Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 6.
Senator J.P. Morrell has offered Senate Bill 332 which adds sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in provisions prohibiting discrimination. The bill is pending in Senate Judiciary B.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 6.
Senator Ryan Gatti has proposed SB 36 to make it an intentional tort (an illegal act) and not subject to the present laws about medical malpractice, for a physician to hold himself out as a specialist in an area of medicine in which he is not board certified or credentialed. From the legislative digest: “Proposed law clarifies that intentionally representing oneself as a specialist without having obtained the required clinical training, education and board certification shall cause a physician, his employer, hospital or corporation to be subject to liability under the general tort law.”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 7.
Minutes from the March meeting of the state psychology board were approved in April, and note discussions:
Specialty Designations: Dr. Jesse Lambert initiated a discussion about specialty designations and defining scope of practice for specialties in contrast to the option of a broader focus of defining healthcare provider and non- healthcare provider. “The Board agreed to continue this discussion, investigation and receiving input on this subject.”
Unlicensed Assistants: “RULE: Unlicensed Assistants to Psychologists – The Board continued to discuss the current requirement for supervision of unlicensed assistants and establishing a requirement to register assistants to psychologists. The Board agreed to continue its study and investigation of this potential.”
Complaints Process: The Board reviewed the revisions and comments proposed by Amy Lowe, General Counsel for the Board regarding the current Complaints Process. The Board approved the revisions. The minutes it don’t describe what these changes are or any specifics.
Investigations of Dual Licensed Psychologists: “Ms. Monic and Dr. Zimmermann brought this issue to the Board where the Board currently has information concerning potential violations of two Licensed Psychologists who are also licensed with the Board of Medical Examiners. Ms. Monic requested direction from the Board on any history of dual investigations/cooperation in investigations against dually licensed psychologists. The Board was not aware of a past precedent and directed Ms. Monic to proceed with an investigation under the current procedures.”
“New Proposed Rule: LAC Title 37, LXIII Chapter 13. Code of Ethics – Dr. Burnett presented draft regulations for the Code of Ethics. The Board discussed these proposals at length as they pertained to applicability to Louisiana psychologists; statutes and regulations. Amendments were suggestion and Dr. Burnett agreed to work with Ms. Monic on a final draft to present to the Board in April or May 2016.”
Finance Committee: The board reviewed financial statements and Ms. Monic reported that the Board remained under budget with the exception of legal and auditing expenses. “The Board has enough cash in the bank to pay its expenses and if there are no unusually large expenses, we are on track to have a small reserve on 6/30/16.”
Dr. Marc Zimmermann (L), current LSBEP Chair, and Dr. Darla Burnett, Vice- Chair, consider issues at the long-range planning meeting last year. The latest minutes indicate that the board is discussing possible registrations for unlicensed assistants and reviewing matters regarding specialty designations.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 7.
The Behavior Analyst Board published a proposed Rule, also known as a “Notice of Intent” in the April Louisiana Register. The authors outlined the supervision requirements for State Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts and for Registered Line Technicians.
There are currently 143 Licensed Behavior Analysts, and 700 Registered Line Technicians, said the authors. There was no mention of the total assistant behavior analysts.
Interested persons may submit written comments to Rhonda Boe, Executive Director, 8706 Jefferson Highway, Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809. All comments must be submitted by 12 p.m. on May 10, 2016.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 7.
The state medical board published a new Rule in the April Louisiana Register, which requires that the Executive Director and the Director of Investigations be separate positions. Also, the new requirements separate the preliminary review of a complaint from a formal review for certain types of information, and provides flexibility to support a recommendation to dismiss in lieu of automatically beginning a formal investigation. The Rule notes that a preliminary review is not reportable, and also that the formal review is to be completed within 24 months, but this may be extended if needed by the board.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 1, 3.
A Resolution authored by Representative Frank Hoffman will create a study group to examine methods to sort out turf conflicts, called Scope of Practice, between health professionals in a more effective way. The Resolution points to a model program in Connecticut, that went into effect in 2011, that is viewed as “one of the most effective programs of its type in the nation.”
