The price of peanuts in Iran

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Solideliquid said:
One thing I don't get: What's the point of a RxP psychologist working under a IM/FM PCP MD physician? That PCP/IM doc doesn't really know how to treat serious mental health problems anyway so what qualifies him/her to supervise a psychologist attempting to treat possibly complicated mental health issues?


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I am understanding it:

The psychologist is the expert diagnosing the mental disorder and recommending the best drug to treat it. The PCP MD is the medical safeguard making sure that there is no underlying medical problem, watching for interactions, adjusting doses to compensate for renal/hepatic clearance etc. Since everyone should have a PCP MD anyway, the idea is that this model widens the availability of mental health care in the absence of an available psychiatrist while responding to the fear that the medically undertrained are doling out meds.

Members don't see this ad.
 
nortomaso said:
On a sidenote, anyone here from Stanford? When I visited there, I was interviewed by a psychologist who specialized in psychopharm. He was running one of the inpatient units at the Palo Alto VA. I'm wondering how that model works.

Bruce Arnow?
 
PublicHealth said:
Bruce Arnow?


I don't think that was his name. I have it somewhere; I can get back to you.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
nortomaso said:
The psychologist is the expert diagnosing the mental disorder and recommending the best drug to treat it. The PCP MD is the medical safeguard making sure that there is no underlying medical problem, watching for interactions, adjusting doses to compensate for renal/hepatic clearance etc. Since everyone should have a PCP MD anyway, the idea is that this model widens the availability of mental health care in the absence of an available psychiatrist while responding to the fear that the medically undertrained are doling out meds.

Yup. Have you contacted your state psychology association to tell them that you're an MD who supports psychologist prescribing?
 
PublicHealth said:
Yup. Have you contacted your state psychology association to tell them that you're an MD who supports psychologist prescribing?


Haha. 1) I'm a few months shy of being an MD. Even then I won't be a real "MD", just a lowly intern.
2) You think I'm going to go on record in support of you guys? First why don't you find a Chinese dissident willing to wear a Falun Gong t-shirt in Tiannamen Square?
 
The PCP MD is the medical safeguard making sure that there is no underlying medical problem, watching for interactions, adjusting doses to compensate for renal/hepatic clearance etc.

It is the same reason why optometrists shouldn't be prescribing systemic antibiotics if they have never heard of Abx associated colitis or diamox if they don't know beans on how the kidney works.

You can kill people with the prescription pad. Medication interactions are a good share of the 90k people finding an untimely death in our medical system every year. There is a reason why for the larger part prescribing authority has been given to physicians. In the good old days, people just went to the chemist and self medicated. I am glad that this has changed, and the expansion of prescribing priviledges by midlevels threatens to erode this safeguard.
 
nortomaso said:
Haha. 1) I'm a few months shy of being an MD. Even then I won't be a real "MD", just a lowly intern.
2) You think I'm going to go on record in support of you guys? First why don't you find a Chinese dissident willing to wear a Falun Gong t-shirt in Tiannamen Square?

I'm a second-year D.O. student.
 
nortomaso said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I am understanding it:

The psychologist is the expert diagnosing the mental disorder and recommending the best drug to treat it. The PCP MD is the medical safeguard making sure that there is no underlying medical problem, watching for interactions, adjusting doses to compensate for renal/hepatic clearance etc. Since everyone should have a PCP MD anyway, the idea is that this model widens the availability of mental health care in the absence of an available psychiatrist while responding to the fear that the medically undertrained are doling out meds.


Here is what is bothering me about this. On paper this looks good, BUT when you take a real life PCP doc, in his/her own practice, how is he/she supposed to take the time to review your patient's ENTIRE history while working with 10-20 of his/her own patients in a day?

So you bring him a script for your patient for his review, are you going to present the entire patient and how many times a day are you going to do this? How is the doc supposed to get any work done assuming mental health is not his primary speciality?

EDIT: Also from fellow students not going into psychiatry, none of them even wants to come within 10 feet of a schizophrenic patient. So if I was a nice family medicine doc, why would I want a bunch of crazys cluttering my nice family waiting room anyways?
 
Here is what is bothering me about this. On paper this looks good, BUT when you take a real life PCP doc, in his/her own practice, how is he/she supposed to take the time to review your patient's ENTIRE history while working with 10-20 of his/her own patients in a day?

