Do psychiatrists provide psychotherapy?

Started by Sylvia06
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

@sluox Can you reconcile your statements regarding admissions privileges being the sole discretion of physicians with such court cases as CAPP v Rank, 1987?

I'm aware of this case. In theory, one might be able to carve out a legal pathway to admit patients without physician status. In practice, for better or for worse, there's no change since 1987.
 
I don't disagree with most of the things you are saying. However, the point remains: when there's no clear scope of practice, patients pick and choose based on credentialism.

OTOH, decisions re: hospitalization and more severe cases, is not just bureaucratic--it's primarily clinical--a decision that PhDs lack the training and scope of practice to make, as you well admitted--these decisions typically involve calculations that require medication involvement. The therapy bills from gathering the info necessary to make these decisions are therefore of a different nature. That was my original point. It has little to do with whether PhDs would be good at doing CBT with a psychotic patient.

I quoted you saying that psychologists don’t Work “well (if at all)” with Severe depression, bipolar disorder, suicidality, psychosis and I disputed your claim except for psychosis being the exception. Claiming later that you weren’t arguing that point doesn’t negate it.

Ultimately, it sounds like what you’re saying is that people’s biases will reflect their perception of psychotherapy competence as being superior in MDs regardless of level of training/expertise. Based on this thread, perhaps this bias toward the MD credential is (also)?occurring within psychiatrists.

I have yet to hear any specifics about the breakdown of hours of training in psychotherapy vs. other trainings in residency and how intensive it is (and how many psychotherapy clients one works with) so all I can gather is that it varies wildly and several psychiatrists I’ve encountered reported a lack of depth in psychotherapy training, with a couple of psychiatrists arguing that it’s extensive in this thread.

If anyone would like to provide specifics so I have a greater sample size of experiences to draw from, I’d like to see more. I’m also happy to share more details of PhD training, although I did provide a pretty long post about it for reference.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Ultimately, it sounds like what you’re saying is that people’s biases will reflect their perception of psychotherapy competence as being superior in MDs regardless of level of training/expertise. Based on this thread, perhaps this bias toward the MD credential is (also)?occurring within psychiatrists.

I have yet to hear any specifics about the breakdown of hours of training in psychotherapy vs. other trainings in residency and how intensive it is (and how many psychotherapy clients one works with) so all I can gather is that it varies wildly and several psychiatrists I’ve encountered reported a lack of depth in psychotherapy training, with a couple of psychiatrists arguing that it’s extensive in this thread.

You are correct on both accounts. The MD over PhD preference is, in essence, a recognition of prestige more than anything concrete. This is the same as credentialism in other domains. If you have two PhDs, one from Harvard, the other from not Harvard. The Harvard one will get paid more on average, despite the fact that the documented training appears exactly equivalent. Whether prestige reflects quality is a philosophical debate I'm not really interested in. I'm just giving you the hard facts.

To be fair: in general, my impression is that an FMG psychiatrist who went to a community residency program, is much less likely to build a cash therapy based practice than a PhD from a top program. So credentialism works both ways. There is a clear prestige ladder in this field, but that does not correspond necessarily in any material way to concrete training pathways or anything like that. Sometimes it does. Often it doesn't.
 
Did this thread devolve from a metaphorical "My dad is better than your dad" to a LITERAL ONE?!

#DaddyIssues

For example, severe depression, bipolar, suicide, psychosis, severe substance relapse, etc. PhDs frankly don't deal with these things well (if at all), and are not exposed to them in training.

LOL. Dude this is literally my job that I spent a decade in full time post-undergrad training for. Screw yourself.

You give people all the pills you want to stabilize symptoms in the present, while I sit over here and do the real work to facilitate long-term change and treatment progression.
 
LOL. Dude this is literally my job that I spent a decade in full time post-undergrad training for. Screw yourself.

You give people all the pills you want to stabilize symptoms in the present, while I sit over here and do the real work to facilitate long-term change and treatment progression.

One would hope that with a PhD you understand the difference between average and variance. I never implied that NO PhD does therapy with severe patients.
 