Hoffman’s Resolution notes that “some form of independent, nonpolitical scope of practice review committee would greatly enhance the ability of legislators to make the most informed and most prudent policy decisions when faced with matters so vital to the well-being of Louisiana's citizens as proposals affecting the scope of practice of our state's health professions.”
The Resolution also says that the need for this type of review committee is clear because of the “legislature's experience of recent sessions of considering high-profile and highly controversial scope of practice proposals affecting several health professions; …”.
It is not clear what issues these were, but both the medical and psychology boards were before the committee last year.
The measure also notes that the, “ … policymaking role occurs within an inherently political context; and WHEREAS, in taking up any prospective expansion, limitation, or other revision to a health profession's scope of practice, the legislature must evaluate numerous considerations, the most significant of which is the delicate balance between expanding access to care and ensuring patient safety; …”.
The effort will cover all healthcare professions, including addiction counselors; behavior analysts; marriage and family therapists; medical psychologists; mental health counselors; professional counselors, psychologists, social workers, and many others such as nurses, occupational therapists, physicians, physician assistants, and rehabilitation counselors.
Members of the task force are to include the secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals, chancellor of the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at New Orleans, chancellor of the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, dean of the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, dean of the Southern University School of Nursing, chief executive officer of the Louisiana Public Health Institute, director of the Louisiana State Law Institute, and others.
The 2011 Connecticut Act established a process for anyone wanting a change in scope of practice and would begin with written request submitted to the Department of Public Health.
The request or proposal would include an analysis, including a “plain language description of the request,” public health and safety benefits, review of impact on public access to health care, summary of relevant laws and current oversight, what are the expected impacts to current health care delivery system, health care trends, and other topics. The process then allows anyone impacted to respond in writing and a review panel would make recommendations to the legislature.
The Connecticut Psychological Association supported that state’s bill. President Dr. Christine Farber wrote that the state association supported any process marked by objectivity, transparency, and disclosure of information.
Dr. Jackie Mims (hidden, at microphone) and Dr. John Fanning (foreground) gave views in a previous legislative session.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 7.
The Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists published a notice that the board is accepting self-nominations from those wishing to serve on the Licensed Specialist in School Psychology Advisory Committee. Nominations are due by June 7. The position is for the term July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2019.
The current members of the Advisory Committee are Lucinda DeGrange, PhD, J. Steven Welsh, PhD, and Carmen Broussard, PhD. The opening comes from Dr. DeGrange completing her term this June.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 2.
Thinking outside of the box is sometimes not enough to create system-wide change. In 1981, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, working in a hospital in Perth, Australia discovered that ulcers were caused by the bacteria, H. pylori. This idea had the potential of improving the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, because 10 percent of us are going to suffer with ulcers sooner or later.
The news of a cure was not well received––no medical journal would publish their work. Totally frustrated, Marshall decided to do something unusual. Instead of his breakfast one morning, he chugged down a full glass of H. pyloria. Two days later he was sick as a dog, vomiting, nauseous, and with all the symptoms of gastritis, common precursor to ulcers. The endoscopic exam confirmed it––his stomach lining was inflamed and ripe for problems. A dose of antibiotic and bismuth cured him. Marshall and Robin eventually won the Nobel Prize for the discovery.
But it took well over a decade for the innovation to be fully accepted.
It also took physicians 25 years to stop x-raying pregnant women, even though the evidence was available that the procedure damage the babies.
It has taken decades for us to figure out if sunshine and D3 are essential. I first read the idea and proof in the 80s. Vitamin D3 is accepted finally, and in March an article in J. of Internal Medicine, in a study of 30,000 Swedish women, found avoiding the sun was as dangerous as smoking for life expectancy.
Pregnant women are today regularly warned to take adequate folic acid, something I knew 37 years ago because I was pregnant with our first child and knew how to use the library. Luckily I had a home-birth doctor who was a curmudgeon, and when I asked him about it, he said he had no idea, but I should “Do what you want to do, you’re going to anyway.” My mom and sister freaked however, since folic acid sounds like something that could eat through metal, rather than a B vitamin.