The idea is to cooperatively manage the patient with a PCP who has either an established doctor-patient relationship or is willing to establish one. You are right, just signing off on the scripts is useless if the PCP doesn't have the patients history and other medications available.

So if I was a nice family medicine doc, why would I want a bunch of crazys cluttering my nice family waiting room anyways?

I am not sure what practice setting you are referring to. Most of the patients we are talking about are normal members of society with a psychiatric condition requiring treatment. The idea would be that they are treated and therefore not 'crazys'. What kind of apartheid regime are you advocating there ? Psych patients are already in the PCPs waiting room every day. Usually to get their hypertension or other medical issues taken care of, but ofen enough for basic psychiatric care (which under the care of most PCPs is pretty much limited to pharmacotherapy).


Just recently I met a guy who is in his 50s and started his psych residency this year. He had been in practice as a FP for 22 years in a small town in Wyoming. As there was no psychiatrist within a 2 hour drive, he was forced to do lots of psychiatric care himself. At times this included things like assessing inmates at the county lockup for suicidality or treatment of new onset psychotic patients at the local community hospital (until they could be shipped to a specialized facility). Now he has gone back to become an expert at what he was doing to some extent all the way along.
 
nortomaso said:
DS:

1) you know quite well that Boston is one of the few cities in the US in which the market is oversaturated with psychiatrists.

And you (should) know quite well that the Los Angeles area is another saturated market (again, when you consider all the training programs).
 
This has turned into quite a good discussion. FYI, I am pro RxP but have alot of concerns about how it is coming about and who ends up prescribing. The Alliant MSCP program is good, but there are still some out there that are not, and this needs to be fixed. I worry that newly minted PhDs who go straight through a psychopharm program and start practicing will not have a clue (much like what I see happening in PA programs now). I am not a fan of APA for many reasons, and I think they need to focus on supporting quality in the RxP arena, and not quantity like the nurses did. Above all I am in support of psychology training moving away from PC-crap coursework to biopsychosocial evidence based coursework, and advanced practice ( RxP) training being high quality and defendable...even to doubting psychiatrists.

:)
 
psisci said:
This has turned into quite a good discussion. FYI, I am pro RxP but have alot of concerns about how it is coming about and who ends up prescribing. The Alliant MSCP program is good, but there are still some out there that are not, and this needs to be fixed. I worry that newly minted PhDs who go straight through a psychopharm program and start practicing will not have a clue (much like what I see happening in PA programs now). I am not a fan of APA for many reasons, and I think they need to focus on supporting quality in the RxP arena, and not quantity like the nurses did. Above all I am in support of psychology training moving away from PC-crap coursework to biopsychosocial evidence based coursework, and advanced practice ( RxP) training being high quality and defendable...even to doubting psychiatrists.

:)

APA is trying to "shape up" existing options for RxP training http://nationalregister.org/RxP_designate.htm. Division 55 folks don't seem to like it, though http://www.division55.org/Readers/Vol4/Vol4No13.htm. I think it's because Dr. Nessetti, President of Division 55, runs an online RxP program http://www.nmhc-clinics.com/pages/tpi/ppp.html#top.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Ya but Dr. Nessetti is also an MD. Weird. I have no personal knowledge of his program except that it is primarily online for didactics, but includes the only applied training requirement of any of the programs, and I like this. I feel well trained, but not because of biochem, A&P, neurophys etc, but because of my medical psych post-doc at a hospital, and my years of working with pts and psychopharm, and interaction, supervision and collaboration with psychiatrists.
 
psisci said:
Ya but Dr. Nessetti is also an MD. Weird. I have no personal knowledge of his program except that it is primarily online for didactics, but includes the only applied training requirement of any of the programs, and I like this. I feel well trained, but not because of biochem, A&P, neurophys etc, but because of my medical psych post-doc at a hospital, and my years of working with pts and psychopharm, and interaction, supervision and collaboration with psychiatrists.

Nessetti got his MD from the International University of Health Sciences in the Caribbean http://www.ceu4u.com/v2/viewcourse_authorbio.php?authid=151. This school supposedly has an option that allows students to complete the first two years of medical school on-line http://www.iuhs.edu/online_requirements.htm. I don't think he completed a residency.
 
Anasazi23 said:
Hi Sasevan.
This is basically what it boils down to. That's why I eventually gave up some years and chose to do the same. I didn't feel like being a revolutionary for the rest of my life begging and hoping for still lower-level privilages when there was already an established method with superior training to do this.

