Psychopharmacology/Advanced Practice Psychology

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I feel like I should grab some popcorn as this turf war rages down several tangentially related rabbit holes.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
They were required to create a separate PAC, just like every other non-profit organization who wants to lobby because it is illegal to be a non-profit and directly lobby; the gov't would revoke non-profit status of any organization that doesn't distinctly separate those activities. Yes there are ways to "lobby" without meeting the current definition, and the AMA does an excellent job of toeing that line and maximizing the benefits.

As for the rest of it, your math doesn't make sense, someone's "annual budget" does not equal the $ spent lobbying, so please stop distorting the information. The data I cited is non-partisan and references actual $'s spent…not budgets. :rolleyes:
You are terrible at data. Reminds me of your earlier claim that a military readiness report and you not personally having heard of adverse effects in NM/LA (not true anyway) = data. How is the % of AMA's spending, of which psychiatry is a small part, going to the issue of RxP the same as the % of the APA's spending? How can you purposefully not include APAPO's spending? Common sense alone dictates that the medical community has many other things to worry about besides RxPers wanting a shortcut to practice medicine.
 
Apparently the terribleness at data runs abound. APAPO also has many other things to worry about than turf management by MD's (e.g., SGR, mental health access act, PQRS registry issues, etc). These are listed along with financials. Ad hominems are fun though. We should just continue along with those, they will surely decide this issue once and for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Apparently the terribleness at data runs abound. APAPO also has many other things to worry about than turf management by MD's (e.g., SGR, mental health access act, PQRS registry issues, etc). These are listed along with financials. Ad hominems are fun though. We should just continue along with those, they will surely decide this issue once and for all.
You keep saying someone is "mis-characterizing", making "straw men" or making "ad hominems" and each and every time I have to explain to you that's not the case. In this case- how is pointing out that comparing AMA spending to APA spending completely ridiculous an "ad hominem"? In your paranoid "turf management" view of the world you're imaging physicians spending globs of time and money to put down RxP Psychologists. They don't consider you (RxPers) any more than they do a myriad of other non-medical practitioners trying to practice medicine through politics- which includes pharmacists, optometrists and even chiropractors.
 
Name calling is directly an ad hominem, and it's been done countless times, even within the past few days. Especially when you make those claims with no data to support your argument. Do you know exactly how much was spent by each side on that one issue? Also, you can pretend turn management doesn't exist, doesn't make it any less real. We all deal with the issue, some of just have bigger war chests with which to defend that turf. And some choose to protect that turf with politics instead of objective data.
 
Name calling is directly an ad hominem, and it's been done countless times, even within the past few days. Especially when you make those claims with no data to support your argument. Do you know exactly how much was spent by each side on that one issue? Also, you can pretend turn management doesn't exist, doesn't make it any less real. We all deal with the issue, some of just have bigger war chests with which to defend that turf. And some choose to protect that turf with politics instead of objective data.
I wasn't the one listing unrelated monetary figures and calling it meaningful data, was I? You have an VERY ironic penchant for accusing anybody who disagrees with RxP of a fallacy of relevance (ad hominem, red herring, straw man, etc. whatever else you can think of).
 
Someone brought up lobbying money, and meaningful monetary figures were supplied. Seemed fairly simple. As far as logical fallacies go, if the shoe fits... most of your arguments just happen to be putting words into people's mouths and insinuating hidden motivations.
 
Someone brought up lobbying money, and meaningful monetary figures were supplied. Seemed fairly simple. As far as logical fallacies go, if the shoe fits... most of your arguments just happen to be putting words into people's mouths and insinuating hidden motivations.
1. I'm going to have to strongly disagree!
2. isn't "turf" your favorite word? No matter how bad RxP is, you can trot out that horse whenever anybody objects.
 
Disagree away. Turf is a great word, probably not my favorite though. As a favorite, I'm going to go with chamois.
So as a psychologist, presumably very well-trained in research, you believe this:
2014 Lobbying $'s spent:
AMA: $19,650,000
APA: $1,298,600
is meaningful data that physicians out-spend psychologists in regards to RxP?
 
There you go putting words into someone's mouth again and divining motivations.

Someone made a claim that psychology has plenty of money to spend on this one issue. Data was brought up looking at money spent on lobbying. That's where the data stops. It does not break down where the money went, which specific issue was lobbied for. It merely serves to bring out that the size of the lobbying war chest differs quite significantly. I don't recall T4C ever stating that X spent more than Y on RxP. You provided that particular interpretation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
is meaningful data that physicians out-spend psychologists in regards to RxP?

