- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 29
Psyclops said:I am aware that they are allowed in Hawaii, New Mexico, the military, and if I'm not mistaken Louisianna? My concern is that RxP would take the field of clinical psychology down a path that would be detrimental and ultimately "ruin" (for lack of a better word) it. Correct me if I'm wrong but currently practitioners in the field enjoy the relative freedom of not having to pay enormous insurance costs, and are rarely if ever sued for malpractice. These are good things. Some have suggested that the field could benefit if there were some more suing going on, it would hasten the development of standards of care, etc. Personally I think it would be the most beneficial for everyone if the changes in the field came from within, an internally motivated impetus for developing things like standards of care, more effective treatment, cencorship of quacks, etc. But, if we take on the burden of RxP we will hasten in the era of legal (not legislative, i mean the attorneys) involvement. I think that would tear the field appart. I think the lawsuit filed in california (talked about on this site) is a bad idea and sets a bad precident. Beware of what happens when lawyers become involved. I also think that RxP will place demands on the practicioners to only prescribe. Forget about the detailed assessments, and therapeutic interventions. I've seen it with psychiatrists (again my personal observation, I know it doesn't hold in every case) and I would hate to be part of a profession that opperates like I've seen psychiatry work. You know, Thirty five 15min medchecks in an afternoon, and a couple of intake interviews that give someone a useless DSM code.
On another note, I am not an undergrad, nor do I think they have corner on the market of not making sense. Sorry if my last post was confusing.
Similar comments were made when RxPs were granted to optometrists in the 1980s and 1990s. Same thing when dentists were given full RxPs back in the 1950s and 1960s. Did it ruin those professions? No, in fact, it enhanced them and allowed them to grow and expand. It did change them, but it did not ruin them. Clinical psychology is going to have to change in order to survive managed health care and the ever expanding realm of psychopharmacology.
Why would any "sane" health insurance company pay a psychologist money to tallk to a patient, for an extended period of time, when it could simply pay for a magic pill and a 15 minute med review coupled with some therapy? If psychologists don't fight to protect their profession, or rather, strive to enhance their scope of practice, mid-level professionals, like LPCs or MSWs will try to do it. Think about it for a minute: (1) fewer and fewer med students (DO and MD) enter psych residencies each year; (2) more and FMGs fill the psychiatry void and provide poor services to patients; (3) more and more PAs and NPs are being produced by schools each year; (4) more and more MA/LPCs and MSWs are being produced every year; and (5) clinical psychology has to compete with a diverse group of skilled professionals.
What that means is this:
- fewer competent psychiatrists available
- more internists, OB-GYNs, peds, and FPs are Rxing psychotropics
- more NPs and PAs are treating psychiatric conditions
- more MSWs and LPCs are providing traditional counseling
If psychologists don't try to enhance their scope of practice and redefine their profession, others will and you'll be left in the dark. You can seize the opportunity and take advantage of these factors now before it's too late. If you don't, you'll see NPs, PAs, and eventually MSWs and even LPCs filling the void.