Illinois passes bill allowing psychologists to prescribe medications

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

freaker

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
853
Reaction score
22
I suppose medical school and residency are becoming irrelevant...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._psychiatrists-psychologists-senate-committee

Senate committee passes bill allowing psychologists to prescribe drugs

March 13, 2013|By Rafael Guerrero, Chicago Tribune reporter

Illinois psychologists won the opening round Tuesday in their fight to join psychiatrists in prescribing drugs to patients.

Despite protests by psychiatrists and physicians, the Senate Public Health Committee voted 8-0 to advance a measure that would allow psychologists to prescribe medications after acquiring a master's degree in psychopharmacology. They also would have to pass a national certification exam and renew certification every two years.

Sponsoring Sen. Don Harmon said the bill is in response to a diminishing number of psychiatrists in the state.

"Illinois faces a critical shortage in mental health professionals who are trained to prescribe medicine, resulting in inadequate treatment for mental illness across the state," said Harmon, D-Oak Park.

Opponents argued the degree requirement of 462 hours — some of which can be completed through online courses — takes lightly all the years of medical school psychiatrists must go through.

"It's an invasive procedure when somebody takes medication — it affects their entire body," said Linda Gruenberg, president of the Illinois Psychiatric Society. "Without comprehensive medical education that you get from four years of medical school, four years of residency training and practice, you are not prepared to prescribe psychotropic medication."

The legislation would "lower the bar to prescribe medications in Illinois to the lowest standards in the country," added Daniel Yohanna, a University of Chicago psychiatrist and a past president of the psychiatric society.

After the vote, Yohanna said opponents now must lobby senators to defeat the "unsafe bill."

If the bill is approved, Illinois would become the third state with such a law, joining Louisiana and New Mexico, said Nadia Webb, a professor at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology. The United States military also allows psychologists to prescribe drugs. All told, Webb said, there are at least 300 certified prescribing psychologists in the nation.

"I am convinced that there is a safe track record going back years in several states," said Thomas Brady, a California psychiatrist who trains some of the psychologists who prescribe medication. "It leads me to conclude that they (prescribing psychologists) can prescribe safely."

Members don't see this ad.
 
If psychologists are so well meaning in their mission to provide access, why not also simultaneously advocate for social workers and other therapists to prescribe medications? Their rivals know about as much as they do when it comes to medications.

And while they're at it why not just create an ultra fast track and let high school graduates take a weekend workshop to memorize the DSM. If they pass, they can sign up for the psychotropic medication retreat. I'll bring the soda and crackers.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This is dangerous and actually posing public health danger since those psychologists don't even know what to do with any medical complications . They keep using the excuse of unavailability of psychiatrists..so forth and allowing non-MDs to practice medicine . This is scary. I am sure sooner or later, we will allowing a street person to perform surgeries on general population if there are not enough surgeons ....
 
too lazy to read the link, granted I think the thread title is a bit misleading seeing as the article title says it only got out of a sub-committee, probably a ton of other hoops to jump through.

What drugs are they allowing them to prescribe? Presumably there must be some sort of "allowed drug list"?
 
This is dangerous and actually posing public health danger since those psychologists don't even know what to do with any medical complications . They keep using the excuse of unavailability of psychiatrists..so forth and allowing non-MDs to practice medicine . This is scary. I am sure sooner or later, we will allowing a street person to perform surgeries on general population if there are not enough surgeons ....

1) I don't know about you, but when/if a patient I have develops a serious medical complication from a psychotropic I've prescribed, I'll get internists, intensivists, etc involved. Just like a psychologist, I am not trained to provide supportive care for a person with NMS.

2) Between NM, Louisiana and the US military, we already have a good bit of data on psychologists rx'ing...and it looks like it is very safe.
 
I think one reason psychologists are pushing for this is because of the internship crisis in clinical psychology (a significant percentage of clinical psych PhDs end up not matching into internships nowadays). Gotta give them something to do.

A lot of people also don't seem to appreciate that ruling out organic causes of seemingly psych-based illnesses is not always a trivial thing. Just in the few years I've been doing this, I have encountered enough situations where a non-psychiatrist MD thought the patient's behavior was due to a psych disorder, only to have it turn out that the patient had something medical going on (post-ictal psychosis, depakote-induced liver toxicity, your garden variety delirium in an elderly person with a UTI, etc.)
How is someone who never even went to med school supposed to have the clinical experience to pick up on those kinds of situations?
I think a lot of people actually think that all psychiatry involves is "You seem sad. Have an SSRI", and that's a dangerous assumption.
 
I think one reason psychologists are pushing for this is because of the internship crisis in clinical psychology (a significant percentage of clinical psych PhDs end up not matching into internships nowadays). Gotta give them something to do.