This was the point being made. There is not always a standardized metric for every goal and just throwing a standardized measure at a patient is not enough without appropriately tailoring the goal. When, based on goals, a PHQ-9 might be an appropriate metric use it. If it is not, don't. Sometimes you need to create your own metrics.

Then there's no argument here and no point to be made. I said I insist on using an appropriate metric so that my work is always data-informed. I never said I always use the same metric for all courses of therapy regardless of the goal (how stupid would that be? and how could anyone possibly have inferred that from my post?) so I think this conversation is closed.
 
This was the point of my thought experiment posted above.

Well that's pointless since nobody ever claimed that psychiatrists are the 'gold standard' for psychotherapy. Obviously a PhD psychologist has more training in this specific area than we do. I only said that I have *sufficient training to exercise a limited number of modalities competently.*

Given the vast sea of therapy woo out there, I'm having a hard time understanding why there is this desire to single out psychiatrists as uniquely undertrained.
 
One would hope that with a PhD you understand the difference between average and variance. I never implied that NO PhD does therapy with severe patients.

PhDs frankly don't deal with these things well (if at all), and are not exposed to them in training.

Ok sure, whatever.

You implied that in general, PhDs don't get this training or do this work. I am here to tell you that this is untrue and your understanding of our training is not correct.
 
Well that's pointless since nobody ever claimed that psychiatrists are the 'gold standard' for psychotherapy. Obviously a PhD psychologist has more training in this specific area than we do. I only said that I have *sufficient training to exercise a limited number of modalities competently.*

Given the vast sea of therapy woo out there, I'm having a hard time understanding why there is this desire to single out psychiatrists as uniquely undertrained.

It's because psychiatrists make (sometimes way) more and hence are a target of toxic liberalism's tendency to insist on everything being "equal". Enjoy being a progressive ;=)
 
In general. You are operating outside of the general. It doesn't mean it's "completely untrue".

Ok, let me simplify for you:

IN GENERAL, PhDs get trained in how to do this work

I am not operating outside of the general. My peers do this work too.

It's because psychiatrists make (sometimes way) more and hence are a target of toxic liberalism

Oh, boy, here we go...
 
I'm aware of this case. In theory, one might be able to carve out a legal pathway to admit patients without physician status. In practice, for better or for worse, there's no change since 1987.

So, you had material knowledge that directly contradicted your statement. And then made your statement knowing it was wrong?

Hint: Such laws are neither theoretical, nor limited to one state.

Come on. Play fair.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Most psychologists have never had inpatient exposure even during training.

Why would most need this very specific thing? There ain't an inpatient unit on every street corner and most patients don't get hospitalized. Also most inpatients aren't there long enough or appropriate enough for psychological treatment.

There's no game here. If you want to be a doctor, go to med school.

I am a Dr. It is on my license and wall and everything. My boss and patients call me Dr. too.
 
#DaddyIssues



LOL. Dude this is literally my job that I spent a decade in full time post-undergrad training for. Screw yourself.

You give people all the pills you want to stabilize symptoms in the present, while I sit over here and do the real work to facilitate long-term change and treatment progression.
But some psychiatrists are doing therapy also, not just slinging pills and y'all make fun of that too. Cognitive dissonance
 
  • Like
Reactions: tr
Plenty of people pay $500 a session weekly therapy, but portion of their cost is defrayed by out of network reimbursement, especially as there is a max out of pocket.

If you say so. That's way out there on the tail of the distribution for my market (major US city), though I'm sure a few of the big names can pull in that kind of fee.

The second point I'm fully aware, but on the economics side these innovations are actually WORSE for your practicing PhDs. The value of your service on the low end will diminish even more once things are either automated or outsourced.

The PhDs I personally know who are working in this space are licensed psychologists, but their roles in these ventures are owners, scientific officers, or other executives.
 
I'm not holding a differing opinion. It's not *just* my opinion. It's a prevalent opinion and market reality. In most markets, MDs who do both meds and therapy can typically charge more on a per session basis than someone who does only meds. OTOH, the system may end up saving money because the total outlay of cost may be actually lower than when you have MD managing meds and a PhD managing therapy. Secondarily, patients may prefer the former over the latter due to convenience, etc.

