APA and other professional orgs

[WisNeuro]

---

Members don't see this ad.

For everyone still not a member of APA and other advocacy orgs, they are the reason that telemedicine for MH has been able to be rolled out so quickly and still reimbursed, whether by video chat or telephone. If you were looking for a reason to get back on the train, this is it. These people have been working around the clock to tackle practice related issues, as well as issues related to licensure, training, and everything else that affects us as psychologists. We're also doing quite a bit at the state levels to work with licensing boards to inform them of pertinent issues they will see in licensing in the next couple years. If there ever was a reason to join APA and your state boards, seeing how great they've responded to this crisis should be the only reason you need. So, put your money where it can help protect your career and get involved, at least at the membership level.

Practice resources in response to COVID-19

Information from APA on COVID-19 and its impact on professional practice.

www.apaservices.org

 

[Action_Potential]

For everyone still not a member of APA and other advocacy orgs, they are the reason that telemedicine for MH has been able to be rolled out so quickly and still reimbursed, whether by video chat or telephone. If you were looking for a reason to get back on the train, this is it. These people have been working around the clock to tackle practice related issues, as well as issues related to licensure, training, and everything else that affects us as psychologists. We're also doing quite a bit at the state levels to work with licensing boards to inform them of pertinent issues they will see in licensing in the next couple years. If there ever was a reason to join APA and your state boards, seeing how great they've responded to this crisis should be the only reason you need. So, put your money where it can help protect your career and get involved, at least at the membership level.

Practice resources in response to COVID-19

Information from APA on COVID-19 and its impact on professional practice.

www.apaservices.org

Could not agree more. They and ABPP have (almost) single-handedly saved a few years’ worth of psych trainees and interns, as well. If there has been any compass in the listserv flurry of anxiety, it has been leaders within APA divisions and council.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

What is their stance on torture and interrogation via tele-services? Can this be billed with the appropriate modifiers?

 

[WisNeuro]

What is their stance on torture and interrogation via tele-services? Can this be billed with the appropriate modifiers?

You can hold on to this, let it be the hill you die on, or you can contribute in some way. Run for executive posts, participate in governance, anything. Far too often people have complaints, but do absolutely nothing, aside from bitching about it. Do something. Or, let apathy take over and be part of the problem that chips away at our scope and reimbursement year by year.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I am still holding onto this. It was just a few years ago.

I agree with you we need to be active, but this particular org has made it hard on themselves.

I have chosen to contribute my time and money more directly at the local and state levels lately in addition to some smaller national organizations.

 

[WisNeuro]

Local and state are great to be active in, kudos. But, APA is the one with the actual clout in terms of helping to guide decisions. Psych testing was going to be absolutely crushed in terms of reimbursement changes without their work in the last go round. I've been more than happy with how people like Tony Puente handled things regarding the fallout from the torture scandal. So, we can all hold this against people in APA governance who had nothing to do with it, and put our money into the most effective advocacy vehicle we have, or we can collectively clutch our pearls smugly as our profession continues to lose clout and reimbursement to other professions who actually put their money where their mouths are.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

It seems that the people defending or supporting APA are mentioning all the practice related advances. However, I haven’t seen much reason to support APA if I am science focused. I think the Practice Guidelines, while not perfect, were a big advance. But beyond that not much.

I am one of the people that tried to be involved for the past year. I became a member for the first time. However:

I went to my first APA conference and was surprised by the lack of interest in science.

I tried supporting someone for president and that didn’t go anywhere.

CoA is still a mess. Let’s not forget that the Argosy debacle happened just about a year ago.

APA appears to be putting more interest in social justice than science.

And some may be able to dismiss the torture scandal. However, I haven’t seen much to indicate that the factors that led to this problem aren't still imbedded in APA.

So I am glad that APA has done a lot during this pandemic. And I am happy that APA has made advances in protecting reimbursement rates. All these are guild issues and I think that part needs to be underscored.

 

[PsyDr]

It seems that the people defending or supporting APA are mentioning all the practice related advances. However, I haven’t seen much reason to support APA if I am science focused. I think the Practice Guidelines, while not perfect, were a big advance. But beyond that not much.

I am one of the people that tried to be involved for the past year. I became a member for the first time. However:

I went to my first APA conference and was surprised by the lack of interest in science.

I tried supporting someone for president and that didn’t go anywhere.

CoA is still a mess. Let’s not forget that the Argosy debacle happened just about a year ago.

APA appears to be putting more interest in social justice than science.

