Psychopharmacology/Advanced Practice Psychology

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I practice this way every day (as a clinical psychologist and PMHNP) and it works very well for me. I am in full-time private practice and it would be hard to practice in an integrated way working in a CMHC or VA - they would only want me to prescribe. But in private practice, I am able to integrate psychotherapy and medication management seamlessly and it works very well. I see most of my patients for 50 minutes combining therapy and meds and most of my patients seek me out specifically for this reason. I am able to run a very busy and thriving self-pay practice completely free of insurance (and I can't say enough about how enjoyable that part is).

I would encourage you to check into NP training vs PA training as you have considerably more ability to practice autonomously as a NP vs PA, but both models can work - you would just need to have a physician "supervisor" to practice as a PA.
Thank you for the input! It's hard to weigh out exactly how to do it. PA is 2 years, you're done, but you have to be supervised. In my state, I'd have to get the DPN, and the hardest year to navigate would be the RN training because I wouldn't be able to work.

What you're doing is what I'd like to do - pp with little or no insurance. Do you find that it has been financially worth it? I'd lose at least a year of income, plus the cost of school.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Thank you for the input! It's hard to weigh out exactly how to do it. PA is 2 years, you're done, but you have to be supervised. In my state, I'd have to get the DPN, and the hardest year to navigate would be the RN training because I wouldn't be able to work.

What you're doing is what I'd like to do - pp with little or no insurance. Do you find that it has been financially worth it? I'd lose at least a year of income, plus the cost of school.
It has been more than worth it financially. My practice is full and I have a waiting/cancellation list for new patients willing to wait to see me (even though I consistently try to refer them if I can't see them in a timely manner). Not taking insurance has not been a problem either. I cannot handle the volume the way it is; if I took insurance it would be entirely overwhelming.

It would more than make up for losing a year of income, IMO. I took a year off as well when I decided to go back to train as a NP. Keep in mind, if you go the PA route, you will have to pay your physician for supervision per your state's requirements and that could easily amount to $1000/month for as little as 2 hours/month of contact.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hi all! Anyone here know of any decent post-doctoral clinical psychopharmacology M.S. programs?
 
New Mexico St is probably the only active program I'd recommend. I know some of their faculty (who are solid) and I think their clinical training is some of the best integrated training available for this type of training. /didn't go there
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
New Mexico St is probably the only active program I'd recommend. I know some of their faculty (who are solid) and I think their clinical training is some of the best integrated training available for this type of training. /didn't go there

Oh great, thank you! I'm still torn between NP, PA and psychopharm MS.
 
It depends what you want to *do* in your day to day practice. If you want to solely prescribe, I wouldn't recommend Psych RxP for a number of reasons I've previously written about on here. I'd rec MD/DO >> NP > PA...based on training + autonomy + earning. NP is probably the best bang for your buck, but I think there are weaknesses in the training when it comes to Psych NPs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
anyone know how supervision for RxP works in LA? I was reading the state's law the other day, and I noticed that they used the word "consultation" instead of supervision, which I thought was interesting


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
It depends what you want to *do* in your day to day practice. If you want to solely prescribe, I wouldn't recommend Psych RxP for a number of reasons I've previously written about on here. I'd rec MD/DO >> NP > PA...based on training + autonomy + earning. NP is probably the best bang for your buck, but I think there are weaknesses in the training when it comes to Psych NPs.

this is perhaps the most vaguely positive thing I've seen you post about NPs... I'll take it.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thanks! I plan on maintaining a connection with medicine even while practicing law, but most likely, I'll go back to internal med. One of my best friends owns a small, urgent care clinic in a pretty swanky neighbourhood not too far from my condo, so once I get established in law, and as long as there are no conflicts of interest, I would most likely augment my income by pulling weekend duties at the clinic. You know, a few ear infections, some allergic conjunctivitis, exacerbations of asthma/COPD, basic wound care, etc. Anything "severe" is referred to a local ER. I miss IM. To be honest, I'm getting burned out with psych.

