Any comments?

[DrFocker]

From the Psychologists RxP "newsletter":
Former Division President Mike Enright is truly a
> role model for the next generation of innovative practitioners as
> evidenced by his successful quest for prescriptive authority (RxP)
> through the process of obtaining his professional nursing degree. Ranger
> Mike, always on the cutting-edge of change: "The Nurses in Wyoming just
> passed a new practice act that will likely become the model for the
> country. We already had a good law but this new legislation eliminated
> the requirement for a plan for 'collaboration' with another 'health care
> provider.' Advanced practice RNs [APNs] in Wyoming are now totally
> autonomous providers. The law includes Clinical Specialists (like me) as
> well as Nurse Practitioners [NPs].
> "At a time when forces opposing prescriptive authority have
> convinced pharmacists in some states (i.e., Alabama, Kentucky, Nevada,
> New Jersey and Texas) to place the names of the 'Collaborating Physician"
> on the label of the prescription bottle instead of the prescribing APN,
> the Wyoming legislation is ground breaking. With the new nursing
> practice act this can't happen in Wyoming.
> "Wyoming APNs have had, and continue to have authority to
> prescribe controlled substances * another state by state battle
> ground. These are the scope of practice issues that must be addressed in
> the psychology prescriptive authority initiative. I can attest to the
> importance of being able to practice without hostile supervision and with
> a full formulary, since many of the conditions that I treat require
> Schedule II & III agents. I continue to believe that psychologists can
> learn important lessons from the experience of our nursing colleagues *
> especially in the area of writing legislation free from oversight or
> required 'collaboration' from state boards of medicine.> "Although I have not been active in APA over the past four years,
> I continue to be the lone behavioral health voice on the National
> Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services. It is vitally
> important to maintain a psychologically oriented professional at this
> level of policy debate and formulation. I hope this brief missive finds
> you well my friend. Keep your feet in the stirrups and your eye on the
> sky line. Ranger Mike." Not only is Mike a former President of our
> Division, he has also been a candidate for the office of APA
> President. A Karl F. Heiser Award winner in 1993, Mike will soon share
> that special honor with California legislative visionary and
> psychologist-Nurse Practitioner Ann Carson.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Anasazi23]

I just love the term "hostile supervision."
Sounds like fun

Appears as though psychologists don't like the prospect of lifelong pimping.

 

[PsyDRxPnow]

From the Psychologists RxP "newsletter":
Former Division President Mike Enright is truly a
> role model for the next generation of innovative practitioners as
> evidenced by his successful quest for prescriptive authority (RxP)
> through the process of obtaining his professional nursing degree. Ranger
> Mike, always on the cutting-edge of change: "The Nurses in Wyoming just
> passed a new practice act that will likely become the model for the
> country. We already had a good law but this new legislation eliminated
> the requirement for a plan for 'collaboration' with another 'health care
> provider.' Advanced practice RNs [APNs] in Wyoming are now totally
> autonomous providers. The law includes Clinical Specialists (like me) as
> well as Nurse Practitioners [NPs].
> "At a time when forces opposing prescriptive authority have
> convinced pharmacists in some states (i.e., Alabama, Kentucky, Nevada,
> New Jersey and Texas) to place the names of the 'Collaborating Physician"
> on the label of the prescription bottle instead of the prescribing APN,
> the Wyoming legislation is ground breaking. With the new nursing
> practice act this can't happen in Wyoming.
> "Wyoming APNs have had, and continue to have authority to
> prescribe controlled substances * another state by state battle
> ground. These are the scope of practice issues that must be addressed in
> the psychology prescriptive authority initiative. I can attest to the
> importance of being able to practice without hostile supervision and with
> a full formulary, since many of the conditions that I treat require
> Schedule II & III agents. I continue to believe that psychologists can
> learn important lessons from the experience of our nursing colleagues *
> especially in the area of writing legislation free from oversight or
> required 'collaboration' from state boards of medicine.> "Although I have not been active in APA over the past four years,
> I continue to be the lone behavioral health voice on the National
> Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services. It is vitally
> important to maintain a psychologically oriented professional at this
> level of policy debate and formulation. I hope this brief missive finds
> you well my friend. Keep your feet in the stirrups and your eye on the
> sky line. Ranger Mike." Not only is Mike a former President of our
> Division, he has also been a candidate for the office of APA
> President. A Karl F. Heiser Award winner in 1993, Mike will soon share
> that special honor with California legislative visionary and
> psychologist-Nurse Practitioner Ann Carson.