A lot of people also don't seem to appreciate that ruling out organic causes of seemingly psych-based illnesses is not always a trivial thing. Just in the few years I've been doing this, I have encountered enough situations where a non-psychiatrist MD thought the patient's behavior was due to a psych disorder, only to have it turn out that the patient had something medical going on (post-ictal psychosis, depakote-induced liver toxicity, your garden variety delirium in an elderly person with a UTI, etc.)
How is someone who never even went to med school supposed to have the clinical experience to pick up on those kinds of situations?
I think a lot of people actually think that all psychiatry involves is "You seem sad. Have an SSRI", and that's a dangerous assumption.

ummm...what do those examples have to do with prescribing rights for psychologists?

If psychologists have prescribing rights it doesnt mean hospitals still cant exclusively hire psychiatrists for some positions(like on acute inpatient units where you have to accept people triaged from the ER).....
 
They should think carefully before prescribing as lawsuits will be high. Try explaining to a jury that you took a 2 week class in medications.

and yet there havent been any rx-related lawsuits in NM or LA.....
 
I don't see how psychiatrists have a right to complain about this when some of their brethren are still handing out Xanax as first line treatment for nearly everything that crosses their desks. My personal psychologist wouldn't be interested in prescribing as he tends to not like psychiatric drugs for the most part, but he's a better sounding board for my concerns about medication than someone I see once every 3-6 months for 15 minutes who has to look at a chart to get my name let alone knows which meds I'm on. My psychologist actually has treated people who have withdrawn from benzos (not medically but treated them for the emotional issues that come up with withdrawal) and understands ideas like tapering whereas my psychiatrist puts people on benzos. Someone I can't call or e-mail, and see a few times a year and doesn't really know me can't help the way someone who sees you once a week for an hour can.

I'm not sure if I would want to see a prescribing psychologist--it seems like it might muddy the waters. I think it might hurt the relationship for a variety of reasons. But it would be my hope that a prescribing psychologist would be more judicious than a psychiatrist and use medications adjunctively, but they could end up setting up their schedules the same way psychiatrist do, and then where's the difference?

And yes, I will point out the requisite: there are good, judicious psychiatrists. They're a bit like finding unicorns, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I think one reason psychologists are pushing for this is because of the internship crisis in clinical psychology (a significant percentage of clinical psych PhDs end up not matching into internships nowadays). Gotta give them something to do.

A lot of people also don't seem to appreciate that ruling out organic causes of seemingly psych-based illnesses is not always a trivial thing. Just in the few years I've been doing this, I have encountered enough situations where a non-psychiatrist MD thought the patient's behavior was due to a psych disorder, only to have it turn out that the patient had something medical going on (post-ictal psychosis, depakote-induced liver toxicity, your garden variety delirium in an elderly person with a UTI, etc.)
How is someone who never even went to med school supposed to have the clinical experience to pick up on those kinds of situations?
I think a lot of people actually think that all psychiatry involves is "You seem sad. Have an SSRI", and that's a dangerous assumption.

I know from experience, it can be, you have an anxiety disorder. Take Ativan for the rest of your life (and it is said to you at age 14).

I wish what you were saying were true for everyone, but it's not. The way some people are treated, the secretary at the front desk might as well just see the patients.
 
Just takes 1 to open the flood gates. People once believed that c-sections were safer for all women as well.

ummm no.....1 prescribing psychologist making an error and getting sued in no way increases the likelihood that a different prescribing psychologist somewhere also made a malpractice worthy prescribing error. They are independent of each other.

If this becomes a bigger trend and spreads to other states(as is only a matter of time). I think this will be a good thing in a way because it will force psychiatrists to actually provide integrated treatment themselves. Here is what Carlat wrote on the matter below...he pretty much nailed it imo.

The case for prescribing psychologists

By Daniel Carlat, M.D.