I told myself that I was determined to never play second fiddle again to a more respected, higher paid, and more comprehensive health care leader if I could help it. This way, I'm ensured that I can write for whatever I want, conduct TMS therapy (on the way soon...lot of cool new data), perform ECT without legal battles, never worry about inferior training lawsuit threats, receive substantially higher pay, be much more marketable, have full access to established physician-only continuing education programs, have equal and full respect amongst my physician colleagues, write for non-psychiatric drugs as I saw fit to further help my patients, not worry about insurance coverage providing payment to non-physicians, have a comprehensive medical background so that I am fully versed with my patients' many, varied and often complex medical questions, work in psych C/L settings if I so chose without impunity, have full access to drug company samples to help patients who cannot immediately pay or have access to medications, have the peace of mind knowing that I can relocate to anywhere in the country knowing that great jobs are available, teach psychiatry at a university at physician level pay if I so chose, have full gamut of psychiatry APA approved fellowships should I want to pursue them (I do), and simply know that I went through the most extensive training available to 'do what I do.'

How's that for a run-on sentence?

Hi Anasazi23,

I can't belive you beat me to the punch :laugh: ...but you did :thumbup: PH too.
I agree with all that you've said and then some. Anyway, I take the MCAT April 22 and hopefully will be in med school in the Fall of 2007. Wish me luck.
Maybe I'll end up an alumnus of NYCOM...once again following in your's and PH's steps. :)
 
sasevan said:
Hi Anasazi23,

I can't belive you beat me to the punch :laugh: ...but you did :thumbup: PH too.
I agree with all that you've said and then some. Anyway, I take the MCAT April 22 and hopefully will be in med school in the Fall of 2007. Wish me luck.
Maybe I'll end up an alumnus of NYCOM...once again following in your's and PH's steps. :)

Good luck, sas! Maybe sazi, you, and I can open a practice together, hire a bunch of medical psychologists, and watch the money roll in! :laugh:
 
PublicHealth said:
Do you really think it'll take decades? If California goes, it may expedite the process in other states. When optometry first obtained RxP in NY, it took ten years for all the other states to pass such legislation.

I'm sorry to say it, but yes, I do think it will likely take decades. And even then it may well be a crazy quilt of different training requirements/scope of practices.
I do support this development in psychology but personally (for the reasons very well articulated by Anasazi23) I'm glad that I decided to move towards psychiatry.
Did any of that influence your own decision to move from neuropsych to med?
 
PublicHealth said:
Good luck, sas! Maybe sazi, you, and I can open a practice together, hire a bunch of medical psychologists, and watch the money roll in! :laugh:

That's what I'm talking about! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
psisci said:
This has turned into quite a good discussion. FYI, I am pro RxP but have alot of concerns about how it is coming about and who ends up prescribing. The Alliant MSCP program is good, but there are still some out there that are not, and this needs to be fixed. I worry that newly minted PhDs who go straight through a psychopharm program and start practicing will not have a clue (much like what I see happening in PA programs now). I am not a fan of APA for many reasons, and I think they need to focus on supporting quality in the RxP arena, and not quantity like the nurses did. Above all I am in support of psychology training moving away from PC-crap coursework to biopsychosocial evidence based coursework, and advanced practice ( RxP) training being high quality and defendable...even to doubting psychiatrists.

:)

Agreed.
I'm all for psychologists and RxP and I believe that this push is definitely helping the field as a whole to be more cognizant of the bio in the biopsychosocial model.
I believe (hope) that ultimately medical psychology with RxP will be a well established sub-specialty of clinical psychology.
But, like you, I'm concerned about the post-doc MS psychopharm programs that are long-distance learning or extended weekend seminars.
I mean, their curricula look good on paper but how truly feasible is it to become a psychopharmacotherapist in this manner?
If I'm not mistaken I believe that you became a med psych thru some hospital based fellowship; I think I would favor APA/Div 55 moving in the direction of something like that...more in the direction of the DoD demonstration project.
 
But, like you, I'm concerned about the post-doc MS psychopharm programs that are long-distance learning or extended weekend seminars.
I mean, their curricula look good on paper but how truly feasible is it to become a psychopharmacotherapist in this manner?

You learn how to use drugs in the supervised setting of a residency. The classroom knowledge is only a first step.
 
f_w said:
You learn how to use drugs in the supervised setting of a residency. The classroom knowledge is only a first step.