I believe that you had mentioned that you are receiving this information by masquerading as a Division 55 listserv member. This is not only unethical but it also reflects on your personality and your demeanor as a human being. I am saddened that one day a state might confide in you to hold confidentiality and entrust you with the treatment of vulnerable patients.

 

[meisteckhart]

I believe that you had mentioned that you are receiving this information by masquerading as a Division 55 listserv member. This is not only unethical but it also reflects on your personality and your demeanor as a human being. I am saddened that one day a state might confide in you to hold confidentiality and entrust you with the treatment of vulnerable patients.

Come on, play nice. If I remember correctly, this "graduate medical" forum is for MDs and DOs and you are a clinical psychologist. The situation may be slightly different, but I don't think DrFocker's interest in the RxP newsletter is quite enough for you to question his integrity or his ability to maintain the trust and confidentiality of his patients.

 

[DrFocker]

I believe that you had mentioned that you are receiving this information by masquerading as a Division 55 listserv member. This is not only unethical but it also reflects on your personality and your demeanor as a human being. I am saddened that one day a state might confide in you to hold confidentiality and entrust you with the treatment of vulnerable patients.

You really hurt my feelings with that. I'm sure the fact that you feel that you can safely prescribe potentially lethal medications to patients without a medical degree does not signify any Axis2 disorder in you. I'm sure it's entirely ethical to masquerade as a physician with a medical degree to your patients. After all, the lay public doesn't know the difference between a Psychiatrist and a Psychologist. Also, let's not forget the fact you're on a website for PSYCHIATRIC PHYSICIANS. Or, silly me, maybe I'm on the RxPing forum and got lost???

 

[50960]

Dr. F, I think that argument, although used consistently, simply holds no validity for psychologists, most "allied health" providers as well as legislators, because it never addresses the issue of the many different types of non MD providers who do prescribe safely and with tacit approval by organized medicine. If we lived in a world where only MDs prescribed, then that argument would be valid, but those days are LONG gone and not likely to return.

 

[DrFocker]

Dr. F, I think that argument, although used consistently, simply holds no validity for psychologists, most "allied health" providers as well as legislators, because it never addresses the issue of the many different types of non MD providers who do prescribe safely and with tacit approval by organized medicine. If we lived in a world where only MDs prescribed, then that argument would be valid, but those days are LONG gone and not likely to return.

True, and I disagree with that as well. However Nurses and PA's have anywhere from 4-6 years more training in a medical model than a potential Psychologist who is trained in a non-biological model. Lastly, I think Psychologists fill a certain niche that provides a valuable service to patients and research. It's sad to see the push of Psychologists for RxP in order to pocket more money seems to be an extreme disservice to patients because patients are losing a quality service for an inferior one. i.e. Prescribing rights with shockingly little training. Sadly, a 3rd year medical student could arguably more safely prescribe these therapuetics than a Psychologist getting their weekend Pharm degree. Oh well, I guess money talks in this world. If Psychologist's really wanted to provide a better service and expand the quality of care they can provide then there are plenty of medical schools and residencies that will train them. The simple fact is that it's much easier to line the pockets of some politician so the Psychologists can line their pockets in the future. Same thing happened in the 80's with the NP's. Again, I don't agree with the concept of an NP, but at least they're trained from day 1 in a medical model and most states require supervision. My experience with NP's at my program has not been a positive one and it's frustrating as a physician in training to see such poor quality care being given to patients in order to save a few bucks. Why go to residency and medical school to provide the best quality care, when the bottom line is all that matters? Sadly, I don't have the answer other than some old dumb idea that physicians are duty bound to protect their patients and provide the best care possible. Silly me.

 

[Anasazi23]

Dr. F, I think that argument, although used consistently, simply holds no validity for psychologists, most "allied health" providers as well as legislators, because it never addresses the issue of the many different types of non MD providers who do prescribe safely and with tacit approval by organized medicine. If we lived in a world where only MDs prescribed, then that argument would be valid, but those days are LONG gone and not likely to return.

This would make more sense if one didn't know the entire history behind the push for psychologists' prescribing. THEIR original billing was that they would prescribe WITH a physician, WITH oversight and guidance to UNDERSERVED populations. Now, they are looking to, without oversight, prescribe to children, elderly, use narcnotics, off-label drugs, and completely non-primary psychiatric medications. There is simply no justification for this.

This is just part of the reason for the building animosity between psychiatrists and psychologists. They feel that they're being had.

Predictably, they were given their proverbial inch and are now trying to take a mile.