Psychologists now have prescriptive authority in New Mexico, Louisiana, Guam and all branches of the U.S. Military. Although the “RxP” movement recently experienced a setback when Oregon’s governor vetoed a bill that would have authorized prescriptive authority, it is increasingly likely that many more states will pass such bills over the next 10 to 20 years.
The overwhelming majority of psychiatrists are adamantly opposed to RxP, officially citing concerns about patient safety. However, as a psychiatrist who was once involved in the politics of the American Psychiatric Association, I know that the major concern has to do primarily with economics and prestige. Psychiatrists are afraid of losing business to prescribing psychologists, with the consequent diminishment of their power within the mental health community.
I think these concerns are misguided. Regarding patient safety, it is clear that prescribing psychologists have already established a track record of safely and competently prescribing psychotropics. This track record began in 1991, when the Department of Defense developed an experimental program to teach psychologists how to prescribe medications. In 1998, this program was carefully evaluated by the American College of Neuropharmacology, an organization of psychiatrists and psychiatric researchers. This panel concluded that all 10 graduates of the program “performed with excellence wherever they were placed,” and there were no reports of medication errors or bad patient outcomes.
The program was discontinued because it was not considered to be a cost-effective use of military resources, but over the last few years, the military has hired many prescribing psychologists who have been trained in one of several civilian-based psychoparmacology masters programs. Prescribing psychologists now practice in all branches of the military, and one prescribing psychologist (Major Alan Hopewell) was recently awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious medical service during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007-2008.
In Louisiana and New Mexico, it is estimated that several thousand prescriptions have been written by prescribing psychologists. There have been no reported complaints about these practitioners from patients or from collaborating doctors, nor have any malpractice suits been registered involving prescribing psychologists. Thus, it is becoming increasingly clear that the argument about patient safety is a red herring and masks the actual resistance, which regards competition for professional turf and the money that flows from that.
Why would I, a psychiatrist, actively argue in favor of psychologists prescribing? I have two main reasons: First, there is a critical national shortage of psychiatric prescribers, and second, psychiatric practice has become dangerously fixated on psychopharmacological solutions.
Regarding the shortage of psychiatrists, a recent series of articles in the October 2009 issue of Psychiatric Services reported that 96 percent of all U.S. counties have some unmet need for prescribers. In three quarters of counties, the shortage was described as “severe,” meaning that over half of the medication needs of psychiatric patients are unmet.
It is inconceivable that existing psychiatrists will be able to fill this gap, both because many are reaching retirement age and because there is no indication that more psychiatric residency slots will be created soon. Psychiatric nurse practitioners and physician assistants will help to absorb some of the need, but in my opinion prescribing psychologists will have to become a significant part of the professional landscape if we want to adequately serve the needs of these patients.
Regarding problems with psychiatric practice style, data have shown that psychiatrists are becoming increasingly fixated on brief medication visits and are doing less psychotherapy. In a 2008 article in the Archives of General Psychiatry, researchers found that the percentage of visits to psychiatrists that include psychotherapy dropped from 44 percent in 1996-1997 to 29 percent in 2004-2005. If, as seems likely, this rate of therapy attrition has continued, (about 2 per cent per year), it is likely that fewer than 20 percent of psychiatrist visits now include psychotherapy.
Prescribing psychologists, on the other hand, have continued to emphasize therapy as the bedrock of mental health care, with medications used as adjunctive care when needed. It must be acknowledged that the evidence for this statement is currently anecdotal (based largely on articles written by prescribing psychologists describing their cases, many of which are published in the Division 55 newsletter).
The fact that psychologists begin their training with five to six years focusing on psychosocial approaches implies that they will be able to maintain a healthy balance between psychotherapy and medication approaches. Psychiatrists, on the other hand, begin their training with five years of being steeped in the biomedical model (four years of medical school and one year of medical internship). Even the three subsequent years of psychiatric residency are focused on biomedical approaches to mental illness, though therapy techniques are also intensively taught.
In the future, I predict that prescribing psychologists will become the “primary care practitioners” of the mental health care system. Patients with psychiatric needs will receive their initial evaluation and treatment from prescribing psychologists, who will combine therapy and medication as needed. Patients with complicated medical or neurological issues will likely be referred to psychiatrists for treatment.
Psychiatry will evolve into a more frankly neuropsychiatric profession, and psychiatrists will likely do more physical exams and become more proficient in ordering and interpreting brain scans and genomic testing, both of which are still in their infancy but are expected to grow in clinical importance over the next decades.
The end result will be a more rational mental health care system in which all patients can routinely receive integrative treatment, rather than the fragmented approach which characterizes most psychiatric treatment today.
 
Vistaril - You don't understand law enough to bother explaining this. I already provided an example where 1 precedent greatly increased the rate of lawsuits in medicine. It's not only possible, but has happened numerous times in history.
 
Vistaril - You don't understand law enough to bother explaining this. I already provided an example where 1 precedent greatly increased the rate of lawsuits in medicine. It's not only possible, but has happened numerous times in history.[/QUOT

that was a bad example because when something medical happens(like complications with a certain procedure) that means there may be some mechanism in place that is causing it to happen and for whatever reason it is just now starting to show up. You can't compare something intrinsic to the treatment(like c-sections) with *who* is gtiving the treatment....


We have hundreds of thousands of rxs written in la, nm and the military by psychologists now.....there is no evidence that this is dangerous. Your argument is illogical because it supposes that we would NEVER know whether it's unsafe or not because one example many years from now might open the floodgates. Hell...you could say the same thing about psychiatrists and prescribing!

Psychiatrists know damn well that specially trained psychologists rx'ing isnt dangerous.Hell it probably increases safety.
 
I think one reason psychologists are pushing for this is because of the internship crisis in clinical psychology (a significant percentage of clinical psych PhDs end up not matching into internships nowadays). Gotta give them something to do. .

Securing an internship has nothing to do with prescribing for psychologists....

They should think carefully before prescribing as lawsuits will be high. Try explaining to a jury that you took a 2 week class in medications.

1. As was stated early, tens of thousands (more?) of scripts have been written without incidence, so this sounds like another example of misinformation and a scare tactic.

