RxP California update from APA

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

edieb

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
77
Colleagues,

Forwarded to the list on request from Dr. Rubin:

I am writing to inform the Division 55 membership that a lawsuit was filed
in Federal court in Los Angeles on February 9, 2006, alleging that patients
in California are having their constitutional rights violated by not
receiving constitutionally adequate treatment because of the state's and
county's inability to provide competent psychiatric care to patients who are
in custody, in the state mental hospitals, in county jails, and county
mental health facilities. The three plaintiffs allegedly harmed by the State
of California contend that the necessary numbers of competent psychiatrists
are not available and never will be due to the declining numbers of
practicing psychiatrists and the continued unattractiveness of psychiatry as
a specialty to American medical school graduates.
In addition to the State of California, the complaint names a number of
people as defendants
including Governor. Schwarzenegger, the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections, and the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. Of specific importance
to Division 55 and psychologists in general, is that the lawsuit asks the
court to amend the statute prohibiting psychologists to prescribe
medication. The plaintiffs are asking the State of California to afford
appropriately trained psychologists prescriptive authority as a remedy to
California's access to care problem. Allowing appropriately trained
psychologists to prescribe medication is the least restrictive way that
California can provide constitutionally adequate treatment. For further
information, please contact Dr. Howard Rubin [email protected], or Dr. John
Caccavale at [email protected].

Dr. Howard Rubin
Chair, Legal Committee, CSCP

Members don't see this ad.
 
edieb said:
Colleagues,

Forwarded to the list on request from Dr. Rubin:

I am writing to inform the Division 55 membership that a lawsuit was filed
in Federal court in Los Angeles on February 9, 2006, alleging that patients
in California are having their constitutional rights violated by not
receiving constitutionally adequate treatment because of the state's and
county's inability to provide competent psychiatric care to patients who are
in custody, in the state mental hospitals, in county jails, and county
mental health facilities. The three plaintiffs allegedly harmed by the State
of California contend that the necessary numbers of competent psychiatrists
are not available and never will be due to the declining numbers of
practicing psychiatrists and the continued unattractiveness of psychiatry as
a specialty to American medical school graduates.
In addition to the State of California, the complaint names a number of
people as defendants
including Governor. Schwarzenegger, the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections, and the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. Of specific importance
to Division 55 and psychologists in general, is that the lawsuit asks the
court to amend the statute prohibiting psychologists to prescribe
medication. The plaintiffs are asking the State of California to afford
appropriately trained psychologists prescriptive authority as a remedy to
California's access to care problem. Allowing appropriately trained
psychologists to prescribe medication is the least restrictive way that
California can provide constitutionally adequate treatment. For further
information, please contact Dr. Howard Rubin [email protected], or Dr. John
Caccavale at [email protected].

Dr. Howard Rubin
Chair, Legal Committee, CSCP

Wow.
 
I thank Howard Rubin for sending out the message of the lawsuit we filed
> last week. Although we have been working hard to get this together for some
> time, we have had to keep as quiet as possible about our approach.
> We are very confident that the reasons we seek RxP will be given a fair
> hearing. Perhaps, the California legislature will also take note. We intend
> to] see this to the end. For the lawsuit we did a survey of all the
> psychiatrists who are listed in the phone book in Los Angeles County and
> tried to make an appointment. We hired a group to do this for us. I'm
> including the results here for everyone to see. If there was a question of
> access, this should put it to rest.
> My intention is to release as much evidence as possible so everyone can
> evaluate why we are so excited about this.
>
> Best,
> John
>
>
> *TELEPHONE SURVEY OF ALL PSYCHIATRISTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY LISTED IN THE
> SUPERPAGES TELEPHONE DIRECTORY *
>
> *SAMPLE*
> 228 listings for psychiatry for all of LA County, as listed at
> superpages.com Calls were made from mid-December, 2005. through the end of
> January, 2006
>
> *POLLSTER*
> The Mental Health Wellness Center, located in Long Beach, California.
>
> *METHOD*
> Calls were made by a female interviewer. The interviewer read from a
> prepared script.
> Calls were made between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00PM. When an answering
> machine was reached, the interviewer left a telephone number to be called
> back. All unreturned numbers were called back three times.
>
> *RESULTS*
> 10 numbers were improperly listed, 8 phones rang with no answering machine.
> 95 calls reached answering machines, only.
> 5 psychiatrists were on vacation and could not be reached.
>
> 7 offices insisted on interviewing the potential patient before they would
> decide to take patient.
> They offered to send out an "interview screening" package that would have
to
> be filled out and sent back for evaluation. If acceptable, the patient
would
> be notified.
>
> 55 psychiatrists said they were not accepting new patients.
>
> 48 psychiatrists said they were willing to take a new patient on a cash
> basis, only. Of this 48,
> 28 psychiatrists made an appointment. (These offices were called and appt
> cancelled).
> The other 20 could not provide an appointment date at the time of the call.
>
> Of the 28 psychiatrists who made an appointment:
>
> 2 were within 1 week 7 were within 2 weeks
> 4 were within 3 weeks 5 were within 4 weeks
> 5 were within 5 weeks 1 was within 6 weeks
> 1 was within 8 weeks 1 was within 9 weeks
> 1 was within 10 weeks 1 was within 11 weeks
>
> The cost of an initial assessment was collected from 38 psychiatrists, with
> mean of $420 and a median of $450.
>
> 5 charged $100-200
> 2 charged $201-300
> 9 charged $301-400
> 18 charged $401-500
> 4 charged $501-600
 
Top