From what I understand (the NSU model) the clinical practicum part is seeing 50 patients/100 hours (and the academic part consists of approximately 60 actual classroom days over 1.5 years).

Here's the link: http://www.cps.nova.edu/
then go to Programs Offered

The Master’s Program in Clinical Psychopharmacology is designed to enhance the knowledge base recommended by the American Psychological Association for psychologists working in medical settings, private practice, or other settings where the interaction with the treating physician and other health care practitioners is critical to improving patient care.
The program consists of 33 semester hours which includes 2 practicums. Our faculty members are drawn from Nova Southeastern University’s colleges of psychology, pharmacy, and medical sciences and are supplemented by adjunct faculty members with special expertise.
The program is offered in a format accessible to psychologists from around the nation. Classes are scheduled bimonthly, meeting for six consecutive days (Thursday – Tuesday). Web course tools (WebCt) are used to enhance learning between class sessions.

The overall training goals are designed to educate the students as follows:

expand the knowledge base in biopsychology, pharmacology and psychopharmacology.
ensure a more complex understanding of how medical conditions interact with psychological conditions.
develop a more sophisticated understanding of a client’s medication, potential side effects, and contraindications.
develop consultation skills for work with physicians and other health care providers.
Curriculum

PSY 9500/Neuroanatomy/Neuropathology
PSY 9505/Neurophysiology
PSY 9507/Introduction to Organic & Biochemistry
PSY 9510/Neurochemistry
PSY 9512/Human Anatomy & Physiology
PSY 9515/General Pharmacology
PSY 9520/General Psychopharmacology
PSY 9525/Developmental Psychopharmacology
PSY 9530/Chemical Dependency & Pain Management
PSY 9535/Pathophysiology
PSY 9540/Introduction Physical Assessment & Lab Exams
PSY 9545/Professional, Ethical & Legal Issues
PSY 9550/Psychotherapy/Pharmacotherapy Interactions
PSY 9555/Computer Based Practice Aids
PSY 9560/Pharmacoepidemiology
PSY 9570/Practicum I: Psychopharmacology
PSY 9575/Practicum II: Psychopharmacology

The practicum is one of the most important elements of the curriculum. This comprehensive program provides each student with practical experience with patients of various ages and varied diagnoses. The curriculum requires a minimum of two; 100-hour intensively supervised clinical experiences, ordinarily scheduled in the summer terms, where a minimum of 50 patients is seen during each practicum. To comply with APA recommended standards, each student should have a minimum of two hours per week of individual supervision.

Students will have to arrange their own practicum settings, which comply with and are approved by the Practicum Coordinator, or his designate.

Students are expected to spend 100 hours or more with their qualified mentor, usually a boarded psychiatrist or an otherwise qualified medical practitioner. The student observes the psychiatrist/patient interaction, his/her clinical evaluation; treatment (medication) prescribed and understands the justification for the treatment protocol. It is preferred that the supervisee is able to follow patients over time to observe long-term effects. In general, each student should spend sufficient hours each week with a supervising psychiatrist (or other accepted provider) to complete his or her practicum hours in a reasonable time frame (usually 8-12 weeks). The specific hours per week are arranged between the student and the approved practicum mentor.

Case seminars overseen by a qualified proctor are scheduled for students in the summer semesters. As part of the practicum training process, students are expected to present clinical cases.

In review, the clinical rotation will consist of two, approximately 100 hours practicum, including observation and clinical discussion of fifty patients. The goal is for students to observe a diverse group of patients with a variety of symptoms over the course of several weeks of treatment and to be able to observe the clinical effects of psychotropic medications developing over time. Students must keep a complete log of their clinical activities as part of the record of their training. The log should include, but is not limited to: each patient’s concise biopsychosocial history; medical and psychiatric history; medications that the patient is currently taking; allergies; foods and beverages that might suggest negative drug interactions; current DSM diagnosis; indications and counter-indications regarding the psychotropic medication(s) currently prescribed and; drug-drug interactions. Each patient’s log will conclude with a one-paragraph summary.

Prerequisites for Practicum I and Practicum II are successful completion of all prior courses.

Please check-out the tentative schedule.

Is this really enough?
It may be, but I'm not sure; it looks questionable since it falls short of the DoD demonstration project (the only verified med psych training model that I know of).
 