2. It isn't a 2 wk class. More misinformation.

I have reservations about psychologists seeking additional training and prescribing, though not any more than I have with a PA or an NP doing the same.
 
also if this trend continues, maybe even less med students will choose psychiatry... gets me thinking about whether I should go into neurology instead...
 
I think if done right medical psychologists(or prescribing psychologists or whatever) can really become a gold standard provider....in much the way that a (small) % of psychiatrists are now who actually provide throughtful therapy and medication mgt to their patients.

And the consequences for psychiatry(in terms of job market) could be severe. What a lot of people don't understand is that the relatively good job market(at least in terms of how easy it is to find work...and it is easy for even bad candidates in some areas) is due partly to psychiatrists taking advantage(through nothing of their own) of fragmentations and inefficiencies with the current setup. Prescribing psychologists go towards stabilizing and decreasing that.

And while it's true that not all medical psychologists could do the job of every psychiatrist, it is bad for most every psychiatrist. For example, psychologists arent going to start being the attending on 20 bed acute inpatient units, but that doesn't mean the psychiatrist working a 20 bed acute unit is 'safe'. That's because with a changing landscape there will a shifting of where favorable/open work in psychiatry is, and the market within psychiatry will shift.
 
also if this trend continues, maybe even less med students will choose psychiatry... gets me thinking about whether I should go into neurology instead...

true...which would just give the medical psychologists and non-md mental health providers even more ammunition. After all, one of their selling points now is the low% of american medical grads going into psychiatry.
 
I think a lot of people actually think that all psychiatry involves is "You seem sad. Have an SSRI".

Exactly...its more like "you seem sad....perform mental gymnastic equivalent of front hipcircle back hip circlefree hip /clear hip front giantcast handstand tripleroundy Malonay double Hip pullover end over end Pike-on/ Tuck-on/Squat-on thinkybob shoot half, straddle back, pak salto, Jaeger, Hindorf release..... here have an SSRI"

Way way different.....
 
re: no lawsuits in psychologist prescribing states -- As I've emphasized in the psychology sitcky --

Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack

Put another way, just because no one's reporting harm doesn't mean harm isn't there. If you don't look for it, you won't find it.
 
re: no lawsuits in psychologist prescribing states -- As I've emphasized in the psychology sitcky --

Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack

Put another way, just because no one's reporting harm doesn't mean harm isn't there. If you don't look for it, you won't find it.

there is some truth to that, but if psychologists prescribing was really all that dangerous there would be more cases known......that's just common sense. Your standard for proof that psychologists prescripbing aren't dangerous is just not realistic. Furthermore, if enough harm is there(and the harm is severe enough) some of those cases will eventually come out....
 
there is some truth to that, but if psychologists prescribing was really all that dangerous there would be more cases known......that's just common sense. Your standard for proof that psychologists prescripbing aren't dangerous is just not realistic. Furthermore, if enough harm is there(and the harm is severe enough) some of those cases will eventually come out....

I would expect they would, aren't the number of psychologists actually prescribing in those states probably still outnumbered like 50:1 or more by psychiatrists? The psychologists make up such a small number of total psych prescriptions written that its going take awhile to see if there is any difference in outcomes. Not to say that there is or will be a difference, but its probably way too early to say there is no difference.
 
I would expect they would, aren't the number of psychologists actually prescribing in those states probably still outnumbered like 50:1 or more by psychiatrists? The psychologists make up such a small number of total psych prescriptions written that its going take awhile to see if there is any difference in outcomes. Not to say that there is or will be a difference, but its probably way too early to say there is no difference.

agreed....and the fact is psychiatrists(who are likely going to carry a higher portion of the complicated patients from a medical angle) only have a judgement once every over 30 years......

the reality is though that everyone knows(psychiatrists, psychologists, nps, etc) that having psychologists prescribe(after more specific education!....heck many will be much better trained in pharm than many of the crappy psychs out there) is not dangerous...it's just common sense.
 
There are only 30 RxP's in NM and about 100 in Louisiana and I believe most of these came from good programs where there was good oversight in the training. So the sample size is small and is probably hand picked to be the cream of the crop. Once you have some of these degree mill PsyD programs like Argosy or Nova jump in to the mix you'll start to see the problems arise. The Carlat editorial is interesting and I largely agree with him, except:

In the future, I predict that prescribing psychologists will become the “primary care practitioners” of the mental health care system. Patients with psychiatric needs will receive their initial evaluation and treatment from prescribing psychologists, who will combine therapy and medication as needed. Patients with complicated medical or neurological issues will likely be referred to psychiatrists for treatment.
Psychiatry will evolve into a more frankly neuropsychiatric profession, and psychiatrists will likely do more physical exams and become more proficient in ordering and interpreting brain scans and genomic testing, both of which are still in their infancy but are expected to grow in clinical importance over the next decades.

who knows if this will actually happen or we'll get slowly squeezed out like Anesthesiologists over the next few decades.
 
