Illinois passes bill allowing psychologists to prescribe medications

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Well regarding "skillset", I think NPs can provide a very valuable service to primary care and mental health. I have had very favorable interactions with them at the workplace and as a patient myself. Despite the arrogance of their leaders, most NPs I have worked with tend to recognize when they are in over their head. At times they don't know what they don't know (which can sometimes be scary when they do not have supervision).

The fact that many states grant full prescribing privileges to NPs, places them in a position where they can be taken advantage of by others ie. companies, corporations that will hire them and expect them to take on the responsibility of a fully trained psychiatrist at a discounted rate. I think many NPs if given the choice would prefer to take on easy-moderate complexity cases and refer more complex patients to PCPs and Psychiatrists.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Well regarding "skillset", I think NPs can provide a very valuable service to primary care and mental health. I have had very favorable interactions with them at the workplace and as a patient myself. Despite the arrogance of their leaders, most NPs I have worked with tend to recognize when they are in over their head. At times they don't know what they don't know (which can sometimes be scary when they do not have supervision).

The fact that many states grant full prescribing privileges to NPs, places in a position where they can be taken advantage of by others ie. companies, corporations that will hire them and expect them to take on the responsibility of a fully trained psychiatrist at a discounted rate. I think many NPs if given the choice would prefer to take on easy-moderate complexity cases and refer more complex patients to PCPs and Psychiatrists.

well first if I'm a complex psych pt I would much prefer to be treated by a psych np than a pcp. It's not even close imo.

But it's interested that you use the term 'discounted rate'. When a for profit agency hires a practitioner(be it a psych np or a psychiatrist), they expect them to produce enough billings/collections to cover their salary and then some(for profit for them to assume the risks of them being a salaried employee). Same concept applies to a large extent at cmhcs(although sometimes there are certain regulations that need to be met for the facility as a whole). If i'm an agency director and I'm paying my psych np 90k and my psychiatrist 180k, the psychiatrist needs to see 65-70% more pts per hour under the same billing codes to make things equal(after the 100/85 split is taken into account).....

people on both sides of these issues tend to make emotional or moral arguments, but that's not the issue. It's just a cold hard issue of billing and collections.
 
What is the 100/85 split exactly?

On another note, maybe the NP topic warrants a new thread?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So I see you started a new thread. Good.
Back to OP.
Where are the psychologists who were on this thread?
Come on guys.
 
I just ran across this thread. The Illinois Senate passed a bill early this year and it went to the House where it hit a brick wall. The advocates could not get it out of committee even after they changed committees abruptly, and there was overwhelming opposition to it on the floor. Illinois has a two-year cycle so the bill can come back around in the spring of 2014. The success in the Senate is the result of the efforts of one senator, the president pro tem, who put all his power and influence behind it. Otherwise it wouldn't have stood a chance, just as such bills have failed completely since 1998. Anything can happen in legislatures, but this bill still has a steep uphill fight.

While I have met persons who favor RxP and who are ethical and professional, the campaign for RxP in Illinois has distinguished itself for its grossly unprofessional conduct. This shameful campaign of deception, threats, intimidation, secrecy, and dirty politics is completely necessary to pass this bill. The vast majority of those psychologists who are allowed to see the details of the bill find it to be unacceptable. This is why the proponents run at the speed of sound from any risk of debating, discussing or even answering questions about the bill or their tactics in a public forum they cannot completely control. How unfortunate that the future of psychology and possibly the mental health system may ride on such a scurrilous endeavor. The profession and the public we serve deserve far better than this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Securing an internship has nothing to do with prescribing for psychologists....



1. As was stated early, tens of thousands (more?) of scripts have been written without incidence, so this sounds like another example of misinformation and a scare tactic.

2. It isn't a 2 wk class. More misinformation.

I have reservations about psychologists seeking additional training and prescribing, though not any more than I have with a PA or an NP doing the same.

A PA is highly trained medical professional. Some even do residencies in psychiatry. You can't even compare them with NPs. PAs train in the medical model. NPs don't.
 
1) I don't know about you, but when/if a patient I have develops a serious medical complication from a psychotropic I've prescribed, I'll get internists, intensivists, etc involved. Just like a psychologist, I am not trained to provide supportive care for a person with NMS.

2) Between NM, Louisiana and the US military, we already have a good bit of data on psychologists rx'ing...and it looks like it is very safe.

Sorry, but those who follow this issue find that there is not a single study which shows that the psychologists prescribing medication in La. and NM are doing so safely, effectively for their patients, or effectively enhancing access to psychiatric medication. If you could cite your sources this would be most interesting.