My post was in response to $'s spent on lobbying. There was mention that the AMA probably has more money at their disposal to use towards lobbying. I provided data that supports the AMA spends more in lobbying. The AMA does not just support one issue, nor does the APA….so the data has to be understood in that context, but it is far better to try and bring some data into the discussion instead of the "opinions masquerading as facts" approach that you seem to prefer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You called it "meaningful monetary figures." Why would unrelated spending on non-RxP issues be meaningful? I agree it's a very nice figure to put forth, but only if you succeed in blurring the two issues (lobbying funds for various unrelated things vs. RxP lobbying funds). e.g. Does AMA's extensive $$$ spent to keep Obama-care from being repealed count against RxP?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It was meaningful in relation to the claim that psychology has plenty of money to spend on RxP, without implying that the AMA actually has more to spend if they so choose. Is it a tangent, yes. But it was definitely meaningful in the context for which it was presented. You can take it out of context and claim that people said things they didn't, doesn't change the fact.
 
I honestly haven't looked at/don't know how much they've spent, particularly in the states where legislation as failed, but I can say that as a whole, psychology generally has a pretty crappy track record of funding political efforts on behalf of our profession. It seems to be getting better, though, so maybe I'm wrong re: RxP specifically. And I do know APA has sunk a considerable amount of resources into this over the years, yes.

That's true in my experience. I've seen that APA has spent vast sums of money lobbying for RxP, far more than for any other issue. In my state they have thrown money at this and nothing else. In the last year or two they sent over at least $120,000 for a bill that was worse than a failure. I agree that it would be extremely interesting to know just how much is spent on other issues in comparison. Good luck getting them to face this.

When Illinois psychologists needed help with parity problems with insurance companies, APA's response was to write a letter. Whoop-tee-doo. A letter. As opposed to $120,000 for RxP's platoon of lobbyists.

When trying to help get RxP into Ontario, Canada, (which has failed) a delegation of APA bigwigs found the time and money to fly up there and meet with them. We have never seen any of those people come to Illinois for any reason.

You say it's getting better, and I would welcome that, but I haven't seen APA spend anything close to the amount of money they have poured down the RxP rathole. RxP continues to be a massive failure across the country, and the disproportionate influence that RxPers have over APA politics ensures that they will continue to throw their money away rather than start working on helping psychologists.
 
That's true in my experience. I've seen that APA has spent vast sums of money lobbying for RxP, far more than for any other issue. In my state they have thrown money at this and nothing else. In the last year or two they sent over at least $120,000 for a bill that was worse than a failure. I agree that it would be extremely interesting to know just how much is spent on other issues in comparison. Good luck getting them to face this.

When Illinois psychologists needed help with parity problems with insurance companies, APA's response was to write a letter. Whoop-tee-doo. A letter. As opposed to $120,000 for RxP's platoon of lobbyists.

When trying to help get RxP into Ontario, Canada, (which has failed) a delegation of APA bigwigs found the time and money to fly up there and meet with them. We have never seen any of those people come to Illinois for any reason.

You say it's getting better, and I would welcome that, but I haven't seen APA spend anything close to the amount of money they have poured down the RxP rathole. RxP continues to be a massive failure across the country, and the disproportionate influence that RxPers have over APA politics ensures that they will continue to throw their money away rather than start working on helping psychologists.

It was mostly a general "it's getting better" statement with respect to psychologists finally realizing that 1) lobbying is a fundamentally important component of professional viability and survival, and 2) lobbying takes money. Neuropsych tends to do fairly well on that front, at least relatively speaking, but even then there's still infighting. Then again, I don't think any profession is free from disagreements within its constituents; it just seems as though psychology has a long track record of being particularly adept at picking apart its own support base on most issues.
 
This thread is in need of a time out. I can no longer even make out what is being contested. Who spends more money? What portion of whose budgets are spent where?

We see there is a strong divide in opinions and no one will have their minds changed. Anyone undecided and sitting on the sideline learning from the content has probably read enough information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm just going to donate to an rxp initiative whenever there is an asinine argument. I'm on a roll financially right now. Should be fun.

*This money coming from forensics, which pays 2-2.57 times better than RxP pursuits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm just going to donate to an rxp initiative whenever there is an asinine argument. I'm on a roll financially right now. Should be fun.