There are only 30 RxP's in NM and about 100 in Louisiana and I believe most of these came from good programs where there was good oversight in the training. So the sample size is small and is probably hand picked to be the cream of the crop. Once you have some of these degree mill PsyD programs like Argosy or Nova jump in to the mix you'll start to see the problems arise. The Carlat editorial is interesting and I largely agree with him, except:



who knows if this will actually happen or we'll get slowly squeezed out like Anesthesiologists over the next few decades.

the difference is that anesthesia does something that even in a worst case scenario they can still be decently compensated....the same cannot be said for us.
 
agreed....and the fact is psychiatrists(who are likely going to carry a higher portion of the complicated patients from a medical angle) only have a judgement once every over 30 years......

the reality is though that everyone knows(psychiatrists, psychologists, nps, etc) that having psychologists prescribe(after more specific education!....heck many will be much better trained in pharm than many of the crappy psychs out there) is not dangerous...it's just common sense.

If it's all overseen by the state medical board to make sure that standards don't fall to degree-mill online NP levels, then sure it's not overly dangerous. I still think we need to protect our own turf as a profession though.
 
There are only 30 RxP's in NM and about 100 in Louisiana and I believe most of these came from good programs where .

if there are actually 100 in La, that's a lot. I would bet there are less than 4-500 psychiatrists in all of La(maybe a good bit less than that).....
 
the difference is that anesthesia does something that even in a worst case scenario they can still be decently compensated....the same cannot be said for us.

Do you mean a critical care fellowship? Or that even if their pay falls down to CRNA levels they will still be "decently compensated"?
 
Do you mean a critical care fellowship? Or that even if their pay falls down to CRNA levels they will still be "decently compensated"?

well I wasnt thinking cc, but yes that and interventional pain could divert a good number of people interested in those things....

but more the latter....if anesthesia was making only 15% more than crnas(and working 15% more) they would be over 200-220k....now that's not good by any stretch(and well below what they make now), but it's a hell of a lot better than us making 15% more than psych nps and/or clinical psychologists in terms of where we could fall....

the other way to look at things is that there is *nothing* a crna does better than an anethesiologist. The same can't be said for psychiatry and psychologists.
 
Securing an internship has nothing to do with prescribing for psychologists....



1. As was stated early, tens of thousands (more?) of scripts have been written without incidence, so this sounds like another example of misinformation and a scare tactic.

2. It isn't a 2 wk class. More misinformation.

I have reservations about psychologists seeking additional training and prescribing, though not any more than I have with a PA or an NP doing the same.

2 weeks was an overstatement. It is still no where near what should be required in my opinion. To prescribe meds and be on an insurance panel, the standard has been 4 years of medical training involving pharmacology + 3 years of residency minimum. How close to that are psychologists with prescribing power? It isn't even close. With the level of training, MSIII should have prescribing power.

You talk about evidence like there is much to look at. SSRI's have relatively few side effects. The problem will be when psychologists extend their confidence and over-reach with their limited knowledge base. If this occurs, believe me, there will be a forensic psychiatrist somewhere that will be paid handsomely to describe the difference in training with medications between physicians and psychologists and where things went wrong with that patient. Attorneys smell blood. Once that first case is won, more will follow.

Might as well allow me to read a pamphlet/do a couple hours cme on the MMPI and let me start doing them.
 
well I wasnt thinking cc, but yes that and interventional pain could divert a good number of people interested in those things....

but more the latter....if anesthesia was making only 15% more than crnas(and working 15% more) they would be over 200-220k....now that's not good by any stretch(and well below what they make now), but it's a hell of a lot better than us making 15% more than psych nps and/or clinical psychologists in terms of where we could fall....

the other way to look at things is that there is *nothing* a crna does better than an anethesiologist. The same can't be said for psychiatry and psychologists.

A CRNA will hold your hand and have the more "holistic" nursing approach. :rolleyes:

So, just curious... do you believe what Carlat says at the end that the profession will evolve (for the better) or we'll just get to the point where PsyD=MD=PMHNP in the hiring world and we're all making barely in to the six digits? Either way the latter scenario will probably not effect any of us until the twilight of our careers. And I hope we can do more than just throw pills at people at that point.
 
2 weeks was an overstatement. It is still no where near what should be required in my opinion. To prescribe meds and be on an insurance panel, the standard has been 4 years of medical training involving pharmacology + 3 years of residency minimum. How close to that are psychologists with prescribing power? It isn't even close. With the level of training, MSIII should have prescribing power.

You talk about evidence like there is much to look at. SSRI's have relatively few side effects. The problem will be when psychologists extend their confidence and over-reach with their limited knowledge base. If this occurs, believe me, there will be a forensic psychiatrist somewhere that will be paid handsomely to describe the difference in training with medications between physicians and psychologists and where things went wrong with that patient. Attorneys smell blood. Once that first case is won, more will follow.

