I tOWe can yell and scream all we want about how we're better than MA level folks at therapy but until we can prove we're better AND better by a wide enough margin for it to be worth paying us more...we'll be constantly fighting a losing battle against market forces. .
As others have mentioned, I don't think we need to give up on being experts at therapy. We have all seen HUGE differences between MA and PhD level providers in terms of their ability to utilize EBT in a flexible manner, conceptualize cases in complex ways, manage the most difficult cases/group situations, lead treatment teams, be up to date on the latest research etc. I have seen very few MA level providers who actually know how to use CBT and other evidence-based treatments and get good results with patients. From my experience, they are also not as adept at managing the most complex cases because very few have good training and expertise in DBT, motivational interviewing etc. The more difficult the case, the more helpful it is to have extensive training and expertise, which psychologists are more likely to have. Obviously there are exceptions to this so i don't want to generalize. It would be
easy to demonstrate differences in patient outcomes (including drop out rates) if someone was willing to do the research and had the resources. There are differences and it makes sense because most MA level providers are not actually trained as therapists (e.g., many social work programs focus on case management/policy not therapy), and our length of training is easily double what they go through. This is all anecdotal so until we have data I can't prove anything.
Anecdotally, i have inherited many patients from MA level providers and more often than not the patients seem to think that it was normal for the therapist to talk about himself, give advice, tell the patient what to do or just listen most of the session. This was also my experience in co-leading "CBT" groups with MA providers. Most of the time they were giving advice and many seemed to break down during the most difficult patient situations (e.g., kicking patients out of group or getting really silent/uncomfortable). On the other hand, the psychologist supervisors i've had seem to be able to manage very complicated situations in groups. They are not perfect and can make mistakes, but seem to have developed much more flexible clinical skills to weather these types of situations. As killer diller mentioned, they should be providing the supportive therapy while the psychologists should be billing more for the specialized treatments (e.g., CBT, DBT, exposure). I am not trying to put any other profession down, but MD's and nurses have different scopes of practice and are paid on a different scale as well.
I realize that what i'm saying is going to be unpopular and controversial, but I am speaking honestly based on my own experiences and have met many colleagues who have observed these differences as well.