*This money coming from forensics, which pays 2-2.57 times better than RxP pursuits.
Sure. Don't spend it all though- diversify your financial portfolio with something more likely to "pay out" than RxP- like lottery tickets. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This might bring it back on topic. I am wondering if RxP would really bring us much money or would we better off from a financial and professional standpoint to increase how much we can get from current practices. My hospital only bills about 110 an hour for therapy and less for testing. They use some national metric for this based on what insurances will pay, I guess. If I could bill as much for therapy as I could for going to court, I would be a fool to want to get mixed up with managing meds.
 
The monetary side of RxP isn't much different than therapy in that volume is what makes $. There are cash pay private practices for both, but many providers still are reliant on seeing enough patients to make enough money to cover overhead and make a decent income. The hourly rate (or flat fee) a person charges for forensic work is most likely not translatable to strict clinical work unless a person can make a case for why it is worth it to the payor to pay such a higher fee than another provider down the block.
 
I have spoken to some national billing people, and the overall consensus seems to be that psychologists' hourly rates are not consistent with the market valuation. But third party payors are happy to accept $110/hr when their valuation puts it higher.

Think of it like selling a car. You want 5k for a POS. Guy comes to look at it and offers 9k.
 
I have spoken to some national billing people, and the overall consensus seems to be that psychologists' hourly rates are not consistent with the market valuation. But third party payors are happy to accept $110/hr when their valuation puts it higher.

Think of it like selling a car. You want 5k for a POS. Guy comes to look at it and offers 9k.
Hmmm. So are you saying that psychologists are billing less than what we could? If so, then all the more reason to not get RxP as that would lend credence to the argument that we aren't smart enough to learn how to prescribe safely. :depressed:
 
It all depends on the clinician/practice. Many clinicians don't even know what the $'s are for each panel. While there may be some variance within particular plans, they really need to know what is what….or how else do you negotiate with other payors?
 
Right now APA has another scandal on its hands. As noted in this Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...9d3add6c-8a79-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e&hpid=z11

APA has agreed to pay up to $9 million to settle the class-action lawsuit which alleged that APA deceived its entire membership for 10 years into thinking that donating money to its lobbying arm, the APA Practice Organization, was required for APA membership, when in fact it was not.

This is a remarkable example of institutional corruption, deceit and fraud in a presumably non-profit organization. Imagine that multiple generations of staff members or elected officials were either co-conspirators in this or they were so incompetent that they were not aware that it was being inflicted on the membership for a decade.

There is a connection between this fraud and the RxP campaign, which is not surprising since RxP is about acquiring power and money at any cost. The scandal began when RxP head Pat DeLeon was president of APA in 2000. The political money collected through the fraud was used to pay for RxP campaigns, such as $526,000 for Louisiana alone. APAPO sent mroe than $120,000 to Illinois.
 
Dude, we get it, you hate the APA. I think you'd have more sympathetic to your points if you didn't come off like a Fox News blast about Sharia law with hyperbolic language. Also, where are you getting these numbers? I'm not saying they aren't accurate, but you offer them up all the time and I'm curious as to the source.
 
That's a bit simplistic and certainly not true, dude.
I do hate what some people have done to a once-great organization. By the way, I get the facts by paying attention and doing my homework, for a long time.

When I was an undergraduate, one of my teachers was a former APA president - back when APA leaders were people who loved psychology and humanity more than money and power. He affirmed for me that psychology is one of the most fascinating and rewarding things to learn in this world, and being able to help people while practicing it was the best of all possibilities.

Then in the mid 1980s something very good and very bad happened to psychology. We were successful in getting approval to qualify for Medicare payments and more insurance companies followed suit, which opened up a great many more opportunities for psychology to be a business. The people who valued money and power over science and service took over. This change in emphasis caused those with the latter priorities to leave in droves, and they started the Association for Psychological Science. APS continues to be a beacon of principle and ethics.

However, APA was increasingly led by people who were out to make a buck and be more powerful above all other considerations. A group who called themselves the "dirty dozen" helped turn APA into something that looks more like a shady labor union. As you can imagine, RxP was a crown jewel in the movement to prostitute psychology and, frankly, turn APA and its leaders into a bunch of unprincipled liars ... and I mean that literally.