The chaos and change in health is calling for out of the box thinking and good problem-solving, at the individual, group and multi-group levels. But, health care seems to me especially prone to poor problem-solving. Last week the CMS announces its new bonus plans, presumably to shape behaviors of providers. They are starting with “eligible professions” –– physicians, physician assistants, and nurses. And, they have 900+ pages of rules.
This is not a formula for innovative problem-solving. Restricting who can create new approaches and then pouring hundreds of pages of regulations on things, including the possibility of being targeted by the enforcement arm of government when you try something novel, is sure to douse any spark of genius that slips through.
But we have to try and good people, some insightful Senators and a hopeful governor right now in our state, who want to make things better. But, I wonder about if these “task teams” and other efforts, and wish they might be designed for the quality outcomes our state really needs. So, I decided to give some tips:
1) Don’t create task teams of 10, or 15, and especially not 17 people. The task teams created by recent bills include lots of “stakeholders” and just the number and the hidden agendas would give them very little chance of being truly effective.
2) Make sure members know their problem-solving styles and check to see if your team is top-heavy (this is likely) in one style or the other, which means your solutions and even your problem- finding efforts will be skewed.
3) Train your team members in group and interpersonal skills. Make sure to help those who dominate the process or those who flee at the first sign of conflict, and especially those with hidden agendas.
4) Make sure your meeting schedule supports good thinking. Or does it cause mental and emotional fatigue, so that people give up, give in, or give thanks for the sugar the secretaries have brought in to poison everyone.
5) Consider a competent facilitator who can help deal with challenges, and who does not have an agenda. For complex groups this might be the only way.
If this sounds complicated, that’s because it is. We’ve got to find the right problems to solve, that includes innovation but doesn’t stop there. As W. Edwards Deming said, “It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best.”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 7.
In a 962-page regulation published April 29, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) propose “a new frame work for rewarding health care providers for giving better care, not just more care.”
The rule originates from the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) passed last year by Congress. The law offers certain eligible professionals a choice of payment models where they are rewarded for performance. These models are viewed by some to become guides for states and private insurance.
One of these models is the Merit-based Incentive Payment Systems, called MIPS. The other is the Alternative Payment Models or APMs. Reporting begins in 2017 and physicians will receive a composite performance score linked to bonuses and penalties, ranging from 4 percent in 2019 to 9 percent starting in 2022, according to sources.
“Eligible professionals” for the first two years of MIPS are: physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and nurse anesthetists.
For the third and succeeding years, other professionals become “eligible:” physical or occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, nurse midwives, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and dietitians/nutritionists.
The president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Steven Stack, said that the rules offer both opportunities and poses risks. The opportunities involve better rewards for improvements, and the risk is that regulatory approaches will drive “the alarming rate of physician burnout.”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 4.
Senator Troy Carter has put forth a bill that is pending in Committee, and which would dramatically change how results from forensic psychologists are used in court.
Among changes would be a prohibition that the judge “… read or consider any report prepared by a mental health professional, until such time that the report is duly admitted into evidence…” and “all parties have been allowed the opportunity to cross-examine the mental health professional in open court.”
Also in SB 461, “A mental health professional’s opinion on the credibility of a person shall not be admissible, …”. And, “A mental health professional shall not be permitted to testify to an opinion concerning the application of substantive law to the parties…” and other matters.
The Times asked forsensic psychologist Dr. Alan Taylor for his comment on the proposed legislation. Dr. Taylor has over 30 years of work in independent practice and 20 years of focus on family court issues. Dr. Taylor provided a review about SB 461, which we include here in full:
The proposed changes in Senate Bill 461 represent a rather thinly disguised attempt to undermine and reverse the progress of more than 50 years of establishing a model for family court that emphasizes a collaborative approach and partnership between legal and mental health professionals. This approach recognizes that family court is a distinctly different type of court more resembling a social service agency, with the goal of helping families through the divorce process in a way that minimizes conflict and promotes the best interests of the children and family as a whole. In this model the legal and mental health professions work together as colleagues to avoid the damage that is done by litigation.