The 50 patients/100hours sounds okay if you didn't understand it, but they seem like quite arbitrary figures plucked out of the air.

Perhaps finding out how many patients psychiatry residents see over the course of a residency and using that would be better before they are allowed practice independently. Or why not the requirement of DoD program (but that would be too long and too expensive for APA to agree to).

WHy 100 hours? Why not 10? WHy not 1000? Who makes this **** up anyway?
 
Is that 50 patients for 100 hours each ?

(a psych resident works probably about 50-70 hours/week, if that is 100 hours total it would be the equivalent of 2 weeks of psych residency)

Sounds more like tagging along with someone for 100 hours in a setting 'to be arranged by the trainee'......

This is scary.
 
psisci said:
I don't know much about the lawsuit either. However next time the psychology mafia subcommittee to overthrow psychiatry meets I will provide more information............. :cool:


Are they taking new recruits?
 
sasevan said:
I'm sorry to say it, but yes, I do think it will likely take decades. And even then it may well be a crazy quilt of different training requirements/scope of practices.
I do support this development in psychology but personally (for the reasons very well articulated by Anasazi23) I'm glad that I decided to move towards psychiatry.
Did any of that influence your own decision to move from neuropsych to med?

Yes, although I am still interested in behavioral neurology and neuropsychology. I really like psychodiagnostics, but also want to be able to provide the highest level, most comprehensive behavioral healthcare. Sazi assures me that my "doom and gloom" perspective on psychiatry is crap. I just hope my $200K+ investment into medical training pays off in the end.

Regarding your other point above, I think the APA's efforts to streamline postdoctoral training programs (see above links) is a good move. They're also making an effort to implement the same RxP legislation as LA in other states, so this would standardize the laws somewhat.
 
Can you believe that a discussion on the price of peanuts in Iran has spilled on to six pages!

SDN Hall of Fame here we come!
 