If I could do it over again, I would have gone to law school after undergrad. I would have gotten my JD, passed the Bar, and then worked for several years. Then I would have gone back for a PhD/PsyD. Psychiatry is mostly...script writing with minimal actual patient counseling/therapy. Even though I'm a physician, I don't believe that every pathology has a biogenic or genetic etiology. Most of my peers, however, are quick to Rx an SSRI or TCA for reactive depression! And patients now expect it. I had a patient today beg me for Paxil/Prozac due to bereavement. Her husband died a week ago and she wants meds. I tried to tell her that her depression is natural, not endogenous...and that with time, her condition will improve. Psychotherapy is the best course of action, if any, in her case, not pharmacological intervention. She was pissed I suggested such a thing and stormed out of my office.

That's what psychiatry has become...at least based on my personal experiences.

Sorry to vent!
Zack


Sorry to hear this, but not surprised. This may very well be a cultural issue. In my travels, I have noted that some patients from some cultures *expect* medicine or an injection and if they don't get it they feel that they have received inadequate treatment. They cannot be talked out of this, so vitamin pills or an injection of saline may actually go a long way toward helping them and maintaining patient rapport.

Also, prescribing mild exercise (like 15 minutes of walking per day at normal pace or slower), which actually does help, will also make them feel like something has been done. It helps to actually write these things out on an official prescription pad as it lends weight to the whole intervention. So - therapy, medication, and exercise is the usual protocol for depression, but we know SSRI's are pretty ineffective, and psychotherapy is not useful in many cases, so we substitute placebos for real meds, and forgo the psychotherapy. The exercise is really mandatory. If your patient has a sleep disorder, as do most people who have depression, you also may want to medicate for that in the short term. I have seen pretty good results with fairly refractory depression using these methods or permutations of them.

I think that the problem with psychiatry is that it is far too medication-focused, and I see psychiatrists shotgunning patients with medications, sometimes as many as six or seven simultaneously, none of which work, but produce plenty of side effects. To be fair, meds for Bipolar I and Schizophrenia do seem to work when other things don't, although they too usually have some pretty unpleasant side effects (Tardive Dyskinesia and diabetes in anti-psychotics, and chronic diaphoresis in meds used for Bipolar I)...but still they work!
 
Last edited:
Sorry to hear this, but not surprised. This may very well be a cultural issue. In my travels, I have noted that some patients from some cultures *expect* medicine or an injection and if they don't get it they feel that they have received inadequate treatment. They cannot be talked out of this, so vitamin pills or an injection of saline may actually go a long way toward helping them and maintaining patient rapport.

Also, prescribing mild exercise (like 15 minutes of walking per day at normal pace or slower), which actually does help, will also make them feel like something has been done. It helps to actually write these things out on an official prescription pad as it lends weight to the whole intervention. So - therapy, medication, and exercise is the usual protocol for depression, but we know SSRI's are pretty ineffective, and psychotherapy is not useful in many cases, so we substitute placebos for real meds, and forgo the psychotherapy. The exercise is really mandatory. If your patient has a sleep disorder, as do most people who have depression, you also may want to medicate for that in the short term. I have seen pretty good results with fairly refractory depression using these methods or permutations of them.

I think that the problem with psychiatry is that it is far too medication-focused, and I see psychiatrists shotgunning patients with medications, sometimes as many as six or seven simultaneously, none of which work, but produce plenty of side effects. To be fair, meds for Bipolar I and Schizophrenia do seem to work when other things don't, although they too usually have some pretty unpleasant side effects (Tardive Dyskinesia and diabetes in anti-psychotics, and chronic diaphoresis in meds used for Bipolar I)...but still they work!
Uh, Wut?
 
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Right?

SSRIs are very effective in certain cases, but sure if you're pooling the data with those who they don't work at all with (potentially explainable through genetic mechanisms like those with serotonin transporter SLC6A4 with S/S genotypes), then sure, they look less effective. This is the problem of using such reductionistic thinking. Either they work or they don't work.
 
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
SSRIs are very effective in certain cases, but sure if you're pooling the data...
To be clear, what "certain cases" are we talking about? The studies, which are often heavily sided toward medication efficacy (e.g., placebo washout groups, favorable outcome measures), often represent typical prescribing habits. More precisely, SSRIs are often prescribed to anyone with depressive affect so, pooled data is a fairly accurate manner of assessing efficacy.

This is the problem of using such reductionistic thinking. Either they work or they don't work.
I view the literature very differently, yes SSRIs work but why do they work. The placebo effect seems to play a strong role but not exclusively. However, the serotonin-hypothesis has very little supporting evidence at this point.
 