The old adversarial model with a “win or lose” approach has long since faded into the background, but is still present in some family court systems and also in the mind of individual practitioners, primarily attorneys trained in the adversarial model.
Bill 461 represents some long-established rules and requirements that have been in place for years and are redundant and unnecessary. Primarily, because they are part of the standard ethical codes of all major professional organizations.
However, there are several proposed changes that are extremely serious in their potential impact on family court work. I will outline these below.
Section B would require that a child who is witness to or a victim of alleged domestic violence or child abuse, must provide testimony on the record in chambers to the court. Children should not automatically be required to testify for the following reasons:
• This is likely to be severely damaging to the child’s emotional well-being, since the testimony can precipitate damaging parental reactions.
• If the child is in therapy, their relationship with the therapist will be compromised and they will learn that mental health professionals are not to be trusted and cannot protect them.
• There are wide variations in children’s capability to testify and the court and the judge would be ill-suited in terms of sophistication or expertise in interviewing children as compared to mental health professionals.
• Section 8 of the proposal states that all parties shall have the right to access the entire file of the mental health professional regarding the case. The most common practice in many jurisdictions is to consider that the official custody evaluation report is considered to be “the file”. This report is submitted to the attorneys and the court with the opportunity for attorneys to cross-examine it and raise any questions that they have. Access to the entire file exposes the risk that information provided by the children will become available to the parents and this can produce damaging reactions. Children will learn that they cannot rely on the mental health professional to maintain confidentiality. Statements made by the parents can inflame an already hostile situation and shift the focus from resolving conflict to continued fighting, striking a serious blow to settlement prospects. The file then becomes something for the attorneys to fight over.
The custody evaluator is appointed by the court and is an officer of the court. They occupy the same neutral and objective status and the presumption of competence and ethics as does the judge. If there are serious issues, a complaint can always be made to the mental health professional’s board. Attorneys do not have to give up their “work product” or have their files examined – why should court ordered professionals have to do so?
• Part C2 of the proposed bill prohibits any type of contact between the mental health professional and the court. It is understood that particulars of the case should not be discussed privately in advance, but this proposal does not allow any discussion of procedural issues or clarification of questions that the judge may wish answered, and essentially keeps both sides operating “in the dark”, defeating the purpose of the evaluation.
• Section D of the proposed bill states that the absence of an arrest or official finding concerning abuse allegations shall not be considered as proof that the alleged conduct did not occur. While this statement is valid (and common sense), the opposite situation is not addressed. The most common problem is that allegations are raised for which no proof is ever offered, but the court “out of an abundance of caution” imposes severe penalties on the person whom the allegations have been made, without a trial or finding of guilt. Parents can wait for months or years under severe penalties when they have actually never had their day in court. The language in this section should address the equally serious problem of presuming a parent “guilty” without any previous official findings.
The above list of serious problems does not exhaust all of the problems with the bill. In general the bill is either almost entirely redundant or extremely dangerous in terms of limiting and sabotaging the ability of mental health professionals to conduct their roles in a professional manner.”
[Editors Note: Dr. Alan Taylor is presenting as part of a forensic psychologists panel this month at the Louisiana Psychological Association Annual Convention, discussing these and similar matters regarding family court.]
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 8.
Emily Jeffries and Austin Lemke, doctoral students of Dr. Julia Buckner and researchers at Bucker’s lab, Louisiana State University (LSU) Anxiety and Addictive Behaviors Laboratory, presented research at the 35th Annual Conference of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America. The Conference was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in early April.
Ms. Jeffries, coauthored with Dr. Buckner, Social anxiety and cannabis-related impairment: The roles of anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty.
Mr. Lemke, coauthored with Dr. Buckner, Social anxiety and drinking problems: The roles of drinking to manage negative and positive affect in social situations.
