This is pretty concrete evidence that CGO seems to be knocking down a straw man!
That's a little rude, but nonetheless ....
The law seems impressive, but the details show this to be less stringent. This law was written by RxPers. It is filled with impressive language that has a somewhat different reality behind it.
As has already been detailed, the education is online and it consists of a minimum of 400 clock hours - the equivalent of 8.8 semester courses - taken online. This would cover everything from the basics of biology, chemistry, physiology, to the prescription of meds for children with serious medical conditions. There is no provision for special populations, such as the elderly, children, persons with multiple medical problems, etc. In this online education, the tests can be easily passed because students can look up the answers online. Therefore, it would be hard to fail any of these courses. The only "accreditation" of this education is a sort of general approval by APA without any actual examination of the content or method of instruction.
Of course, the bill and the RxPers make the education sound very impressive, and those eager to believe will be impressed. I notice that RxP advocates are always talking about all the marvelous things this education covers, but one has to consider that this massive breadth is covered in the equivalent of 8.8-10 courses of three semester hours each. I think we call that a short-cut overview, not an education with depth.
For example, the "National Examination" sounds very impressive. It is actually one written by APA and whose passing score was set by APA, the organization that has spent millions lobbying to get more psychologists prescribing. It is not appropriate for a qualification exam to be written and supervised by a political organization that is biased towards passage.
The "continuing medical education" is a doozy: Act 251 requires that the prescribers purchase at lest 25 percent of their CE from LAMP, the political action committee (not a professional organization) run by RxP activists. As payment for that CE the psychologists have to make a $2,500 donation to LAMP's PAC. The CE are earned in the annual conference for LAMP and the contents of the CE are secret.
Approval by the Medical Psychology Advisory Committee sounds very impressive. The committee consists of LAMP members who are, obviously, highly biased towards allowing psychologists to prescribe. Their proceedings are secret so that we don't know how they actually approve people for prescribing. Some information that has leaked out says that physicians who collaborate with the psychologist-prescriber- candidates have performed so badly that physicians refused to sign off on them. However, that information is kept secret. That's another example of how the surface looks very impressive but the underlying reality is less so. It does, however, impress those who are eager to be impressed.
I don't mean to sound like I grow fatigued pointing out the reality behind the claims, but this could go on forever. Those who want to believe will do so and any information otherwise just won't matter. I write for those who are genuinely interested in learning other aspects of this campaign's proposals.
If you look at the Illinois law it tells a different story, which includes training criteria that are the current minimum - except for the dumbed-down APA model in LA and NM. Seven undergraduat courses in biology, physiology, etc. and with labs. This is almost as much as the entire APA RxP mode. Maybe some of these courses can be taken online by an accredited college or university, but certainly not the labs.
After that one takes 60 semester hours - 20 courses - of graduate study in a program accredited by a non-APA group, the independent organization that accredits PA programs. You'll notice that this is not just an in-house job run by psychologists. After that they are required to take a 14-month full-time practicum in a variety of medical settings. The NM and LA laws, and other proposals, allow psychologists to do their practicum in their own offices, treating a certain number of patients - one prescription for one patient would count.
When the IL law was passed, RxPers were very upset because in this state they would have to actually get the training that has long been considered appropriate, rather than training that is grossly inferior in quality and quantity. True, for appropriate training it would take about 6 years of full-time application, but I submit to my colleagues who can consider this objectively, maybe that's what it takes to prescribe such medications to all persons of all ages, all medical conditions and taking all types of other medications safely and effectively.
Also, I have to once again point out that there is not a scrap of empirical evidence that the NM or LA prescribers practice safely or effectively. Even though RxP seems very lucrative and can make one feel very powerful, health care is an applied science and our ethics require us to practice based on science. Lobbying does not ethically substitute for science.
I said as far as I know your statement isn't true. Maybe I should have said, "not completely true" or "not currently true?" You do not seem to be aware of how controversial the DPN degree has become, and that because of that controversy, the bolded part of the task force suggestion may never be implemented. I suggest reading the thread that T4C recommended. It explains this topic in more detail and explains why the whole topic of DPN is controversial amongst nursing professionals and nursing schools. Many in the nursing profession believe, like T4C described, that the DPN is degree inflation.