Also, prescribing mild exercise (like 15 minutes of walking per day at normal pace or slower), which actually does help, will also make them feel like something has been done.
I am not aware of any controlled studies indicating that such a low dosage of physical activity treats depressive disorders.

To be fair, meds for Bipolar I and Schizophrenia do seem to work when other things don't, although they too usually have some pretty unpleasant side effects (Tardive Dyskinesia and diabetes in anti-psychotics, and chronic diaphoresis in meds used for Bipolar I)...but still they work!
Work in the short-term but may potentially increase the chronicity of psychotic disorders.
 
@nitemagi : While I'm sure you are aware, I believe dynamic is referring to the works of Dr. Kirsch at MGH when he/she is referring to the placebo effect of SSRIs. There is consistent debate between the likes of Kirsch and Krystal which seem to be predicated upon the statistics used. There was also that debate about tianeptine. An explanation of Kirsch's finding and the STAR*D stuff using genetic polymorphisms would be very interesting. In all seriousness, you should at least submit a letter to the relevant journal about this.

@DynamicDidactic : There is a consistent and robust evidence base that aerobic exercise has an incredible effect on depression with effect sizes that approximate CBT and SSRI treatment. Behavioral activatoin, which incorporates exercise, has a superior effect size to CBT on meta analysis. There is also very robust data regarding the efficacy of SSRIs, which is also discussed in the Kirsch papers and the STAR*D study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
@nitemagi : While I'm sure you are aware, I believe dynamic is referring to the works of Dr. Kirsch at MGH when he/she is referring to the placebo effect of SSRIs. There is consistent debate between the likes of Kirsch and Krystal which seem to be predicated upon the statistics used. There was also that debate about tianeptine. An explanation of Kirsch's finding and the STAR*D stuff using genetic polymorphisms would be very interesting. In all seriousness, you should at least submit a letter to the relevant journal about this.

@DynamicDidactic : There is a consistent and robust evidence base that aerobic exercise has an incredible effect on depression with effect sizes that approximate CBT and SSRI treatment. Behavioral activatoin, which incorporates exercise, has a superior effect size to CBT on meta analysis. There is also very robust data regarding the efficacy of SSRIs, which is also discussed in the Kirsch papers and the STAR*D study.
I thought behavioral activation was a part of CBT. :confused: In any case, I always recommend physical activity and also sunshine and fresh air and fun. If the patient and I can find one thing that combines all of the above, then all the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Are we any closer in Canada for clinical psychologists to prescribe certain medications to treat patients?

Sent from my LG-H873 using SDN mobile
 
Look up BDNF.
I forgot about this till being bored today. Sorry to retread an old post.

If you are saying people should be prescribed SSRIs to increase BDNF production, I would say that you are not learning from past mistakes. While the prospect that the therapeutic effect of SSRIs may be due to an increase in BDNF production is interesting and worthwhile to pursue with research, one still falls prey to the same logical fallacies that led to the erroneous serotonin-theory of depression (and the general poorly-supported chemical imbalance theory of depression) - correlation does not mean causation.
 


[USER=342724]@DynamicDidactic
: There is a consistent and robust evidence base that aerobic exercise has an incredible effect on depression with effect sizes that approximate CBT and SSRI treatment. Behavioral activatoin, which incorporates exercise, has a superior effect size to CBT on meta analysis. There is also very robust data regarding the efficacy of SSRIs, which is also discussed in the Kirsch papers and the STAR*D study.[/USER]
@PSYDR
I was commenting earlier (again, sorry to rehash an old post, its been a busy semester) that "15 minutes" is not considered a therapeutic dose, it would have to be longer (i.e., 25-30).

I disagree with the term "robust data" to support SSRI efficacy. I believe the exact numbers from Kirsch were that 83% of the therapeutic effect came from placebo or 2.5 points lower score on the HAM-D for the SSRI groups. These numbers indicates a statistically significant difference but not what most people would consider a clinically significant difference. The STAR*D study is similarly lacking in clinical significance. While its true that 67% of participants got well after their 4th round of medication, only 3% of the sample remained in the study, got well, and stayed well for a year.

I'll climb back into my hole now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I started casually looking into direct-entry MSN programs recently (i.e., psychiatric and mental health nurse practitioner [PMHNP] programs), and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or experience with pursuing this route for prescription privileges? any specific program recommendations? or other feedback on the viability of this route?
 