I've pointed out many ways in which the RxP campaign and its advocates have deceived and misled people. The practice assessment scandal is another perfect example. Imagine that repeated generations of APA officers and staff systematically lied to the entire membership, tens of thousands of people who trusted them, just to get them to pay money into the new lobbying organization. It is mind-boggling, possibly the greatest instance of fraud in a not-for-profit organization. Imagine that not a single person had the morality or the moral courage to stand up and say that this was wrong. That is the power that APA's dishonesty had on people who are otherwise intelligent, ethical and sensible.

The torture scandal is yet another example. APA's leaders were not seduced or dragged into this, they flung themselves into helping the CIA keep the torture going. The interrogation program was actually being suspended after questions were raised about it and they needed some sort of medical professional coverage of interrogations. The psychiatrists in particular and physicians in general wouldn't touch it, but APA eagerly collaborated with Bush-era CIA employees to give the interrogation system the appearance of being overseen by a health care profession.

And so we now read more revelations of how APA's leaders sold the soul of the organization and the profession by helping the CIA do, as one psychologist gleefully put it, "special things to special people in special places."

Some people are holding out hope that the resolution of the torture scandal, and the practice assessment scandal, could force APA's leadership to accept reform. However, it has shown itself to be impervious to any such efforts. Even when APA's membership voted in a referendum to change the torture policy, they found a sleazy way to ignore the will of the members and do whatever they wanted.
 
Holy long-form Batman! You don't need to sell me on the APA's past shortcomings. If you've read some of my past comments, in other threads than this, you'd know that I gave up my membership some time ago for various reasons. I do think there have been improvements as of late, but I'm still not ready to jump back in until things get resolved. I would still say that some of the language is quite hyperbolic though. And, as we know as psychologists, has the opposite of intended effect, only makes those with the opposing viewpoint hold that viewpoint more strongly.
 
Holy long-form Batman! You don't need to sell me on the APA's past shortcomings. If you've read some of my past comments, in other threads than this, you'd know that I gave up my membership some time ago for various reasons. I do think there have been improvements as of late, but I'm still not ready to jump back in until things get resolved. I would still say that some of the language is quite hyperbolic though. And, as we know as psychologists, has the opposite of intended effect, only makes those with the opposing viewpoint hold that viewpoint more strongly.

True, my language can be harsh at times. However, I don't think it exceeds the magnitude of what has been done, and continues to be done.

I still cannot get my head around what an extraordinary thing it was for so many people in APA, over a decade, to lie to the entire membership in a clear-cut instance of fraud and to adopt the Code of Silence so completely. I have seen how RxP advocates do things that were extraordinarily unethical and dishonest, people who have high positions in this profession. These people knew what they were doing in the torture scandal was unacceptable to members and the public. The PENS report that gave ethical cover to the CIA was published without the names of the task force members on it. During the meetings they told members they could not take notes of the proceedings.

The scandals continue. The APA leadership has done everything it can to block any information about the torture issue, and the organization has attacked, stonewalled and dismissed any thoughtful questions about what they have done. Only when the Senate Intelligence Committee started to release some information it had, did APA realize that they could no longer stonewall the psychologists who questioned this, and the investigative reporters uncovering evidence of their deeds. Now they've fallen back on hiring an investigator, who will report back to APA's leadership - who have not committed themselves to releasing that report. The investigator may be honest, but even then the information he reveals will be held and used by APA's leadership as it sees fit.

The APA has never admitted that it lied to the membership in the practice assessment scandal, even though the evidence is overwhelming. There are recovered APA website web pages from multiple years showing that APA said all licensed psychologists "must" pay the fee or that the fee is "applied" in the cases of licensed mental health professionals. And yet they play a cynical game of denying it rather than do the right thing, admit that this happened in the past, and move on.

And as I have noted many times, APA continues to run the RxP campaign without the consensus and oftentimes without the knowledge of the members, including those paying the very high bill for this massive failure. APA continues to issue what is quite literally propaganda - the management of information for political purposes - about RxP, among other topics.

This is an organization that was once great, the organization of William James, for example. And it has been dragged into the gutter and kept there. Strong language may be off-putting to some, but I think it is accurate.
 
I still think it detracts from your message, I feel like I'm reading about Jade Helm 15 at times. Also, needing to separate some of this animosity on tangential issues. I don't think an organization handling on one issue, makes every issue they take a stance on somehow bad. For example, they also campaigned on the SGR and related issues, should we pan those efforts because of the torture debacle? Just got to keep things consistent. Also, still curious as to where some of the numbers come from.
 