In a study of 220 individuals who use cannabis, Jeffries and Buckner found that “Intolerance of Uncertainty,” or IU, was correlated with cannabis problems. Men endorsed more cannabis problems than women, and social anxiety was indirectly related to problems through “Anxiety Sensitivity” and IU.
“Findings from our research,” said Jeffries, “suggest that social anxiety is associated with experiencing more cannabis-related problems among cannabis users. This relationship may be accounted for by anxiety-related vulnerability factors (i.e., intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety sensitivity). These vulnerability factors may be ideal factors to target in psychosocial treatments for individuals with social anxiety and cannabis-related impairment given that they are malleable through cognitive- behavioral interventions,” she said.
Lemke and Buckne looked at Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) and Positive and Negative Affect. Structural equation models showed that Negative Affect was positively related and Positive Affect negatively related to alcohol problems. Social anxiety was indirectly related to drinking problems.
“An important finding is that socially anxious individuals experience alcohol-related problems not only because of drinking to cope with high negative affect in social situations,” Lemke said, “but also because of drinking to cope with low positive affect in social situations.”
Ms. Jeffries is originally from Cincinnati, Ohio, and Mr. Lemke is from New Orleans.
Emilly Jeffries, doctoral student of Dr. Julia Buckner and researcher at Buckner’s Anxiety and Addictive Behaviors Laboratory at Louisiana State University, poses with her work. (Courtesy photo.)
Austin Lemke, student of Dr. Buckner, presented work at the Anxiety and Depression Association. (Courtesy photo.)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 5.
In a not so tongue-in-cheek title in the 2016-2017 Executive Budget released April 12, the authors tell readers, “Welcome to the Real World.” Then they explain that the past seven years of budgets were based on one-time money and false assumptions, and that this fiscal year the state will embrace reductions of nearly $750 million to government agencies.
The budget lays out cuts to DHH (Department of Health and Hospitals), of $408.7 million, to TOPS of $183.2 million, to higher education of $46.1 million and to corrections of $34.1 million. Also the budget lists cuts to the Judicial Branch of $15.9 million and to the Legislative branch of $7.3 million.
Other reductions are to come from the Executive Department with reductions of $14.5 million, Juvenile Justice is to be cut by $18 million, and the Department of Education by $52.4 million.
The report notes that there are no reductions in General Fund for Mental Health Advocacy, Military Affairs, Public Defender Board, Veterans Affairs, Ethics Administration, State Police Commission, or Board of Tax Appeals. Also, certain funding is required by the constitution, such as elections, textbooks, debt service to corrections, and general obligation debt, for examples.
The report’s authors note that the 2016 Extraordinary Session resulted in increased revenue forecasted to be $1,259,100,000. This resulted in anticipated cuts of 63 percent dropping to a much smaller reductions, authors say.
However, even with the boost in tax revenues, the authors summarize the 2016- 2017 budget authors title the bottom line, “The Harsh Reality.”
According to the Louisiana Budget Project, legislators are trying to find TOPS money, and there is a “standoff” at the Capitol over holding another special fiscal session. The Project reported that some lawmakers are resisting tax increases and others want deeper cuts in the state contracts.
Another session would have to come after the June 6 adjournment of the regular session, now in progress.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 9.
Dr. Melissa Bonnell, Dr. William (Gig) Costelloe, and Dr. Karen Slaton are among the presenters this year at the 3rd Annual Clinical Summit of the Louisiana Primary Care Association. The summit will be hosted along with the Louisiana Rural Health Association (LRHA) and held June 3-4, in New Orleans at the Downtown Marriott Convention Center. The theme is “Big Ideas in the Big Easy: Uniting Rural and Urban Providers.”
Drs. Bonnell and Slaton will present “Three Behaviors = Four Disease Processes = 50% of All Mortality: How to Help Patients Change the Big Three.”
Dr. Melissa Bonnell is with the Veterans Health Care System in New Orleans, and also a member of the Southern Pain Society. She works on interdisciplinary teams composed of anesthesiologists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, a pharmacist, nurses, and psychiatrists, to help veterans improve health and quality of life.