It also should be stated that this complete lack of empirical evidence follows a collective 20 years of experimentation by an organization that has (and spends on political aspects of RxP) plenty of money to fund a study, the expertise to do so, and a very willing subject poo. Furthermore, such empirical evidence would do wonders for the otherwise failed attempts to obtain RxP. Therefore, it appears that this evidence cannot be developed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
ummm no.....1 prescribing psychologist making an error and getting sued in no way increases the likelihood that a different prescribing psychologist somewhere also made a malpractice worthy prescribing error. They are independent of each other.

If this becomes a bigger trend and spreads to other states(as is only a matter of time). I think this will be a good thing in a way because it will force psychiatrists to actually provide integrated treatment themselves. Here is what Carlat wrote on the matter below...he pretty much nailed it imo.

The case for prescribing psychologists

By Daniel Carlat, M.D.

Psychologists now have prescriptive authority in New Mexico, Louisiana, Guam and all branches of the U.S. Military. Although the “RxP” movement recently experienced a setback when Oregon’s governor vetoed a bill that would have authorized prescriptive authority, it is increasingly likely that many more states will pass such bills over the next 10 to 20 years.
The overwhelming majority of psychiatrists are adamantly opposed to RxP, officially citing concerns about patient safety. However, as a psychiatrist who was once involved in the politics of the American Psychiatric Association, I know that the major concern has to do primarily with economics and prestige. Psychiatrists are afraid of losing business to prescribing psychologists, with the consequent diminishment of their power within the mental health community.
I think these concerns are misguided. Regarding patient safety, it is clear that prescribing psychologists have already established a track record of safely and competently prescribing psychotropics. This track record began in 1991, when the Department of Defense developed an experimental program to teach psychologists how to prescribe medications. In 1998, this program was carefully evaluated by the American College of Neuropharmacology, an organization of psychiatrists and psychiatric researchers. This panel concluded that all 10 graduates of the program “performed with excellence wherever they were placed,” and there were no reports of medication errors or bad patient outcomes.
The program was discontinued because it was not considered to be a cost-effective use of military resources, but over the last few years, the military has hired many prescribing psychologists who have been trained in one of several civilian-based psychoparmacology masters programs. Prescribing psychologists now practice in all branches of the military, and one prescribing psychologist (Major Alan Hopewell) was recently awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious medical service during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007-2008.
In Louisiana and New Mexico, it is estimated that several thousand prescriptions have been written by prescribing psychologists. There have been no reported complaints about these practitioners from patients or from collaborating doctors, nor have any malpractice suits been registered involving prescribing psychologists. Thus, it is becoming increasingly clear that the argument about patient safety is a red herring and masks the actual resistance, which regards competition for professional turf and the money that flows from that.
Why would I, a psychiatrist, actively argue in favor of psychologists prescribing? I have two main reasons: First, there is a critical national shortage of psychiatric prescribers, and second, psychiatric practice has become dangerously fixated on psychopharmacological solutions.
Regarding the shortage of psychiatrists, a recent series of articles in the October 2009 issue of Psychiatric Services reported that 96 percent of all U.S. counties have some unmet need for prescribers. In three quarters of counties, the shortage was described as “severe,” meaning that over half of the medication needs of psychiatric patients are unmet.
It is inconceivable that existing psychiatrists will be able to fill this gap, both because many are reaching retirement age and because there is no indication that more psychiatric residency slots will be created soon. Psychiatric nurse practitioners and physician assistants will help to absorb some of the need, but in my opinion prescribing psychologists will have to become a significant part of the professional landscape if we want to adequately serve the needs of these patients.
Regarding problems with psychiatric practice style, data have shown that psychiatrists are becoming increasingly fixated on brief medication visits and are doing less psychotherapy. In a 2008 article in the Archives of General Psychiatry, researchers found that the percentage of visits to psychiatrists that include psychotherapy dropped from 44 percent in 1996-1997 to 29 percent in 2004-2005. If, as seems likely, this rate of therapy attrition has continued, (about 2 per cent per year), it is likely that fewer than 20 percent of psychiatrist visits now include psychotherapy.
Prescribing psychologists, on the other hand, have continued to emphasize therapy as the bedrock of mental health care, with medications used as adjunctive care when needed. It must be acknowledged that the evidence for this statement is currently anecdotal (based largely on articles written by prescribing psychologists describing their cases, many of which are published in the Division 55 newsletter).
The fact that psychologists begin their training with five to six years focusing on psychosocial approaches implies that they will be able to maintain a healthy balance between psychotherapy and medication approaches. Psychiatrists, on the other hand, begin their training with five years of being steeped in the biomedical model (four years of medical school and one year of medical internship). Even the three subsequent years of psychiatric residency are focused on biomedical approaches to mental illness, though therapy techniques are also intensively taught.
In the future, I predict that prescribing psychologists will become the “primary care practitioners” of the mental health care system. Patients with psychiatric needs will receive their initial evaluation and treatment from prescribing psychologists, who will combine therapy and medication as needed. Patients with complicated medical or neurological issues will likely be referred to psychiatrists for treatment.
Psychiatry will evolve into a more frankly neuropsychiatric profession, and psychiatrists will likely do more physical exams and become more proficient in ordering and interpreting brain scans and genomic testing, both of which are still in their infancy but are expected to grow in clinical importance over the next decades.
The end result will be a more rational mental health care system in which all patients can routinely receive integrative treatment, rather than the fragmented approach which characterizes most psychiatric treatment today.

