A MATURING VIEW OF COLLEAGUES

It is important to consider how those outside our field perceive psychology.  For some time, Chuck Faltz of the California Psychological Association (CPA) has emphasized that collectively, we must act to form new political alliances, and especially those which focus upon mutually shared agendas.  Our profession's advocacy agendas will increasingly have to be done collaboratively, taking into account the specific goals of each of the stakeholders who have formed the alliance.  To be successful, this new way of participating in the political process will take leaders who are collaborative in nature and who have strong negotiating and communications skills, as well as, most importantly, a vision of the future of professional psychology.

From time to time, however, a vocal subset of our membership has urged their State Association to aggressively oppose efforts by other professions to expand their scopes of practice, often proffering a "public health hazard" argument.  Perhaps we have forgotten our frustrations when organized medicine took this same approach with our clinicians.  At our San Diego convention, former APA President Bill McKeachiereflected upon how when he first came to theUniversity of Michigan, their medical school had sought to close the psychology clinic, allegedly for "practicing medicine."  Another former APA President Ron Fox has noted on a number of occasions, that these efforts to constrain other professions are expensive and in the long run, simply do not work.  In today's ever changing health care environment, we must have the vision to work collaboratively with others to expand psychology's clinical presence by affirmatively demonstrating how our services can benefit patients.

            A report submitted to the Congress by the Department of Defense (DoD) this Spring should be illustrative.  In response to a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181), DoD was directed to contract with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences or another similarly qualified independent academic medical organization to conduct an independent study of the credentials, preparation, and training of individuals practicing as "licensed mental health counselors" and to make recommendations regarding permitting members of this profession to practice independently under the TRICARE program.

            Subsequently, IOM made the following recommendations regarding training and licensure requirements:  * A master's or higher-level degree in counseling from a program in mental health counseling or clinical mental health counseling that is accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs.  * A state license in mental health counseling at the "clinical" or the higher or highest level available in states that have tiered licensing schemes.  * Passage of the National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination.  And, * A well-defined scope of practice for practitioners.  DoD found these recommendations to be in accordance with expectations for education, training, and supervised experience for other health care providers permitted independent practice in the TRICARE program.  The IOM's report was felt to be important in clarifying the components of professional education critical to safety and effectively assessing and treating Service members and their families.  DoD concluded: "We believe that the findings of this study provide solid guidance to the Department to propose changes to regulation and policy to allow for the independent practice of licensed mental health counselors in the TRICARE program."  Unprecedented change is definitely on the horizon.  Those who recall the past will see the similarities with psychology's initial recognition under the DoD CHAMPUS program.  Aloha,

 

Pat DeLeon, former APA President – Division31 – September, 2010