That said, the competing reality is that MDs typically get paid more by only doing med management. This then implies that on an individual basis, there's a push-pull between MDs who might want to do therapy to take a cut to do some therapy, and competing forces of PhDs who also want to do therapy. This leads to some MDs having larger therapy practices than others (presumably because they are better at it), and those who do are often getting paid even more for the therapy.
The competition is not just with PhD psychologists of which I only know a few in clinical psychology independent outpatient practice. It's with PsyD, lpc, life coach, msw, also. Many of which take insurance. So the competition is high
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The PhDs I personally know who are working in this space are licensed psychologists, but their roles in these ventures are owners, scientific officers, or other executives.

Right. Some psychologists are working on technology that will outsource away other psychologists' jobs. This is not good news no matter how you look at it.

This outsource/AI thing IMO in the therapy field is a much bigger problem than say in things like radiology. The thing that AI cannot take is liability. And therapists by design have little. This is a blessing and a curse.
 
So, consumer perception is "neither here nor there" but...

What are you trying to say?

What I'm trying to say is that given the market reality, if you are a top student and want to be a therapist and make a lot of money and are indifferent to prescribing medications and seeing sick patients in the ER, you should probably aim for a top medical school and top residency rather than a top PhD and a top internship.

If you are an average student, being at an average US based medical school, which typically guarnetee you a spot at a university based resdiency program, probably still trumps being at an average PhD program, though things start to be more ambiguous vs. top 5 PhD programs.

If you are talking about Caribean medical schools or being a frank FMG vs. clinical psychology, things are less clear cut, and the tradeoffs are already discussed. MDs with that background tend to end up doing very little therapy. They might do a little bit but will be taking a pay cut. The PhDs will have a large variance in terms of practice settings, but in general at that level they don't get paid very well at all, and it's debatable if the investment in time/effort is worth the PhD vs. master-level credentials.

Typically, the actual underlying question of "do psychiatrists provide psychotherapy" boils down to the above.
 
Last edited:
But some psychiatrists are doing therapy also, not just slinging pills and y'all make fun of that too. Cognitive dissonance

Agreed. Which is what this thread has been trying to figure out (with much difficulty)....What exactly that therapy practice looks like in your field, the training requirements, professional oversight and ethics, etc.

I plead the fifth. Take what you think is valuable. The rest is all trolling anyway.

Roger that. Appreciate the candor.
 
Roger that. Appreciate the candor.

The main issue that you and I both know is that PhDs just didn't protect their turf well, and therapy is a harder turf to protect than meds or even meds + therapy. And since meds in general move faster than therapy, it's a present and future problem. MDs are one CME away from cutting edge meds that NPs don't know what to do with. Therapy is full of woo woo and many therapists don't even believe in science. I don't have an answer for you but cutting down on the number of slots and centrally manage labor supply would help. However, nobody is willing to do this.
 
What exactly does progressive ideology or toxic liberalism have to do with turf wars in healthcare?

sluox is making fun of me for being a bleeding heart liberal. Carry on, I wear my ideology proudly.
Don't worry sluox, I'm doing four-figure teleconsults on the side, so I can easily support my bleeding-heart Medicare psychotherapy habit. 😉
 
Last edited:
What I'm trying to say is that given the market reality, if you are a top student and want to be a therapist and make a lot of money and are indifferent to prescribing medications, you should probably aim for a top medical school and top residency rather than a top PhD and a top internship.

100% agree. This is what I typically tell people interested in a "therapy" career, and is not inconsistent with anything else I wrote above.

Right. Some psychologists are working on technology that will outsource away other psychologists' jobs. This is not good news no matter how you look at it.

Time will tell. I don't see much evidence for this so far.

As for mHealth, the people in my network who are involved in these ventures are mostly working in niche areas (pain, behavioral medicine) that most psychologists in the community are poorly equipped to deal with. They're marketing to therapists (as tools to use in their practice rather than to duplicate their work), and also to pharma and healthcare institutions.
 