I started casually looking into direct-entry MSN programs recently (i.e., psychiatric and mental health nurse practitioner [PMHNP] programs), and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or experience with pursuing this route for prescription privileges? any specific program recommendations? or other feedback on the viability of this route?
I did this and it has worked out extremely well. Clinical Psychologist & Psych NP dual training is a great combination. PM me if you’d like more specific information.
 
I did this and it has worked out extremely well. Clinical Psychologist & Psych NP dual training is a great combination. PM me if you’d like more specific information.

Hello sir, I pmed you because I'm greatly interested in this combination.
 
It has been more than worth it financially. My practice is full and I have a waiting/cancellation list for new patients willing to wait to see me (even though I consistently try to refer them if I can't see them in a timely manner). Not taking insurance has not been a problem either. I cannot handle the volume the way it is; if I took insurance it would be entirely overwhelming.

It would more than make up for losing a year of income, IMO. I took a year off as well when I decided to go back to train as a NP. Keep in mind, if you go the PA route, you will have to pay your physician for supervision per your state's requirements and that could easily amount to $1000/month for as little as 2 hours/month of contact.
I realized I never thanked you for providing this information. I'm very glad to hear this. I've taken my first steps and am enrolling in an RN program. I think the best way I can do this is do RN to BSN to DNP/MSN. I'm excited.
 
I realized I never thanked you for providing this information. I'm very glad to hear this. I've taken my first steps and am enrolling in an RN program. I think the best way I can do this is do RN to BSN to DNP/MSN. I'm excited.
That’s a solid choice. It will be a significant career segue, but it will be well worth it in the end. Let me know if I can offer any support.
 
That’s a solid choice. It will be a significant career segue, but it will be well worth it in the end. Let me know if I can offer any support.
Thank you! It's a long path, but now seems like a good time with more flexibility and options than in the past. I guess one positive from Covid. I've found the RN program and a program that allows RN to MSN, so I'm pretty psyched. Can't believe I'm going back to school..... but I'm excited to hear that you've found it worth it. The only real question I have for myself is whether it's financially worth it. Knowledge wise it certainly seems like it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thank you! It's a long path, but now seems like a good time with more flexibility and options than in the past. I guess one positive from Covid. I've found the RN program and a program that allows RN to MSN, so I'm pretty psyched. Can't believe I'm going back to school..... but I'm excited to hear that you've found it worth it. The only real question I have for myself is whether it's financially worth it. Knowledge wise it certainly seems like it is.
What are financial costs of those programs and how long do they take?
 
What are financial costs of those programs and how long do they take?
Crunching the numbers, it looks like it would cost $20-25,000 altogether. If you can just go straight through, it'd take about three years, but since I can't, it will take about four part time. But it also won't disrupt my life all that much.
 
Crunching the numbers, it looks like it would cost $20-25,000 altogether. If you can just go straight through, it'd take about three years, but since I can't, it will take about four part time. But it also won't disrupt my life all that much.
Huh, interesting. Do you have to do regular clinicals along the way like other nurses or NPs or is it more clustered at the end?
 
Huh, interesting. Do you have to do regular clinicals along the way like other nurses or NPs or is it more clustered at the end?
There's regular clinicals. That's the part that's going to be the most challenging, without question. Juggling that with a job will be interesting.
 
The creep is coming.

APA officially has changed its stance on training. Up to this point, the argument was always that psychopharm training is definitely post-doctoral. Now, psychopharm training may be during doctoral training. Not to overreact but this is how a field transforms; with small steps toward a goal. I wonder what the next change will be in 10 years (i.e., should be)

My goal is not to reignite the years long debate but to highlight a potentially insidious change in training.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The creep is coming.

APA officially has changed its stance on training. Up to this point, the argument was always that psychopharm training is definitely post-doctoral. Now, psychopharm training may be during doctoral training. Not to overreact but this is how a field transforms; with small steps toward a goal. I wonder what the next change will be in 10 years (i.e., should be)

My goal is not to reignite the years long debate but to highlight a potentially insidious change in training.

Honestly, if it's a stepped, hierarchical process, it's likely a vast improvement over the current state of RxP. RxP is not going away, there is enough support for it, so I'd rather strengthen training requirements. I'm never going to go for it myself, but I'm fine if APA wants to pursue this as a small side project.
 