I still think it detracts from your message, I feel like I'm reading about Jade Helm 15 at times. Also, needing to separate some of this animosity on tangential issues. I don't think an organization handling on one issue, makes every issue they take a stance on somehow bad. For example, they also campaigned on the SGR and related issues, should we pan those efforts because of the torture debacle? Just got to keep things consistent. Also, still curious as to where some of the numbers come from.

Plenty of good things happen within APA. It's a large organization.

However, the grossly objectionable and unethical actions are undertaken with the knowledge and direction of the organization's highest leadership. And they have been enacted and covered up over the course of years, so that this is not just a slipup by someone acting on his own. I think this says a lot about the inherent nature of the organization as it has been formed by those who control it.

For example, the PENS task force closely involved the executive director of the Practice Directorate, and several psychologists who were very much insiders, such as a former president, and the person who was the director of the ethics office. The torture scandal, the practice assessment scandal, and the scandalous way APA has run the RxP campaign are just the most prominent and egregious issues.

Furthermore, open and appropriate attempts to address these issues have been thwarted by those in control; the APA leadership ignored the results of a referendum in which a majority of the members voting wished to change the torture policy.

Therefore, I think it is appropriate to call into question the ethical nature of the organization as it is being led and controlled. This degrades the reputation of the organization and our profession, and it also overshadows the good that comes from APA.
 
True, my language can be harsh at times. However, I don't think it exceeds the magnitude of what has been done, and continues to be done.

I still cannot get my head around what an extraordinary thing it was for so many people in APA, over a decade, to lie to the entire membership in a clear-cut instance of fraud and to adopt the Code of Silence so completely. I have seen how RxP advocates do things that were extraordinarily unethical and dishonest, people who have high positions in this profession. These people knew what they were doing in the torture scandal was unacceptable to members and the public. The PENS report that gave ethical cover to the CIA was published without the names of the task force members on it. During the meetings they told members they could not take notes of the proceedings.

The scandals continue. The APA leadership has done everything it can to block any information about the torture issue, and the organization has attacked, stonewalled and dismissed any thoughtful questions about what they have done. Only when the Senate Intelligence Committee started to release some information it had, did APA realize that they could no longer stonewall the psychologists who questioned this, and the investigative reporters uncovering evidence of their deeds. Now they've fallen back on hiring an investigator, who will report back to APA's leadership - who have not committed themselves to releasing that report. The investigator may be honest, but even then the information he reveals will be held and used by APA's leadership as it sees fit.

The APA has never admitted that it lied to the membership in the practice assessment scandal, even though the evidence is overwhelming. There are recovered APA website web pages from multiple years showing that APA said all licensed psychologists "must" pay the fee or that the fee is "applied" in the cases of licensed mental health professionals. And yet they play a cynical game of denying it rather than do the right thing, admit that this happened in the past, and move on.

And as I have noted many times, APA continues to run the RxP campaign without the consensus and oftentimes without the knowledge of the members, including those paying the very high bill for this massive failure. APA continues to issue what is quite literally propaganda - the management of information for political purposes - about RxP, among other topics.

This is an organization that was once great, the organization of William James, for example. And it has been dragged into the gutter and kept there. Strong language may be off-putting to some, but I think it is accurate.
I am not a big fan of the APA and am on the fence about RxP, but I think that conflating the two issues weakens your arguments. In other words, I could hate APA for the reasons that you listed and for many others, but still be a strong supporter of RxP for many other reasons or vice versa. Actually, I think that how the APA handles RxP is support of the argument "APA bad" but it doesn't work so well the other way. RxP is bad because APA supports it and APA is bad.

The main reason I am against RxP is that I believe that psychotherapy is more effective in a wide variety of cases and I think that psychologists are well positioned to maintain their status as the experts in psychotherapy and pursuing RxP would detract from that. The main reasons I would be for RxP is that I think I might be able to do a better job helping my patients if I had access to that tool and I might make more money.
 
I am not a big fan of the APA and am on the fence about RxP, but I think that conflating the two issues weakens your arguments. In other words, I could hate APA for the reasons that you listed and for many others, but still be a strong supporter of RxP for many other reasons or vice versa. Actually, I think that how the APA handles RxP is support of the argument "APA bad" but it doesn't work so well the other way. RxP is bad because APA supports it and APA is bad.