OUR HAWAII COLLEAGUES CONTINUE THEIR EXCITING RXP QUEST
Significant Progress: In our recent columns we have
described how during the last session of the Hawaii State
Legislature, the Hawaii Psychological Association (HPA), in
collaboration with the Hawaii Primary Care Association, nearly
obtained prescriptive authority (RxP) for their members working
within federally qualified community health centers. HPA was
ultimately successful in having a special Task Force enacted which
was comprised of two legislators, two psychologists, and two
psychiatrists. This group met four times over the last three months
of 2005 with Ray Folen and Jill Oliveira-Berry (a Native Hawaiian
psychologist) representing HPA. Key objectives included: 1) An
exploration of access to mental healthcare in Hawaii, particularly in
rural areas of the islands. And, 2) Proposed models from both the
Hawaii Psychiatric Medical Association and HPA to enhance services,
especially for the identified areas and patient populations that
experience significant barriers to mental healthcare access (i.e.,
primary care patient populations, the uninsured, rural communities,
etc.). With the convening of the 2006 legislature, House Bill 2589
was introduced with seven House signatures as introducers and
co-introducers (including one of the Task Force co-chairs); a first
in HPA’s RxP history. The bill would allow appropriately trained
psychologists working in health centers to prescribe, as well as
colleagues working in health clinics in federally designated
medically underserved areas or clinics in mental health professional
shortage areas. Ongoing collaboration with a physician is required,
similar to the provisions of the Louisiana Medical Psychology Act,
and the bill contains a number of references to APA’s
recommendations. After 3 ½ hours of contentious debate, the House
Health Committee reported the bill favorably by a vote of 4 yes and 3
excused. The bill now goes to another House committee (Consumer
Protection and Commerce). Particularly impressive was the support
expressed for the bill by the Hawaii Medical Service Association
(HMSA) (Blue Cross/Blue Shield), which is the largest insurance
company in Hawaii, as well as the medical directors of each of the
community health centers. Our sincerest congratulations to Jill and
Robin Miyamoto who are spearheading HPA’s legislative effort.
Prior to the introduction of this legislation, I had the
opportunity of presenting at the HPA Primary Care Institute, which
was co-sponsored by the Hawaii Primary Care Association. Former HPA
President Kate Brown did an outstanding job educating the membership
as to why it is critical for professional psychology to become
actively engaged in providing primary healthcare. Exciting workshops
were presented by Dan Egli and Susan McDonald. Enthusiastic “calls
for action” were issued by the House and Senate co-chairs of the Task
Force, who are HPA RxP champions, as well as one of the community
health center medical directors who has been extraordinarily
supportive of psychology over the years. Dan, who served on the
original APA RxP task force back in the early 1990s, commented that
in all his travels, he had never seen elected officials who
understood the underlying access and quality of care issues so well.
As requested, Jim Quillin, President of the Louisiana
Academy of Medical Psychologists, submitted testimony. “I write to
you today on behalf of the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists
to provide support for HB 2589. As you may be aware, a very similar
statute has been enacted in Louisiana, having been signed by our
Governor in 2004, with enabling regulations finalized in January
2005. Since that time, 30 medical psychologists (MP) have been
certified by the Louisiana Board of Examiners of Psychologists and
are now authorized to prescribe medications recognized and
customarily used in the management of psychiatric disorders. Like HB
2589, the Louisiana Medical Psychology statute fosters integrated,
collaborative care between medical psychologists and primary care or
attending physicians.
“You will undoubtedly hear testimony to the effect that the
training being proposed in Hawaii is inadequate and that allowing
psychologists to prescribe these medications will place patients at
great medical risk. However, the extensive additional training
outlined in HB 2589 is essentially identical to that received by
medical psychologists in Louisiana. With respect to safety, medical
psychologists certified in Louisiana saw a total of 7,260 patients in
2005, after receiving the authority to prescribe. Of those patients,
3,863 (53%) were provided prescriptions and a total of 9,345
prescriptions were written including refills. There were no adverse
events associated with this expanded practice. I should add that the
patient population treated included the full range of psychiatric
conditions, and many patients were also significantly medically
compromised by other health conditions. Several of our members are
also now specifically credentialed to provide these services in
nonpsychiatric hospitals. It is my understanding that the experience
of DOD trained psychologists is essentially the same as ours.
“Patients express an extraordinarily high degree of
satisfaction with medical psychologists and we have been welcomed
with open arms by rank-and-file physicians in our communities, most
of whom have little interest in professional turf issues and instead
value the optimized outcomes afforded by qualified health care
providers working within a collaborative model of care. I hope this
information is of assistance to this committee in considering this
particular piece of legislation. I am confident that Hawaii will
continue its long tradition of supporting safe, effective and
progressive healthcare change for the citizens of your great state.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any additional
information. Sincerely.”
From a public policy frame of reference, it is intriguing
that in both Louisiana and Hawaii the prime sponsors of psychology’s
RxP legislation were themselves physicians. And, for our
practitioners, it is important from time to time to reiterate Jim’s
heartfelt view that: “As I’ve started prescribing, I’ve found myself
pondering afresh the concern of some that we are ‘medicalizing’
psychology. To be brief, such concerns, while certainly
understandable, appear to be unnecessary. While some of our new
professional activities are unmistakably medical in character (i.e.,
vital signs/review of systems/labs, evaluation of drug-drug and
disease-drug interactions, therapeutic monitoring, etc.), the
‘medical’ in medical psychology is an adjective that modifies rather
than defines who and what we are – psychologists. The opportunity to
provide a broader range of therapeutic options to my patients
certainly has not seemed to diminish my sense of professional
identity.”
In his testimony, former HPA President Ray Folen stressed
the access and quality of care issues: “House Bill 2589 allows those
being served in community health centers (CHCs) to have access to the
full spectrum of mental health services they may need. I support
this bill because I truly believe it is the right thing to do....
Despite promises made over the last 20 years, psychiatry had been
unable to meet the need to provide psychoactive medications,
particularly to those in rural, poor and underserved areas of our
State. Prescriptive authority is only meaningful in an appropriate
context, and the primary care setting is the one that makes the most
sense to us. Primary care psychologists work in a primary care
clinic. In our experience, family practitioners highly value these
psychologists for a number of reasons. They find that integrating
primary care and psychological services is essential to the goal of
truly comprehensive treatment. The patients welcome the seamless
continuity of their overall health care and appreciate the lack of
stigma that has historically been associated with behavioral health
care.
“Sadly, the Hawaii Psychiatric Association has chosen to
make grand assertions in an effort to undercut psychology’s efforts
to provide full-service mental health care to those in unserved and
underserved areas of our State. Legislators are reportedly being
told that 130 psychiatrists are serving Medicaid and Medicare
patients. The truth is that the vast majority of them do not. As a
result, a large number of Medicaid and Medicare patients, and most of
the uninsured ones, are going to the 13 community health centers for
their mental health care. Despite 20 years of promises,
psychiatrists are located in only 3 of the 13 CHCs. Contrast that
with psychologists, who are now serving Hawaii’s neediest and poorest
populations in a majority of CHCs. Unlike psychiatry, we are
providing the services and we are doing it now.
“Here is the actual offer that the Department of Psychiatry
made to the community health centers: one psychiatric resident (with
attending) to be available to each neighbor island health center for
½ day per month (only ½ day per month!) to provide follow-up care to
2-3 patients (the centers have thousands of patients in need of
mental health services!). While I applaud any effort by psychiatry
to provide services where they are needed, they have proven over the
years that they cannot do the job. Only 3% of all psychiatry
graduates are going into underserved areas....
 