Might as well allow me to read a pamphlet/do a couple hours cme on the MMPI and let me start doing them.

Just like psychologists protect their own turf so should we, no matter how weak our arguments ;)
 
A CRNA will hold your hand and have the more "holistic" nursing approach. :rolleyes:

So, just curious... do you believe what Carlat says at the end that the profession will evolve (for the better) or we'll just get to the point where PsyD=MD=PMHNP in the hiring world and we're all making barely in to the six digits? Either way the latter scenario will probably not effect any of us until the twilight of our careers. And I hope we can do more than just throw pills at people at that point.

I don't think the profession will evolve totally as Carlat says just because there arent enough of those truly interesting/difficult 'neuropsych' patients for psychiatrists to make a practice out of treating.....regarding the latter scenario, no, I don't think the bottom will fall to as low as 'barely' 100k for most psychs/average salary. But I could see that as a floor(vs the floor now which is more like 155-160ish in the lowest paying entry jobs)

I think the important thing to realize for every psychiatrist is just because you don't want to work at a VA, state hospital job, cmhc, etc doesn't mean the expansion of psych nps and psychologists won't affect your salary. That's because there will be significant pressure on those who currently do work in those positions, and they(maybe unlike the psych nps and ologists) *can* compete for your job which will result in downward pressure on every area of psych.
 
If this occurs, believe me, there will be a forensic psychiatrist somewhere that will be paid handsomely to describe the difference in training with medications between physicians and psychologists and where things went wrong with that patient. Attorneys smell blood. Once that first case is won, more will follow.
.

Yes, and plenty of psychiatrists have also testified against other psychiatrists who made errors.....and guess what it will happen again. And psychiatrists are still out there prescribing.

You have to remember that there just isn't a lot of medicoliability out there for psychopharm. Even for *bad* practitioners(and god knows there are a lot out there). The average psychiatrist gets sued like once in 30 years. once in 30 years. BUT....all those lawsuits arent related to pharm. Some are failure to admit/hold for example. Some are failure to dx. Some(a good number) are sexual/ethical improper activities. So really, when you look at rx related lawsuits, it's not even that common!

anesthesia people said the same thing about crnas...it *never* happened. And there is about a bazillion times more liability in anesthesia than psychopharm.
 
Just like psychologists protect their own turf so should we, no matter how weak our arguments ;)

But we don't want to do mmpi's....and everyone knows it.

Im not saying we shouldnt try to protect our turf. It might hold things off a little longer. But it's going to be a losing battle eventually. Simply because our argument isnt very good. We should be more concerned with trying to improve the problems in our field(many of which led to their being a market for others to rx).
 
A CRNA will hold your hand and have the more "holistic" nursing approach. :rolleyes:

So, just curious... do you believe what Carlat says at the end that the profession will evolve (for the better) or we'll just get to the point where PsyD=MD=PMHNP in the hiring world and we're all making barely in to the six digits? Either way the latter scenario will probably not effect any of us until the twilight of our careers. And I hope we can do more than just throw pills at people at that point.

might as well not go to Medical School. I hate protectionism, but for this case, Why not some sort of Fee to give to the physician?
 
Texas...I actually agree w you about raising the training requirements AND having collaboration and not full independent practice, I just don't agree that the arguments I'm hearing (mostly scare tactics and misinformation) are the right way to go. The direct-entry online NP programs are not a good minimum standard, but that is where it is at for the moment.
 
1) I don't know about you, but when/if a patient I have develops a serious medical complication from a psychotropic I've prescribed, I'll get internists, intensivists, etc involved. Just like a psychologist, I am not trained to provide supportive care for a person with NMS.

2) Between NM, Louisiana and the US military, we already have a good bit of data on psychologists rx'ing...and it looks like it is very safe.

I have no idea where you train, but where I have trained/train, when people get NMS, malignant catatonia, or serotonin syndrome, not only are they often first identified by psychiatry, they direct the management, even if the patient needs to be on a medical or ICU unit. Psychiatry residents and attendings have often seen several fold more incidents of these cases then the IM folk, who are more than happy to have us around.

More importantly, and far beyond the issue of the relatively rare and life threatening complications are the common issues. Does these psychologists understand the numerous drug-drug interactions for people on non-psychotropic medications? The dosing changes necessary based on other liver enzyme induction? Recognition of a lamictal rash? Management and recognition of dystonic reactions, metabolic syndrome, or anticholinergic toxicity? Heck, it's not even the complications that are the full issue, what about treatment resistance, which may barely be covered on their material or exams at all.

I'm also curious what you think happens during the 60-70 hours/week of residency training for 4+ years. I can only gather from your argument that this provides no improvement in medication management outcomes.

Lastly, there is actually quite a dearth of information on the prescribing of psychology rx. One would really like an RCT where a huge swath of patients are randomly assigned to the MD vs PhD prescribes and several primary and secondary outcomes tracked for several years. All we know right now is that nothing awful has been attributed to the practice, which in no way indicates it is the same (or better as you might postulate).