The main reason I am against RxP is that I believe that psychotherapy is more effective in a wide variety of cases and I think that psychologists are well positioned to maintain their status as the experts in psychotherapy and pursuing RxP would detract from that. The main reasons I would be for RxP is that I think I might be able to do a better job helping my patients if I had access to that tool and I might make more money.

Or, RxP is a bad idea because of the details of the proposal and the effect of incorporating the practice of medicine into psychology. The campaign is a bad idea because it required to employ questionable tactics to support a proposition so inherently flawed. APA is mismanaged and RxP is an example of that. There are other examples.
 
Or, RxP is a bad idea because of the details of the proposal and the effect of incorporating the practice of medicine into psychology. The campaign is a bad idea because it required to employ questionable tactics to support a proposition so inherently flawed. APA is mismanaged and RxP is an example of that. There are other examples.
When you say RxP is bad because of the details of the proposal then you are going from a general to a specific. I am thinking what you mean is that the APA proposal for RxP is a bad idea because of many reasons you have elaborated previously. The second point seems to be that you believe RxP in any form is a bad idea. Why do you think incorporating medicine into psychology is a bad idea? I actually think that we should learn more biology and biochemistry, but biology (more than biochemistry) has always been an interest of mine and that was my first major so I might be biased that way.
 
When you say RxP is bad because of the details of the proposal then you are going from a general to a specific. I am thinking what you mean is that the APA proposal for RxP is a bad idea because of many reasons you have elaborated previously. The second point seems to be that you believe RxP in any form is a bad idea. Why do you think incorporating medicine into psychology is a bad idea? I actually think that we should learn more biology and biochemistry, but biology (more than biochemistry) has always been an interest of mine and that was my first major so I might be biased that way.

Learning biology and chemistry is fine. Canada has a thriving program to teach psychologists enough about psychopharmacology that they can ably collaborate with physicians and other properly trained medical professionals. We psychologists are like universal wrenches in that we have a place in almost every area of human endeavor. Did I mention that this is a great profession?

There are a number of concerns about incorporating the practice of medicine into psychology. They are generally predictive and RxP advocates can claim that such predictions will not come true. However, there is often some evidence supporting the concerns.

One of them is the threat that it will further degrade psychology education. People will take more biology and less psychology in graduate school. You may say that we only have to pass a rule to prevent that, but that avoids the reality of the political pressure and power at work. In fact, RxP schools have indeed allowed unlimited RxP classes to be taken predoctorally. Nova was busted for that and the APA board of education affairs passed a rule that only 20 percent of the classwork could be predoctoral. The IL bill clearly stated that the RxP education could be taken predoctorally and the professional schools that supported the bill were apparently gearing up to sell those classes. The leader of the IL RxP campaign to this day claims that this education can be taken predoctorally. These are, of course, the schools already criticized for having low training standards and with low EPPP scores. It seems clear that if RxP were the law of the land, there would be extensive pressure to allow predoctoral training that undermines psychology education. And of course, the organization that would allow this is the one that has spent millions lobbying for RxP.

Another concern is that the mountains of money available will corrupt psychologists individually and organizations. I have to smile when I see some advocates actually suggest that we psychologists are somehow more moral, more disciplined, than medical providers and we won't fall into that trap. Of course, the best evidence for allowing the lure of Pharmodollars sway the standards, practices and policies of psychology is the RxP campaign and APA's conduct of it. They have essentially sold themselves out to get their hands on a prescription pad, and then suggest that they won't let the rewards change them. Psychology may be far more susceptible than medicine for a number of reasons. One is that much of the training of psychologists is in small stand-alone private schools that are very financially oriented, if not out right for-profit. Such schools would be very vulnerable to doing what it took to please the drug companies, cranking out more and more prescribers with poorer and poorer educations, all subsidized by the drug companies. Such scenarios do not seem far-fetched given how many of the professional schools have conducted themselves so far. There is also some danger that the Pharmodollars will also harm our research ... the drug companies have zillions of dollars they can spend on drug-related research that assistant psychology professors can churn out, rather than research on psychological treatment.

Of course, incorporating the practice of medicine into psychology will damage the mission, image and professional identity of our profession. If we practice a little psychiatric medicine, why not also a little endocrinology? Or a little gynecology? Or drill some teeth, or examine eyes? This is where the RxP proposal does start to seem absurd. One apt analogy is that psychologists play a major role in the legal system (again, we are valuable everywhere) and yet I've never heard of anyone suggest that psychologists ought to be allowed to practice law as psychologists after taking some classes online, and not have to take the bar exam. It is accepted by everyone that if you want to practice law, you go to law school, pass the bar, and practice as a lawyer who is also a psychologist. It would seem absurd to think that we should incorporate another profession such as law into ours in part because we would start to lose the distinction of psychology.