Continued...

Psychologists have been prescribing safely since 1974:
first in the State Health System of New York, then in the United
States Indian Health Service, followed by the Department of Defense
and the States of Louisiana and New Mexico. In every setting, the
evidence is clear and unmistakable: psychologists prescribe safely
and effectively. The psychologists in Hawaii’s Community Health
Centers provide culturally-appropriate mental health care and serve
as the psychopharmacology experts to the primary care physicians in
the Centers. All of the CHC medical directors support this bill!...”
A More Global Perspective: The prescriptive authority (RxP)
agenda is unquestionably important for the future of professional
psychology and will be determinative as to the type of care which our
patients will ultimately be able to receive. In our judgment,
however, equally important in the long run as its potential for
improving the availability of high quality psychological care is its
catalytic role in developing an appreciation within the practitioner
community for the enormity of the unprecedented changes that are
occurring within the nation’s healthcare environment. As a number of
our distinguished former APA Presidents have demonstrated (i.e., Joe
Matarazzo, Charlie Spielberger, Norine Johnson, and Ron Levant),
psychology is one of the nation’s bona fide healthcare professions,
not merely a mental health speciality. As one of the learned
professions, collectively we have a special societal responsibility
to provide proactive vision in defining the parameters of the all
important psychosocial-behavioral-economic-cultural gradient of
healthcare. For professional psychology, it is absolutely critical
that our practitioners understand how they can position their
practices and clinical expertise to become an integral component of
their own local healthcare environment.
The AMA News recently reported: “Managing Mental Health:
Primary care physicians increasingly are diagnosing and treating
depression. Insurers are responding. Even if you’re not a
psychiatrist – especially if you’re not – you soon could be hearing
from health plans about depression. While employers and plans for
years have developed disease management and behavioral health
carve-outs that were supposed to manage mental illness costs, their
efforts are getting more aggressive in the face of evidence that
depression can exacerbate physical conditions, and vice versa,
thereby costing employers and plans a lot of money. Their efforts
are also getting more aggressive in the face of evidence that in an
overwhelming number of cases, it’s a primary care physician who is
diagnosing and treating depression.... And at least one plan, Aetna,
promises to pay extra for depression screenings, as long as doctors
go through the plan’s training program....
“Insurers are looking at primary care physicians for two
reasons. First, the primary care physician often is going to be the
treating physician. The National Business Group on Health, a
coalition of large employers... is saying that 67% of psychotropic
drugs are prescribed by primary care physicians. Cigna, citing its
own research, says 80% of the estimated 122 million annual
antidepressant prescriptions are written by primary care physicians.
The National Business Group on Health... also said 51.6% of patients
treated for major depression are seen in the ‘general medical
sector,’ defined as primary care physicians and other non-psychiatric
physicians. The report quotes American Academy of Family Physicians
research saying 42% of all clinical depression diagnoses are made by
primary care doctors.... Employers and insurers also have seen the
studies saying that depression can make other conditions worse, as
well as chronic illnesses leading to a case of depression. They’ve
also seen the studies saying how much that can cost.” This is not a
new phenomena. During its deliberations on the Fiscal Year 1980
Department of Defense Appropriations bill (long before patient
medical records could be computerized and routinely compared), the
Senate Appropriations Committee noted that: “The Committee has become
aware of statistics that indicate that from 30 to 50 percent of those
labeled as having ‘mental health’ problems presently receive
treatment from the general health care system, rather than from a
practitioner specifically trained in a mental health specialty.
Rendering appropriate psychotherapy is a highly complex procedure
which has the potential for resulting adverse consequences, as well
as for successful intervention.”
Can Quality Care Truly Be Cost-Effective? The rapidly
evolving emphasis on integrating psychological care into our primary
healthcare system can perhaps be viewed as being primarily driven by
the economics involved, as was predicted decades ago by another
former APA President, Nick Cummings. The Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) recently reported that patients with five or
more chronic conditions account for 23% of its beneficiaries but 68%
of its spending, seeing an average of 13 different doctors and
filling 50 prescriptions a year. By the year 2020, 25% of the
American population will be living with multiple chronic conditions;
the costs for managing them will reach $1.07 trillion. This is at a
time when almost 46 million Americans are uninsured and an additional
16 million have health coverage that does not adequately protect them
from catastrophic health expenses. Fifty-four percent of the
under-insured report going without needed care. From a political
frame of reference, poll after poll indicates that the escalating
cost of health care in our nation continues to be one of the top two
or three items of concern for the voting public. The cost of family
health insurance is rising faster than wages, with average premiums
increasing 71% during the past five years. The challenge for
psychology as we enter the 21st century is to position our profession
to effectively be on the cutting-edge of the public policy and
clinical debates that are unfolding as our elected officials grapple
with the underlying issues of access, quality of care, and
cost-containment. Russ Newman and the Practice Directorate are
critical to our future. Aloha,