There is a downward spiral for both prescribing and psychotherapy which has to do with the ongoing battle of healthcare/provider costs vs quality. Rxp psychologists, NPs, PAs all prescribe. Physicians have done a much better job of protecting their turf than psychology. I would argue that a solid scientist-practitioner program (PhD or PsyD) is probably the gold standard base for psychotherapy training today. Now we have done a terrible job of marketing this as a field. Following WWII where psychologists started to use psychotherapy and the explosion of psychopharmacology in the 1950s and 1960s, psychiatry began a slow march away from psychotherapy and psychology picked up the ball (and then poorly defended it).

Lack of innovation in psychotherapy is not as large of a problem as whackadoodle stuff has been, Supportive hand-holding is compensated the same a evidence-based psychotherapy by an expert. A consumer has a hard time knowing what therapy is good and effective, but everyone knows what Paxil is.

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread, but I think @Sanman posted a summary of the crux of the issue for two sides of this conversation, which I'll try to restate and summarize for my own take away:

1. Are psychiatrists practicing to the "gold standard" of psychotherapy? Some, perhaps, but from the sounds of it their training is at best comparable to master's level counselors (and there is significant doubt as to whether or not this is true). In other words, if we were to look at the distribution of quality/quantity of training in psychotherapy practice for MDs, the mean would probably be below that of an LICSW or LMHC and the SD would probably be larger.

2. There is not currently a professional organization that is effectively protecting the compensation-for-quality of psychotherapy in the same way the AMA/ApA has and continues to protect psychiatric prescription privileges. The consequence of this is that insurance will compensate PhD, MD or LICSW at roughly the same rates.

100% agree. This is what I typically tell people interested in a "therapy" career, and is not inconsistent with anything else I wrote above.
If the questions is "I'm interested in a 'therapy' career and want to get the highest quality training I can in providing effective therapy, what should I do?" Then, to my mind, the answer is PhD. This is the conclusion I came to before I decided about graduate training, after having a number of candid conversations with professionals in medicine, social work, and psychology.
 
Last edited:
sluox is making fun of me for being a bleeding heart liberal. Carry on, I wear my ideology proudly.
Don't worry sluox, I'm doing four-figure teleconsults on the side, so I can easily support my bleeding-heart Medicare psychotherapy habit. 😉

Jeez, if that makes you a bleeding heart liberal, what am I...you just described my full-time job for the last decade or so.
 
This thread is missing the point that psychotherapy is not the sole source of income for many psychologists. Arguing that a Ph.D. "isn't worth it" when compared to a master's degree just on the premise of low insurance reimbursements for psychotherapy ignores that fact. From what I've seen, most people on this forum tell people who want sole therapy careers to get an MSW.
 
If the questions is "I'm interested in a 'therapy' career and want to get the highest quality training I can in providing effective therapy, what should I do?" Then, to my mind, the answer is PhD. This is the conclusion I came to before I decided about graduate training, after having a number of candid conversations with professionals in medicine, social work, and psychology.

I used to think more along these lines.

Over time, I've seen psychologists in the community doing dubious things despite having trained at reputable programs. And I've befriended psychiatrists who appreciate psychotherapy and take it upon themselves to learn more to enhance their skills. Also, I've come to appreciate that expectancies are incredibly powerful, and having a credential that elicits strong positive expectancies is an underappreciated asset. Finally, I want people to have lots of career options and to do well for themselves.

All those things considered, I encourage most people interested in clinical careers to strongly consider medicine unless they just have no interest at all in any other aspects of the profession. For people who want careers that look more like mine (half-time clinical or less), or traditional academic careers, I'm more likely to steer them toward psychology. But I'm very cautious in any case, because clinical psychology is an evolving field, riddled with problems, and we can't agree on the solutions even at pretty basic levels. I feel it is the responsible thing to do to be cautious before recommending it as a career.

For what it's worth, I agree that we're better trained in behavioral therapies, but the field has been very slow to demonstrate the value of that enhanced training, and healthcare delivery systems aren't going on any fact-finding missions on our behalf.
 
Also, I've come to appreciate that expectancies are incredibly powerful, and having a credential that elicits strong positive expectancies is an underappreciated asset. Finally, I want people to have lots of career options and to do well for themselves.