I do say this all in the context that I greatly respect psychologists and greatly encourage their involvement in the treatment of mental health. Not only do they provide specialized testing and some specialized therapy that psychiatry does not have the training for, but they responsible for a huge amount of research that is critical to our understanding of humanity and treatment of mental health.
 
A CRNA will hold your hand and have the more "holistic" nursing approach. :rolleyes:

So, just curious... do you believe what Carlat says at the end that the profession will evolve (for the better) or we'll just get to the point where PsyD=MD=PMHNP in the hiring world and we're all making barely in to the six digits? Either way the latter scenario will probably not effect any of us until the twilight of our careers. And I hope we can do more than just throw pills at people at that point.

What I am seeing in the current job market where NP's function independently is that employers are looking for a Psychiatrist OR a Psychiatric NP. A good number of organizations are staffed with Psychiatrists and the other half are Psychiatric NPs functioning at the same level. I have received offers from these types of places in the low range of fair market value. These places have been unwilling to negotiate since there are tons of NPs that will do the same job for half the cost. Not the end of the world.

As healthcare cost containment continues, larger organizations will continue to create the Walmart of mental health, hiring workers that will run the operation on low wages. It does not surprise me that organizations have NPs practicing out of their scope to save money. But it is abusive to have a nurse fulfill the role of a Psychiatrist and operate at the same level. This is more than just a shortage problem.

Anyways, I believe that as the market saturates (if it ever dose) we should see the following before salaries actually start to drop. 1: Reduced negotiating power 2. Less flexibility with hours 3. Low range of fair market value with greater time crunch + additional hidden work 4. Less opportunities in attractive cities. Right now things are pretty good... but I guess it also depends on where you live.
 
There has been some research, that of the DoD study, which showed that the prescribing psychologists (which had much higher training standards than NM or LA) had the equivalent medical knowledge of a 3rd year medical student.

Draw conclusions from That, including the Institute of Medicine research on less training = more errors (when it's actually studied)


As for Illinois, State Senators can be petitioned to contest this. It is not passed yet, only out of committee.
 
What I am seeing in the current job market where NP's function independently is that employers are looking for a Psychiatrist OR a Psychiatric NP. A good number of organizations are staffed with Psychiatrists and the other half are Psychiatric NPs functioning at the same level. I have received offers from these types of places in the low range of fair market value. These places have been unwilling to negotiate since there are tons of NPs that will do the same job for half the cost. Not the end of the world.

As healthcare cost containment continues, larger organizations will continue to create the Walmart of mental health, hiring workers that will run the operation on low wages. It does not surprise me that organizations have NPs practicing out of their scope to save money. But it is abusive to have a nurse fulfill the role of a Psychiatrist and operate at the same level. This is more than just a shortage problem.

Anyways, I believe that as the market saturates (if it ever dose) we should see the following before salaries actually start to drop. 1: Reduced negotiating power 2. Less flexibility with hours 3. Low range of fair market value with greater time crunch + additional hidden work 4. Less opportunities in attractive cities. Right now things are pretty good... but I guess it also depends on where you live.

agree with 100% of this.....

and it's important to remember that psych NP's are about to explode even more....all the places that employ psychiatrists within organizations on salary(a lot of govt positions), mostly outpt, see this and the trend isonly going to increase.
 
I have no idea where you train, but where I have trained/train, when people get NMS, malignant catatonia, or serotonin syndrome, not only are they often first identified by psychiatry, they direct the management, even if the patient needs to be on a medical or ICU unit. Psychiatry residents and attendings have often seen several fold more incidents of these cases then the IM folk, who are more than happy to have us around.
QUOTE]

this is so bizarre I don't even know how to respond....

I guess I'm picturing a scene in the ICU with an NMS patient whose electrolytes are all out of whack(but at the same time needs to be rehydrated) and is in acute renal failure and psychiatry jumps in and tells the pulm/cc attending when to make a call on tubing the patient. Let me guess...at your institution psych usually puts in the catheter for emergent dialysis and intubates the patient if needed as well?(yes, that was sarcasm).....

psych *may* provide the usual input(consider benzos in mild cases, consider bromocriptine or dantrolene in some cases)....but the MICU has the same information available to make those calls. And they're the ones actually directing the supportive care that is most critical(fluid res, resp and cvs support, etc)....

you do have a fair point that psych is more capable of identifying NMS(which is rare btw....most people dont see many cases, including most psychiatrists)...but presumably this would be one of the things that the advanced psychologist psychopharm education focuses on.
 