Pat DeLeon, former APA President – Division 42 – February, 2006
 
PublicHealth said:
Yes, although I am still interested in behavioral neurology and neuropsychology. I really like psychodiagnostics, but also want to be able to provide the highest level, most comprehensive behavioral healthcare. Sazi assures me that my "doom and gloom" perspective on psychiatry is crap. I just hope my $200K+ investment into medical training pays off in the end.

Regarding your other point above, I think the APA's efforts to streamline postdoctoral training programs (see above links) is a good move. They're also making an effort to implement the same RxP legislation as LA in other states, so this would standardize the laws somewhat.

I have to agree with sazi on the no need for the doom and gloom; in fact, I'd go further and suggest that whether or not medical psychology becomes widespread, psychiatry is poised for increased pre-eminence with the development of medical diagnostic tools such as SPECT and possible further medical treatment technologies such as TMS and VNS.
In a sense, psychology's seeking RxP underscores the importance of the bio in the biopsychosocial model and obviously that is psychiatry's strength-IMO even med psych will be playing catch up to psychiatry.

P.S. I'm glad that APA is seeking to standardize RxP scope of practice and hopefully will follow suit with training reqs. IMO this is another area where psychology is playing catch up to medicine.
 
Bill Status

HB2589 HD1
Generated on 2/20/2006 6:46:22 PM
Measure Title: RELATING TO PSYCHOLOGISTS.
Report Title: Psychologists; Prescriptive Authority
Description: Establishes conditional prescriptive certificates that authorizes qualified psychologists practicing at federally qualified health centers or health clinics located in a medically underserved area or a mental health professional shortage area to prescribe psychotropic medications. Establishes prescriptive certificates. (HB2589 HD1)
Package: None
Companion:
Introducer(s): GREEN, ARAKAKI, HERKES, SONSON, Luke, Takumi, Tsuji
Current Referral: HLT, CPC

Date Status Text
1/24/2006 H Pending introduction.
1/25/2006 H Introduced and Pass First Reading.
1/27/2006 H Referred to HLT, CPC, referral sheet 5
2/4/2006 H Bill scheduled to be heard by HLT on Wednesday, 02-08-06 at 6:00 pm in House conference room 325.
2/9/2006 H The committees on HLT recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 4 Ayes: Representative(s) Arakaki, Green, Hale; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) Cabanilla; 0 Noes: none; and 3 Excused: Representative(s) Nishimoto, Sonson, Halford.
2/15/2006 H Reported from the committee on HLT (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 409-06) as amended in (HD 1), recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to the committee on CPC.
2/16/2006 H Passed Second Reading as amended in (HD 1) and referred to the committee(s) on CPC with Representative(s) Stevens, Stonebraker, Thielen voting no (3) and Representative(s) Kahikina excused (1).
2/17/2006 H Bill scheduled to be heard by CPC on Wednesday, 02-22-06 at 2:00 pm in House conference room 325.

$ = Appropriation measure
ConAm = Constitutional Amendment
 
Top