A lack of complaints or malpractice lawsuits is not the standard for establishing quality health care. Dr. Carlat would undoubtedly agree that if a drug company had experimented with a drug for 20 years and had failed to produce a single study on the drug's safety and efficacy, it would be ridiculous for the manufacturer to seek FDA approval because others had not produced any complaints about it. It is up to those who reduce the allowed training for the prescription of psychiatric medication by more than 50 percent below what is currently recognized as the minimal preparation to show evidence that this model is safe and effective. Again, there is not a single empirical study showing that these persons practice medicine safely, effectively for their patients, or enhance access to medication.

Unfortunately, whether he knows it or know, Dr. Carlat's comments are used to endorse a model which would allow psychologists with absolutely no prior biomedical education to practice psychiatry with the indepenedence of a board-certified psychiatrist after completing the equivalent of 30 semester hours of biomedical education, starting with the most basic forms of chemistry and physiology, and then having passed a practicum under the supervision of another psychologist with the same insufficient training. No doubt also Dr. Carlat is aware for example that treating children and adolescents requires specialized training. Yet, the online medical course that would qualify those he endorses covers this area of practice in a 36-contact-hour class which also covers geriatrics, trauma, pain patients and others.

The newsletter of Division 55 (the APA division created solely to pursue the political campaign for enhancing marketshare and political influence through RxP) publishing anecdotal accounts of their successes and their pleasure in practicing psychiatry with insufficient training is hardly reliable evidence that what they are doing is safe or effective. One is amazed that such a citation is used to advocate for such an obviously inappropriate and unsupported model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
CGOPsych- You're responding to a 6 month old thread, which died a natural death. You're essentially talking to yourself. If you find the topic compelling and want to start a dialogue, I'd recommend starting your own thread and seeing if anyone comes.

Reviving old ones is bad juju. This is the equivalent of getting indignant over something someone said around the water cooler six days ago... It's passed...
 
Thanks CGO for reviving this thread. It didn't pass in the House. Didn't even make it to a vote. Your points are very strong.
 
You know, It really is amazing to me how entitled people get about their profession and trying to act superior to others by putting down other professions and what not. Also, it's amazing how naïve people can be.

Every single on of these arguments that have been made AGAINST RxP for psychologists can be applied to nurse practitioners and PA's. I guess people don't see that. Lets take a look.

1) The argument that psychologists aren't smart enough to get into med school/ should have gone to medical school to prescribe. Uhmm last time I checked getting a Doctorate requires a smart person but if that's the attitude you want to have then I guess we can also argue that nurse practitioners aren't smart enough to go to medical school and they should have done so if they want to prescribe as opposed to going "the backdoor route" and getting additional training as a nurse to prescribe. Ironic isn't it?

2) If a psychologist wants to prescribe they should go to medical school? Ok, so I guess then a Nurse should have gone to medical school too ? No, they went to Nurse practitioner school because they like the nursing model and want to be able to prescribe as a nurse and do not want to be an MD. Same with psychologists why should they have to go seek training through another profession when they can make a separate tract in their schools to get the appropriate training in their own profession? Same reason as a nurse they as a whole like the psychology model but would like additionally training to ad another tool to their work (prescribing) and as a result want to be so and so PsyD RxP not so and so MD.

3) They can't safety prescribe because they don't have the same level of training as a physician? well then you might as well get ride of every Nurse practitioner of PA on this planet because they all prescribe but don't have equivalent education to a physician, hence the name "mid level practitioner."
 

