michiganpsych
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Frequent poster -- Created a side account to stay doubly anonymous in this thread.
There's ongoing debate and legislative action right now in the state of Michigan to clarify the role of midlevel providers with training in clinical psychology. Currently, individuals with a masters degree (consisting of at least one treatment course, one assessment course, and one practicum -- if I recall correctly) can pursue midlevel licensure as a "limited licensed psychologist" (LLP). To become an LLP, an individual is required to also pass the EPPP.
The pending legislation seeks to clarify the title of psychologist as a doctoral level license and title. Instead of LLP, this legislation would relabel these midlevel providers as "psychological associates," purportedly in accordance with similar legislation in other states. Currently, LLPs are required to receive lifelong supervision from an LP for the entirety of their career; however, this legislation would allow psychological associates with sufficient experience to practice independently. The controversial aspect of this legislation, at least as I can surmise, is that this legislation limits psychological associates' clinical practice to psychotherapy/treatment/intervention (to be consistent with other midlevel mental health providers; e.g., LPC, LCSW) and prevents psychological associates from providing psychological assessment services without the signature/oversight of an LP.
Most PhDs/PsyDs that I know favor this legislation (I, too, generally support the bill). However, on the other hand, most midlevels I know are against it (although a few I've talked to are in favor of it) -- The recurring theme I continue to hear from midlevels pertains to frustration over no longer being called "psychologists" and frustration over the change in their ability to provide assessment services. However, this legislation would still allow midlevels to provide assessment services with LP oversight, which seems consistent with the status quo, so I'm a little confused on this latter point.
A group comprised predominantly of midlevel providers with MA/MS in clinical psychology have created a group on Facebook that is heavily pressuring state legislators not to pass this bill. I wanted to post a link but can't because this account is so new -- Their group is named "United Michigan Masters in Psychology (UMMP)" and is public. The legislation is MI SB641 and can be easily Googled. For what it's worth, the bill does have the support of the Michigan Psychological Association plus the support of most LPs with whom I have discussed this bill.
Thought I'd get a thread started to hear others' opinions -- Those of you with strong enough opinions in either direction might consider reaching out to legislators in the state of Michigan to share your thoughts.
There's ongoing debate and legislative action right now in the state of Michigan to clarify the role of midlevel providers with training in clinical psychology. Currently, individuals with a masters degree (consisting of at least one treatment course, one assessment course, and one practicum -- if I recall correctly) can pursue midlevel licensure as a "limited licensed psychologist" (LLP). To become an LLP, an individual is required to also pass the EPPP.
The pending legislation seeks to clarify the title of psychologist as a doctoral level license and title. Instead of LLP, this legislation would relabel these midlevel providers as "psychological associates," purportedly in accordance with similar legislation in other states. Currently, LLPs are required to receive lifelong supervision from an LP for the entirety of their career; however, this legislation would allow psychological associates with sufficient experience to practice independently. The controversial aspect of this legislation, at least as I can surmise, is that this legislation limits psychological associates' clinical practice to psychotherapy/treatment/intervention (to be consistent with other midlevel mental health providers; e.g., LPC, LCSW) and prevents psychological associates from providing psychological assessment services without the signature/oversight of an LP.
Most PhDs/PsyDs that I know favor this legislation (I, too, generally support the bill). However, on the other hand, most midlevels I know are against it (although a few I've talked to are in favor of it) -- The recurring theme I continue to hear from midlevels pertains to frustration over no longer being called "psychologists" and frustration over the change in their ability to provide assessment services. However, this legislation would still allow midlevels to provide assessment services with LP oversight, which seems consistent with the status quo, so I'm a little confused on this latter point.
A group comprised predominantly of midlevel providers with MA/MS in clinical psychology have created a group on Facebook that is heavily pressuring state legislators not to pass this bill. I wanted to post a link but can't because this account is so new -- Their group is named "United Michigan Masters in Psychology (UMMP)" and is public. The legislation is MI SB641 and can be easily Googled. For what it's worth, the bill does have the support of the Michigan Psychological Association plus the support of most LPs with whom I have discussed this bill.
Thought I'd get a thread started to hear others' opinions -- Those of you with strong enough opinions in either direction might consider reaching out to legislators in the state of Michigan to share your thoughts.