Couldn't agree more with what you've said. I think an interesting question -- perhaps to discuss in another thread -- is how to magnify positive expectancies for psychologists. A big part of the reason I dress the way that I dress is I think it contributes to my patients' positive expectancies.

All things being equal (intervention, provider personality, patient condition, etc.), for most citizens of developed nations, an MD is going to produce more positive change in mental health outcomes than any other credential (psychologist, counselor, etc.) due to those positive expectancies. I think a large part of that is the protection of "turf" that MDs get so criticized for -- they've been able to prevent their professional credential from being watered down by sub-standard training and competence. It's about more than just "turf" or billing or privileges, because perception actually impacts patient outcomes, and for that reason alone it should be really important to our field.
 
Personally, I did not go to a psychotherapy oriented residency. I did, however, look up some places that seem to be more invested in therapy training for psychiatrists. Their websites actually had some specific information about what training looks like if you're interested:

 
Agreed. Which is what this thread has been trying to figure out (with much difficulty)....What exactly that therapy practice looks like in your field, the training requirements, professional oversight and ethics, etc.



Roger that. Appreciate the candor.
The state medical board oversees us. Just like the Psychology Board monitors RxPs. I choose CME's that have therapy. Sometimes there are CME's so I just do CE's that therapists do. Its for knowledge then. but not credit for my State Board. My state board is 150 CME in 3 years.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Couldn't agree more with what you've said. I think an interesting question -- perhaps to discuss in another thread -- is how to magnify positive expectancies for psychologists. A big part of the reason I dress the way that I dress is I think it contributes to my patients' positive expectancies.

All things being equal (intervention, provider personality, patient condition, etc.), for most citizens of developed nations, an MD is going to produce more positive change in mental health outcomes than any other credential (psychologist, counselor, etc.) due to those positive expectancies. I think a large part of that is the protection of "turf" that MDs get so criticized for -- they've been able to prevent their professional credential from being watered down by sub-standard training and competence. It's about more than just "turf" or billing or privileges, because perception actually impacts patient outcomes, and for that reason alone it should be really important to our field.
Our "turf" is being invaded by midlevels and psychologists.
And I know when to refer patients, and certainly all patients don't like the therapy I give, just like for anyone.
I refer to psychologists only, and ones that I have worked with.
 
Personally, I did not go to a psychotherapy oriented residency. I did, however, look up some places that seem to be more invested in therapy training for psychiatrists. Their websites actually had some specific information about what training looks like if you're interested:


It's not a coincidence that these institutions also house very strong psychotherapy research programs. Note that over half of the advisory committee for the Penn residency's psychotherapy track are psychologists.
 
Citation?

Same citation as the admitting privileges statement. Made up from someone who makes statements despite material knowledge to the contrary


The state medical board oversees us. Just like the Psychology Board monitors RxPs.

I think the LA medical board would be surprised to learn that that don’t oversee RxPers.
 
Same citation as the admitting privileges statement. Made up from someone who makes statements despite material knowledge to the contrary




I think the LA medical board would be surprised to learn that that don’t oversee RxPers.
In Illinois, it's psychology board.
Whats it in New Mexico and the other states?
 
Internship (the final year before graduation) is closely monitored and has the highest level of supervision of all years, typically, except for maybe postdoc For some. My internship had 2 individual hours of supervision per week that included playing audio tapes, 2 group hours of supervision Per week, supervision of supervision 2x/month, diversity Group 2x/month (somewhat didactic but we also played our therapy tapes there), supervision with our clinical director 1x/month, etc. It wasn’t uncommon for me to play 2-3 tapes of my sessions per week. This was on top of didactic trainings and psychotherapy I provided every day/week (And other minor activities that were required, including a test battery and two case conceptualization papers and presentations, etc.). That was the most intensive supervision I’ve ever had in my life, but I still had another year of supervised practice (via postdoc) before I was eligible to be licensed.

There is some variability, but it won’t vary greatly given APA’s standards.

How many psychotherapy patients were you seeing during the week?