Not troll here, just stating my opinion. Funny how whenever anything is stated that somebody does not want to hear, it is said that they are a troll! Defense mechanism?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Resurrecting a 3-year old thread based on straw man arguments shouts trolling.

I happened to be reading the thread because I am. Interested in the topic and thought I'd give my 2¢ like everyone else
 
You know, It really is amazing to me how entitled people get about their profession and trying to act superior to others by putting down other professions and what not. Also, it's amazing how naïve people can be.

Every single on of these arguments that have been made AGAINST RxP for psychologists can be applied to nurse practitioners and PA's. I guess people don't see that. Lets take a look.

1) The argument that psychologists aren't smart enough to get into med school/ should have gone to medical school to prescribe. Uhmm last time I checked getting a Doctorate requires a smart person but if that's the attitude you want to have then I guess we can also argue that nurse practitioners aren't smart enough to go to medical school and they should have done so if they want to prescribe as opposed to going "the backdoor route" and getting additional training as a nurse to prescribe. Ironic isn't it?

2) If a psychologist wants to prescribe they should go to medical school? Ok, so I guess then a Nurse should have gone to medical school too ? No, they went to Nurse practitioner school because they like the nursing model and want to be able to prescribe as a nurse and do not want to be an MD. Same with psychologists why should they have to go seek training through another profession when they can make a separate tract in their schools to get the appropriate training in their own profession? Same reason as a nurse they as a whole like the psychology model but would like additionally training to ad another tool to their work (prescribing) and as a result want to be so and so PsyD RxP not so and so MD.

3) They can't safety prescribe because they don't have the same level of training as a physician? well then you might as well get ride of every Nurse practitioner of PA on this planet because they all prescribe but don't have equivalent education to a physician, hence the name "mid level practitioner."

I'll confess I haven't read this thread in three years but I don't think anyone is discounting the same arguments being applied to midlevels. You should peak around SDN a little more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Can't wait until psychiatrists are allowed to do surgeries, since there's a lack of surgeons in some areas. Makes 100% sense without any errors in logic. Right? rofl
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Can't wait until psychiatrists are allowed to do surgeries, since there's a lack of surgeons in some areas. Makes 100% sense without any errors in logic. Right? rofl

Surgery isn't directly related to mental health or human behavior so how is that even a valid argument or make sense?
 
Can't wait until psychiatrists are allowed to do surgeries, since there's a lack of surgeons in some areas. Makes 100% sense without any errors in logic. Right? rofl
Don't even need an OR. Just an icepick and a hotel room.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I've fielded 11 calls today, all from practitioners, who are essentially seeing the IL RxP bill as a 'total loss' to the national RxP objectives; indentured servanthood; and ultimately a 'political decision', for 'Beth', but a lhuge oss for practice and a massive step backwards.

Not sure if you are willing, but it may be useful to have your points thrown out in the list serve as counter punches...

I'm personally chewing on your optimism.. as I personally feel extremely disillusioned with what I perceive was given up for what we got....

I'm not discussing my opinion openly with anyone... outside you... but with so much traffic, I think your voice might be received on the list.
...
This is what the psychologists said about illinois bill that passed
 
I've fielded 11 calls today, all from practitioners, who are essentially seeing the IL RxP bill as a 'total loss' to the national RxP objectives; indentured servanthood; and ultimately a 'political decision', for 'Beth', but a lhuge oss for practice and a massive step backwards.

Not sure if you are willing, but it may be useful to have your points thrown out in the list serve as counter punches...

I'm personally chewing on your optimism.. as I personally feel extremely disillusioned with what I perceive was given up for what we got....

I'm not discussing my opinion openly with anyone... outside you... but with so much traffic, I think your voice might be received on the list.
...
This is what the psychologists said about illinois bill that passed

I'm not so sure I'm understanding what you are trying to say?
 
My post Monday by the apa list serve. Shows they don't want the education or to do this for any altruistic reasons.

These pop up schools have saturated the market with psyd.
 
Last edited:
Well yes, it appears half are for it and half are against it.
From the surveys that I have seen, at the very most half of psychologists support the potential for RxP with adequate education, training, and supervision. I minimally define that as a masters degree worth of classes that are not online and two years of supervision from a psychiatrist in a structured setting or program. I might support that on some days, but most of the time I think we have a lot more important things to work on to improve our position as co-experts in mental health alongside psychiatry. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually pooled our resources and worked together.