Dr. Karen Slaton is also a health psychologist at Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System. She is currently the Program Manager for Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology and serves as Health Behavior Coordinator in the Health Promotion and Disease Prevention program. At the VA, her clinical practice is in the area of primary care– behavioral health integration, chronic pain and integrated health.
Dr. Slaton noted, “This talk will describe three health behaviors (tobacco use, diet and inactivity) that contribute to four major chronic diseases (CVD, Type 2 DM, chronic lung disease and many cancers) which are responsible for 50% of global mortality,” she said. “Providers will be introduced to health coaching and will learn skills (mostly from motivational interviewing and problem solving) to help their patients change problematic behaviors.”
“… from my perspective,” Slaton said, “most patients want to be healthier—they just don’t have the knowledge, skills and confidence to become healthier. Providers can use skills from health coaching to help patients set goals that are in line with their core values which makes it much more likely that changes in behavior will occur.”
Dr. Bonnell explained, “… one thing I think to emphasize is that motivational interviewing (MI) allows healthcare providers to efficiently communicate with patients about their health goals and enhance treatment adherence. In the age of managed care and pressure to increase patient access, performance, and positive outcomes, having confidence in MI skills allows providers to meet the demands of the agency while still allowing the patient to feel heard.”
Dr. Gig Costelloe will also present at the primary care summit on Friday. He will talk about “Creating Effective Teamwork and Collaboration in Integrated Settings.” Dr. Costelloe is president of Costelloe & Associates in New Orleans and a licensed Industrial-Organizational Psychologist. He has consulted for 35 years to public corporations and businesses across the country, providing pre-employment assessment, team-building, employee surveys and other psychological tools for business and industry.
The Louisiana Primary Care Association (LPCA) is a non-profit state trade association whose purpose is to promote accessible, affordable, quality primary health care for the uninsured and medically underserved populations in Louisiana, noted Shannon Robertson, Clinical Education Coordinator.
The LPCA represents 34 organizations with over 170 health care sites, private non-profit and public FQHCs across Louisiana that serves more than 300,000 patients annually, she said.
Psychologists speaking at the conference are coordinated through the Speakers’ Bureau of the Louisiana Psychological Association, serving the public interest through psychological science.
Dr. Melissa Bonnell will be a speaker at the upcoming Louisiana Primary Care Association in June. She will speak on the “Three Behaviors = Four Diseases” that lead to 50 percent of deaths. She will be presenting with Dr. Karen Slaton. (Courtesy photo.)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 5.
Senate Bill 328 by Senator Dan Claitor, passed the Senate 34 to 0. The bill extend the options of communications in telehealth. The present law requires a physician practicing telemedicine to maintain a physical practice location in Louisiana or affirms that he has an arrangement for referrals with a physician in Louisiana. The proposed law repeals that requirement, allows for two- way video or audio interactions, and also requires rules not be more restrictive than the telehealth laws. HB 570, adding dietitians and nutritionists to those using telehealth methods, passed the House 91 to 0.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 7, No. 5. Source pages: 10.
Dr. lore dickey has accepted a new position, as Assistant Professor and Director of Training for the Counseling/School Combined Psychology PhD program at the Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona. A LaTech faculty member, Dr. dickey explained to the Times the move is happening this month. “I grew up in Arizona – so it is a going home of sorts for me–and a great move in my career,” dickey said.
Dr. dickey has 19 publications coming out in the next six to nine months, all on transgender issues, an area in which Dr. dickey is a national expert. One of the most recent is “Health Disparities in the Transgender Community: Exploring Differences in Health Coverage,” published in Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity.
Dr. dickey presented at an international conference in Valencia, Spain, last month, and will present at the World Professional Association for Transgender Health in Amsterdam in June, and also at the International Congress for Psychology in Yokohama, Japan, and at the American Psychological Association (APA) this year, dickey explained.
Dr. dickey has an edited book to be released in August, Affirmative Counseling and Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender- Nonconforming Clients,” published by the American Psychological Association.
Dr. dickey will have a book out in August, published by APA.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.