed concern that this would have a financial impact on LPA where they currently review CPD for sponsorship. The Board clarified that this would be a review of the activity to affirm that the CPD meets the regulatory standards for acceptability for CPD requirements by the Board for license renewal, rather than review of an activity for sponsorship (which would still be required for “approved-sponsored activities”). The Board will continue with this initiative.
e. Revision the Continuing Professional Development Requirements – The Board discussed revising the current CPD regulations to eliminate the requirement that CPD activities be reported within two of the nine subcategories. Ms. Monic advised that there would be an expense associated with redesigning the renewal portal. The Board further discussed the difficulty in administrating this requirement due to the difficulty that psychologists are having classifying activities. The Board will continue with this initiative.
f. Masters Level License – The Board discussed the potential of developing a Masters Level License. This was well received by attendees, however the complexities of defining training and scope and limitations were acknowledged. The Board will continue investigating the potential.
g. Oral Examinations – Changing the process – The Board discussed the Oral Examination requirement for licensure. Some member expressed a desire to eliminate the oral examination. Some members and attendees favored improving the process. Ms. Monic reminded the members of the Board that an oral exam is a statutory requirement for licensure and would require a legislative initiative. Ms. Monic expressed her concerns for eliminating the oral examination. The Board will continue to review the process for future consideration.
h. EPPP 2 – The Board reported the new direction that the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) has decided to take with regard to the development of the National Examination for the Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) noting that they would be recognizing one examination with two parts rather than two separate examinations. This development would force state boards to require an applicant to take both parts. This would have a financial impact on the applicant. Ms. Monic reported her participation in a webinar, noting that ASPPB would be circumventing the Boards in the admission of an individual to Part I of the EPPP, which is currently required. Ms. Monic also reported that applicants who do not attend an APA accredited program, but who are accepted under LSBEP’s regulations, would not meet ASPPB’s standards for admissions into Part I of the EPPP. Additional concerns were expressed where ASPPB has indicated that it would be assessing general competence. However meeting participants expressed concern with regard to the validity of the exam given the broad scope of training for psychologists, populations and area of practice and the validity of an examination determining entry level competence in each area.
i. Developmental Psychology: Applied Health Care Specialty/Non- applied Health Care Specialty – The Board reviewed the requirements for licensure of a developmental psychologist and determined that a psychologist licensed under the Non- applied health care specialty, which does not require a program to have an internship, should not be engaging in clinical practice and therefore does not meet the requirements to issue a psychologist emergency certificate. The Board agreed to continue to investigate and review the standards and the need for changing the current requirements.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.