41UQL%2BR9VVL._SX300_.jpg

Just feeling my inner hippy love child today. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
From the surveys that I have seen, at the very most half of psychologists support the potential for RxP with adequate education, training, and supervision. I minimally define that as a masters degree worth of classes that are not online and two years of supervision from a psychiatrist in a structured setting or program. I might support that on some days, but most of the time I think we have a lot more important things to work on to improve our position as co-experts in mental health alongside psychiatry. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually pooled our resources and worked together.

41UQL%2BR9VVL._SX300_.jpg

Just feeling my inner hippy love child today. :)

I would agree; an in-residence program is really the only way I can wrap my head about the training being adequate. And the problem with the general idea of RxP, in my eyes, is that it could quickly lead to psychologists being viewed as "psychiatrist-lite," particularly in this current push for distance learning options, which isn't what we are or what we do. You can't be an expert in everything; at some point you have to decide what to focus on...unless we want doctoral programs to end up averaging 10-12 years.
 
Give me credit, if this is all you had left, then I did a pretty good job covering the bases!

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if psychologists could prescribe for their patients in some ways. But I would still argue that the value of having someone with a primary medical background taking care of the medications is a better idea than having someone without a medical background doing it. We trade off one thing for another. I would also argue that we're talking about a very different patient population than what I see, which is people who are sick enough that the expertise of their PCP has been overwhelmed. If the PCP is overwhelmed, I would be surprised if a psychologist with an online psychopharm degree is going to have substantially greater facility with psychiatric medications than a PCP who by necessity has to do a fair amount of psychiatric medication management. I would not be shocked if you could show that a psychologist could be trained to prescribe with similar facility as a PCP.

Ideally, if a psychologist wants to prescribe, I think they should pursue a PA program and receive "supervision" (albeit loosely) with a physician, even a primary care doc. A PA program is two years just like these online psychopharm degrees, and PA programs have track records of producing safe prescribers. Even better, make a special PA track for psychologists who want to prescribe! A much better idea than an online psychopharm degree without comparable supervision to any established route to prescription privileges. Given the fact that their is ALREADY a perfectly legitimate and validated route for a psychologist to become a prescriber in two years without passing a single new law, we have to question whether the impetus for change has anything to do with increasing access to anything.

I like the idea of a psych tailored PA route for those psychologist's who want to specialize in "medical psychology" and prescribe... the only problem with that is that then the psychologist would have to practice under two separate licensing boards (PA and Psychology) which would make it more complicated and confusing... (what do they advertise themselves to their patients as, a PA or Psychologist?) Or if there is a complaint, with which board do you take it up with? Wheras with the psychopharm masters route, it would all be under one licensing board and be under one profession (medical psychology) so it's less complicated.
 
the only problem with that is that then the psychologist would have to practice under two separate licensing boards (PA and Psychology) which would make it more complicated and confusing...
Well, when you try to do 2 jobs it can get confusing, even if you want to pretend it's one job.

I recently saw a patient that had been previously prescribed medications by a psychologist/Clinical Nurse Specialist, so people like this are already out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well, when you try to do 2 jobs it can get confusing, even if you want to pretend it's one job.

I recently saw a patient that had been previously prescribed medications by a psychologist/Clinical Nurse Specialist, so people like this are already out there.

Oh OK well with that attitude then we can say that psychiatrists or even better, psychiatric nurse practitioners are doing two jobs by providing therapy (often with minimal training in the case of NP's) and providing med management.
 
Oh OK well with that attitude then we can say that psychiatrists or even better, psychiatric nurse practitioners are doing two jobs by providing therapy (often with minimal training in the case of NP's) and providing med management.
No, the training of a psychiatrist prepares one for the 2 modalities of treatment so it is one job. If a someone trains as a psychologist and a PA, then they are working in 2 roles.
 
No, the training of a psychiatrist prepares one for the 2 modalities of treatment so it is one job. If a someone trains as a psychologist and a PA, then they are working in 2 roles.

Well the why can't a psychologist undertake the PA training and then practice under one license as a specialist in medical psychology.. have the PA training replace the psychopharmacology training; ie create like a special tract for psychologists and have them go on to practice under one realm
 
Well the why can't a psychologist undertake the PA training and then practice under one license as a specialist in medical psychology.. have the PA training replace the psychopharmacology training; ie create like a special tract for psychologists and have them go on to practice under one realm
They could if the boards that regulate them have actual training in those roles. Having psychologists with insufficient or no medical training supervise/regulate medical psychologists makes little sense. Nor does a PA board regulating how they do therapy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top