State of the profession - rural edition

[psychwhy]

In many posts inquiring about the ability to be successful in psychology ("is it worth it?"), it is often mentioned that, especially in metropolitan areas, it is possible to craft a highly successful career by stringing together several related activities.

I am curious about peoples' experiences outside of the big city.

My experience with social service agencies out here in rural America is that they seem to buy into the misnomer than anyone can "do" mental health. I recently interviewed at such an agency where BA/MA/RN clinicians do the same work as PhD/PsyD graduates.

I know there is a general feeling that therapy is (should) not be the sole province of doctorally trained clinicians, but this agency uses variably trained people for assessment, medication monitoring, diagnosis, and placement decisions.

Other threads have discussed how/why psychology doesn't seem to protect its "turf." Is the reality outside of the metro areas that fully qualified doctoral psychologists aren't available and agencies have to make due? Why haven't such places been investigated for allowing people to practice psychology without a license?

Or have then more or less proven that doctoral training is a luxury, but not a necessity, in mental health providing?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Psyduck]

I certainly wouldn't say that the behavior of these agencies proves that doctoral training is not necessary. I would tend to think it's more indicative of the crisis in providing adequate mental health care in much needed areas. However, this doesn't really address the issue of the agencies grouping together the work of the doctoral employees they do have with "lower level" practictioners. It may have started with saving money, or it may be a mentality produced by misinformation. Other threads have commented more about this and anyone who has worked in those areas would be more qualified to comment

 

[doctorpsych]

if you have providers that are not qualified under state regulations, they should be reported and investigated by appropriate state agencies, there is a shortage but there are also greedy administrators who are just chasing the green... there are many non-profits/community clinics that hire only a few licensed professionals just for their licenses and bill for units that were not legitely provided...and they are raking in the doe, approx. 1/2mill in a 2-4month period (all medicaid/medicare!!!) I know concerned professionals that are beginning to report such behaviors to OMH or other such state regulating agencies...

In many posts inquiring about the ability to be successful in psychology ("is it worth it?"), it is often mentioned that, especially in metropolitan areas, it is possible to craft a highly successful career by stringing together several related activities.

I am curious about peoples' experiences outside of the big city.

My experience with social service agencies out here in rural America is that they seem to buy into the misnomer than anyone can "do" mental health. I recently interviewed at such an agency where BA/MA/RN clinicians do the same work as PhD/PsyD graduates.

I know there is a general feeling that therapy is (should) not be the sole province of doctorally trained clinicians, but this agency uses variably trained people for assessment, medication monitoring, diagnosis, and placement decisions.

Other threads have discussed how/why psychology doesn't seem to protect its "turf." Is the reality outside of the metro areas that fully qualified doctoral psychologists aren't available and agencies have to make due? Why haven't such places been investigated for allowing people to practice psychology without a license?

Or have then more or less proven that doctoral training is a luxury, but not a necessity, in mental health providing?