And some may be able to dismiss the torture scandal. However, I haven’t seen much to indicate that the factors that led to this problem aren't still imbedded in APA.

So I am glad that APA has done a lot during this pandemic. And I am happy that APA has made advances in protecting reimbursement rates. All these are guild issues and I think that part needs to be underscored.

Federal Funding for Psychological Research

APA Services advocates for robust and predictable funding of scientific research at the federal science agencies.

www.apa.org

 

[WisNeuro]

It seems that the people defending or supporting APA are mentioning all the practice related advances. However, I haven’t seen much reason to support APA if I am science focused. I think the Practice Guidelines, while not perfect, were a big advance. But beyond that not much.

I am one of the people that tried to be involved for the past year. I became a member for the first time. However:

I went to my first APA conference and was surprised by the lack of interest in science.

I tried supporting someone for president and that didn’t go anywhere.

CoA is still a mess. Let’s not forget that the Argosy debacle happened just about a year ago.

APA appears to be putting more interest in social justice than science.

And some may be able to dismiss the torture scandal. However, I haven’t seen much to indicate that the factors that led to this problem aren't still imbedded in APA.

So I am glad that APA has done a lot during this pandemic. And I am happy that APA has made advances in protecting reimbursement rates. All these are guild issues and I think that part needs to be underscored.

PsyDr took care of some of the psych research stuff. APA does SIGNIFICANT amount of lobbying for more research funding, so that point is largely moot. As for the social justice focus, it's press releases, and ones that tend to get a lot of play because the right outragesphere likes to hype them up, the vast majority of the funding is spent on trying to secure funding for psychologists (research and reimbursement) as well as protecting scope. I'd urge some of you to actually talk to those currently or recently in governance about how things actually work within APA on the advocacy side. You might learn something.

 

[Peacemaker36]

Totally agree with this. APA and state associations have more than earned their dues this year. Membership is optional but strongly encouraged. Please pay your dues!

 

[Justanothergrad]

Yup. They'll earn them for the next 10 years if they make a strong and successful push after this to support expanded telehealth options and help to increase license portability between states.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yup. They'll earn them for the next 10 years if they make a strong and successful push after this to support expanded telehealth options and help to increase license portability between states.

We're currently working on this in our state. We'd like to see this carried forward. Biggest hurdle, aside from keeping a similar telehealth billing option open, is making sure that insurers don't tank reimbursement for the services, otherwise they are technically voided out anyway for many. We've already introduced the PSYPACT legislation to our state assembly.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

PsyDr took care of some of the psych research stuff. APA does SIGNIFICANT amount of lobbying for more research funding, so that point is largely moot.

I highly disagree.
Lobbying for research funding is categorically different than supporting a scientific approach to understanding human behavior or science-based interventions. For example:

Energy Therapies

Energy Psychology: An APA-Endorsed Pseudoscience | Center for Inquiry

Energy therapies like Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, and Qigong claim they can make wounds heal quicker and remove carpal tunnel pain. Energy Psychology claims it has similar outstanding benefits. But is that the truth?

centerforinquiry.org

I constantly receive ads for CE workshops approved by APA that are almost nonsense.

The continued support, even in the practice guidelines, for eye movements (I understand that EMDR works but the eye movements at the moment appear to be pseudoscience).

I understand that no one is ever fully happy with the APA. We each have our personal beliefs about the field. I am also not trying to minimize the important work APA has done, especially in the past month. I am simply trying to highlight that my pet issue - science advocacy and literacy - does not seem to be a primary focus of APA.

As for the social justice focus, it's press releases, and ones that tend to get a lot of play because the right outragesphere likes to hype them up,

Again I disagree. I believe one of the reasons that many programs are considering dropping APA is due to an inflated emphasis on social justice rather than science. Take a look at the presidential statements and you can see the lack of discussion about science yet an underscoring of social justice. While this may all be just talk but talk tends to lead to policy eventually.

I'd urge some of you to actually talk to those currently or recently in governance about how things actually work within APA on the advocacy side. You might learn something.

That is the real problem, I have done this. I spent the past year talking to people on all sorts of committees. My concerns about APA's lack of scientific emphasis have only grown in that time. Again, this is not to say that scientifically-minded individuals don't hold positions or don't promote science within APA. It is not black and white.

Simply put, until APA scrubs the super pseudoscience from their system and takes a science-based approach to training and interventions I will have a hard time supporting them. I am more than happy to applaud their advances on guild-related issues.