There has been some research, that of the DoD study, which showed that the prescribing psychologists (which had much higher training standards than NM or LA) had the equivalent medical knowledge of a 3rd year medical student.

depending on how that is measured, that is actually pretty impressive. I know that in my third year of medical school I knew a lot of 'medical knowledge' I don't know/remember now.....I think we all did. Now in some ways I probably know more in terms of 'medical knowledge' than I did as an ms-3, but definately in some ways I know less too.....If I took step 2 ck now, for example, there is no way I would do nearly as well now as then.....
 
I have no idea where you train, but where I have trained/train, when people get NMS, malignant catatonia, or serotonin syndrome, not only are they often first identified by psychiatry, they direct the management, even if the patient needs to be on a medical or ICU unit. Psychiatry residents and attendings have often seen several fold more incidents of these cases then the IM folk, who are more than happy to have us around.
QUOTE]

this is so bizarre I don't even know how to respond....

I guess I'm picturing a scene in the ICU with an NMS patient whose electrolytes are all out of whack(but at the same time needs to be rehydrated) and is in acute renal failure and psychiatry jumps in and tells the pulm/cc attending when to make a call on tubing the patient. Let me guess...at your institution psych usually puts in the catheter for emergent dialysis and intubates the patient if needed as well?(yes, that was sarcasm).....

psych *may* provide the usual input(consider benzos in mild cases, consider bromocriptine or dantrolene in some cases)....but the MICU has the same information available to make those calls. And they're the ones actually directing the supportive care that is most critical(fluid res, resp and cvs support, etc)....

you do have a fair point that psych is more capable of identifying NMS(which is rare btw....most people dont see many cases, including most psychiatrists)...but presumably this would be one of the things that the advanced psychologist psychopharm education focuses on.

Obviously psych consult is not managing an intubation or electrolyte imbalances, but actual treatment of the underlying causes has been left to psychiatry c/l at both institutions I have trained at. Benzo dosing for malignant catatonia isn't rocket science, but is very foreign to most people, and I hardly think anyone but psychiatry is making the call to do emergent ECT. I've already seen a handful of these cases between medical school and intern year, so while rare, it's certainly something you get comfortable with at decently sized academic centers in psychiatry.

"Advance psychologist psychopharm" education is an interesting concept, if you have examples of what has been taught thus far I am very interested. The descriptions Ive heard for the Illinois teaching (the courses have already been crafted) are similar to an M2 course and at best sprinkle in a few words about NMS, much less prepare someone to diagnose something like it or serotonin syndrome. The rigidity from NMS can actually be somewhat subtle and missed by IM docs, much less PhDs who have no training in a physical exam. The psychiatric emergencies and potential mortality are still statistically minor compared to issues of morbidity, although anyone dying from psychiatric medications is clearly a very big deal.
 
Obviously psych consult is not managing an intubation or electrolyte imbalances, but actual treatment of the underlying causes has been left to psychiatry c/l at both institutions I have trained at. Benzo dosing for malignant catatonia isn't rocket science, but is very foreign to most people, and I hardly think anyone but psychiatry is making the call to do emergent ECT. I've already seen a handful of these cases between medical school and intern year, so while rare, it's certainly something you get comfortable with at decently sized academic centers in psychiatry.

"Advance psychologist psychopharm" education is an interesting concept, if you have examples of what has been taught thus far I am very interested. The descriptions Ive heard for the Illinois teaching (the courses have already been crafted) are similar to an M2 course and at best sprinkle in a few words about NMS, much less prepare someone to diagnose something like it or serotonin syndrome. The rigidity from NMS can actually be somewhat subtle and missed by IM docs, much less PhDs who have no training in a physical exam. The psychiatric emergencies and potential mortality are still statistically minor compared to issues of morbidity, although anyone dying from psychiatric medications is clearly a very big deal.

you talk of 'the call to do emergent ECT in NMS' as there is an extremely well defined protocol that psychiatrists are very familar with. In reality, there are no clear guidelines on when(4days? a week? 10 days?) to do ect in refractory NMS.....the evidence is even less clear on whether or not bromocriptine or dantrolene is useful. Yes, the micu may want psych to be 'on board', especially if it was their patient originally, but they are calling the shots...and the *most important* thing is the medical support of the patient in severe cases.

And no, I don't know exactly what is taught in the psychology pharm education, but what we need to do is make sure psychiatry residency programs are doing a better jobat psychopharm...because a lot arent. I say this after reviewing national prite scores and looking at how mediocre the average score(they release this) was for pgy-4 residents on the psychopharm section of the prite....and the pharm questions on there are *not* hard.
 
This entire issue of extending pharm to psychologists,etc., is born out of necessity. This is happening in states with significant underserved and rural populations who do not have access to psychiatrists or others mental health services.

Even with the dangers inherent, this will help a lot of patients who have unmet needs for psychopharm management. Eighty five percent of most of medicine is bread and butter. In under served populations this will help a lot of people!

I do not see these bills ever passing in places like new York or Massachusetts or California. Mostly because the surplus of physicians, in general, in these states assures lobbying power to protect their kind, ie psychiatrists.
 
Top