These are three. There are more, but I do need to practice psychology, a wonderful profession :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Of course, incorporating the practice of medicine into psychology will damage the mission, image and professional identity of our profession.

wikipedian_protester.png


Of course you have a citation….

If we practice a little psychiatric medicine, why not also a little endocrinology? Or a little gynecology? Or drill some teeth, or examine eyes?

Do you know where I've heard this argument before…from people against gay marriage. "If we allow this one thing that has been show to be beneficial in society, God only knows what "those people" would do next. :rolleyes: " The proponents would cite people wanting to marry 20 people, their livestock, and other equally asinine things in an attempt to derail the actual issue at hand. Did they have proof of these things happening…not one shred, but *boogie man*. I find your example to be equally as relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
wikipedian_protester.png


Of course you have a citation….



Do you know where I've heard this argument before…from people against gay marriage. "If we allow this one thing that has been show to be beneficial in society, God only knows what "those people" would do next. :rolleyes: " The proponents would cite people wanting to marry 20 people, their livestock, and other equally asinine things in an attempt to derail the actual issue at hand. Did they have proof of these things happening…not one shred, but *boogie man*. I find your example to be equally as relevant.

I'm not inclined to spend much time answering such frivolous statements. The concerns and risks of incorporating medicine into psychology are reasonable and there is evidence to support this speculation. Furthermore, the risks are unnecessary since there are far better alternatives to obtaining the alleged outcome.
 
Speaking of citations, I'm still curious about those numbers.

What numbers were you interested in? If the sources are available I'll let you know. However, it should also be stated that I don't have much patience with people who bring no actual facts to the table. I haven't seen any such data from those who disagree with me, just more demands for citations, expect me to run around gathering answers to their questions, and think that making speculative comments without substance or support is a form of debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What numbers were you interested in? If the sources are available I'll let you know. However, it should also be stated that I don't have much patience with people who bring no actual facts to the table. I haven't seen any such data from those who disagree with me, just more demands for citations, expect me to run around gathering answers to their questions, and think that making speculative comments without substance or support is a form of debate.

I was interested in the money figures being thrown around. And, I totally agree about the lack of data. My question about data has been summarily ignored in the past. I can only assume for lack of it existing after attempts to track it down myself :)
 
I was interested in the money figures being thrown around. And, I totally agree about the lack of data. My question about data has been summarily ignored in the past. I can only assume for lack of it existing after attempts to track it down myself :)

Your requests for data have involved expecting other people to do the work to answer your speculative questions.

I don't mind providing sources of information, particularly if the information seems to be especially unusual. If you claimed that surveys say that 95 percent of psychologists support RxP, that would be so divergent from the published data that I would be interested in seeing where it came from. However, I do mind it when people wish to compensate for having no facts on hand to simply ask for citations and sources or just want to "take a gander" at it, as you put it. Pulling up sources and citations can require time that I don't wish to spend unless it's part of a meaningful discussion. The information I cite has been gathered over at least 10 years of paying attention to this issue, through many different sources, including websites, speeches, letters and published articles.
 
My requests for data have involved expecting people to provide relevant data when they are arguing from a position of assumed data. If they have no experience or familiarity with data for the position they are arguing for, they should probably not be arguing from that position. It's kind of how our field works. I wouldn't argue for a certain neuropsychological diagnosis after using a test where I had no idea of its psychometric properties.
 
Another concern is that the mountains of money available will corrupt psychologists individually and organizations.

Because Psychologists are somehow more susceptible to mountains of money more-so than Physicians? What about Politicians?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is getting embarrassing for RxPers. The saddest part is RxPers from the 90s who pursued this instead of legitimately educating and training themselves via medical school and residency. And they are still trying to substitute education/training/expertise with politics in the year 2015.
I sincerely hope future grad students reading this thread realize what a Psy/PhD in Psych allows them to master and what it does not. We all have our scopes of practices and areas of expertise. Utilizing politics to change that is never ideal.
 
Viva La Status Quo! Because healthcare should never change! Back to trephination and frontal lobotomies!
Makes sense. If you don't allow non-medical practitioners to practice medicine you are condoning trepanning and lobotomies......ok...no.
 
Top