 

[futureapppsy2]

As someone whose research involves primarily marginalized populations, I will point out that "social justice" and "research"/"scientific approaches to human behavior" are not mutually exclusive

 

[WisNeuro]

Simply put, until APA scrubs the super pseudoscience from their system and takes a science-based approach to training and interventions I will have a hard time supporting them. I am more than happy to applaud their advances on guild-related issues.

There are definitely some issues, however, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Psychologists have the same issues that democrats have, they hold us these BS ideological purity tests, where if we can find anything wrong, we're ready to jettison the whole thing to satisfy our desire to do nothing but still be able to complain about things.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

As someone whose research involves primarily marginalized populations, I will point out that "social justice" and "research"/"scientific approaches to human behavior" are not mutually exclusive

Definitely not and I apologize if my wording came off that way.

Though, I think I saw you post about this in a previous thread (or maybe someone else) that there is a lot of poor science in social justice research. Furthermore, I think social justice is an important issue. I am only worried when social justice issues supersede scientific understanding of how the world works (e.g., there are not biological differences between men and women outside of anatomy and some physical features, the group differences in IQ debate).

 

[DynamicDidactic]

There are definitely some issues, however, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Psychologists have the same issues that democrats have, they hold us these BS ideological purity tests, where if we can find anything wrong, we're ready to jettison the whole thing to satisfy our desire to do nothing but still be able to complain about things.

I definitely see what you are saying and I also dislike armchair quarterbacks. The problem is that there are a lot of psychologists that are not impacted by reimbursement rates and scope of practice. While I support those issues and think they are important, they are not my primary concern. Really, that is the crux of the problem in psychology, we are a heterogeneous bunch.

I think the problem could be mitigated at the training level. Currently, APA supports a pluralistic approach to training. If it clamped down on non-science based training then in a generation or two we would see much less of the issues that bother me. I am not against getting exposure to other approaches but science-based understanding and treatment should be the standard.

 

[WisNeuro]

I definitely see what you are saying and I also dislike armchair quarterbacks. The problem is that there are a lot of psychologists that are not impacted by reimbursement rates and scope of practice. While I support those issues and think they are important, they are not my primary concern. Really, that is the crux of the problem in psychology, we are a heterogeneous bunch.

I think the problem could be mitigated at the training level. Currently, APA supports a pluralistic approach to training. If it clamped down on non-science based training then in a generation or two we would see much less of the issues that bother me. I am not against getting exposure to other approaches but science-based understanding and treatment should be the standard.

That's fine and dandy, and I agree for the most part. But, far too many people are sitting back and saying "I'll join once X, or Y, or Z." In the meantime, not actually doing anything of substance to help the field. And in the end, due to this apathy and lack of skin in the game, those people will still be waiting as Psychology as a whole keeps losing to other more widely organized, and better funded organizations. All those people can sit smugly on the hills they wanted to die on while the profession slowly bleeds out.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

How much do you think non-involvement with helping out the field is generational (i'm not sure that is the best way to describe it)? I guess what I have observed is a bimodal distribution based on length of time in the field (very new and very old).

Is this similar to other fields?

 

[WisNeuro]

How much do you think non-involvement with helping out the field is generational (i'm not sure that is the best way to describe it)? I guess what I have observed is a bimodal distribution based on length of time in the field (very new and very old).

Is this similar to other fields?

There is a portion that may be generational. State psych associations in general for psych are seeing yoy decline. We also work with some other healthcare state associations that see a similar trend. However, anecdotally, psychology tends to see lower participation rates and steeper declines than some others. Not sure if this is a wider trend or not, just what we see with the several that we work closely with.

 

[Rivi]

I’ve renewed my dues. APA has done well recently.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Definitely not and I apologize if my wording came off that way.

Though, I think I saw you post about this in a previous thread (or maybe someone else) that there is a lot of poor science in social justice research. Furthermore, I think social justice is an important issue. I am only worried when social justice issues supersede scientific understanding of how the world works (e.g., there are not biological differences between men and women outside of anatomy and some physical features, the group differences in IQ debate).

Well, there's a lot of poor research across the board, and as someone who reviews a lot of both non-SJ and SJ-focused research, I would say that SJ-focused research is no worse off than non-SJ-focused research. I've loved studies from both and ripped apart studies from both. SJ research often challenges assumptions, but that's because these assumptions are often empirically questionable (e.g., assuming that if a measure was valid in the 85% White, middle-class college student norming sample, it's valid for everyone). For example, we've done measurement research on adults with different types of disabilities, and we found that a lot of seemingly "gold-standard" self-report measures didn't produce meaningful data in those populations because the language or format was inaccessible or the questions assumed baseline lack of disability.