Honestly, even if the end result doesn't end up being widespread support for/adoption of RxP, I support psychologists getting more education/training in psychopharmacology. I don't want the field to become "psychiatry lite," but psychologists should at least have decent familiarity with the most commonly-prescribed medications. If RxP does become a nationwide thing, it makes sense in terms of the quality of training for more of it to occur during grad school. But I also agree with WisNeuro that the education arm of APA should be focusing most of its efforts on increasing and more consistently maintaining training standards in the field.
 
APA policy does not matter. The state law dictates the training requirements. And that horse is already out of the barn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honestly, if it's a stepped, hierarchical process, it's likely a vast improvement over the current state of RxP. RxP is not going away, there is enough support for it, so I'd rather strengthen training requirements. I'm never going to go for it myself, but I'm fine if APA wants to pursue this as a small side project.
Yes there are 13 states with active RxP bills in their legislatures at this time.
 
Honestly, even if the end result doesn't end up being widespread support for/adoption of RxP, I support psychologists getting more education/training in psychopharmacology. I don't want the field to become "psychiatry lite," but psychologists should at least have decent familiarity with the most commonly-prescribed medications. If RxP does become a nationwide thing, it makes sense in terms of the quality of training for more of it to occur during grad school. But I also agree with WisNeuro that the education arm of APA should be focusing most of its efforts on increasing and more consistently maintaining training standards in the field.
I do agree with this. I keep getting career opportunities that take me off the NP track - just got another one so I don't think I'll be doing it after all. But I may pursue more training in psychopharm just to have the training and better understanding.
 
Is there a list of this somewhere?>
Here is a partial list. I saw a longer list, which totaled 13 states but it's buried in a LONG thread from the Div. 55 listserv. If I can find the longer list, I'll post it.

Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Hawaii
Nebraska
Pennsylvania
Texas
Vermont
Washington
 
I predict WA and HI take it for the win this year. There are extremely few things that are only legal in 6 states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Again, we have all reached the point that we won’t convince each other of whether psychologists should pursue RxP as a field. However, now we are taking about changing education. Not sure how we don’t all agree that this is the beginning of a core change in what being a psychologist means.

Whether you support the change is irrelevant. Obviously, most RxP proponents will and I won’t. For those complaining about PCSAS, this is another reason the fielding is splitting. I think we are on a crash course for a (even more) divided field.
 
I predict WA and HI take it for the win this year. There are extremely few things that are only legal in 6 states.
I have no idea what has changed but HI has not been able to pass this for almost 30 years. WA for nearly a decade.
 
and yet it continues to get 30 years of congressional sponsors... Must have 30 years worth of interest.


When it comes to politicians it is likely perverse interests. Either way, I was simply pointing out that HI hasn’t been able to get it passed for a very long time.
 
When it comes to politicians it is likely perverse interests. Either way, I was simply pointing out that HI hasn’t been able to get it passed for a very long time.

And I was simply pointing out that there is some momentum and that American politics rarely allow something to be legal in only 6 states.

Either I’m making my predictions because I’m not aware of the public data or because I have other data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
All of the states that currently permit RxP require postdoctoral psychopharmacology training in order to prescribe. All of the currently proposed bills I have reviewed require postdoctoral training in order to prescribe. It’s hard to imagine any additional law passing in the foreseeable future that does not require postdoctoral psychopharm training. APA can change their educational recommendations but as PsyDr stated, state law is what mandates policy and defines training requirements.

There is a similar parallel in nursing: The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) has recommended that all NP training require the DNP degree as the minimal educational requirement for NP practice as of 2016. Many universities and colleges of nursing have responded by discontinuing their MSN programs and only offering the DNP. However, other schools have reaffirmed their support of the MSN with no intention of doing away with it.

Regardless, state statutes as they exist now require the MSN as the prerequisite degree along with board-certification in a corresponding specialty for NP licensure. To change the requirement to the DNP would require opening the nurse practice act in all 50 states and then successfully lobbying to change the requirement to the DNP. This will never happen. This very situation is why you also can become a Registered Nurse (RN) with a BSN or an ADN degree and hold the exact same licensure in almost every state.

I support keeping formal RxP training at the postdoctoral level and hope this continues to be the case. I also continue to support improvements in didactic psychopharmacology training for psychologists and think there is definite room for improvement there - whether at the pre or postdoctoral level.
 
Last edited:
Top