Oregon wants prescribing rights for Psychologists

[edieb]

Actually, those were letters from the state psychological associations REQUESTING out-of-state e-mails that I posted to the listserv, not from me. There are lobbying forces working behind the scenes that advise when out-of-state letters are needed or not needed. I only serve as a conduit to pass that information on.

I'm not going to even touch the other part of your argument because it's crass and I am not going to stoop to your level. However, if you think think that people who have PhDs/PsyDs with an additional MS degree are para-medical, I would LOVE to know what you think about nurses, nurse practitioners, and other mid-level providers.

Dear Silly boy,

Really? That's not what you said in this psychology thread:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=7915192&postcount=574

or this one:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=7944119&postcount=579

or in fact, this one either:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=7980744&postcount=583

Let's talk straight up, and quit ignoring the elephant in the room.

1. You're upset that psychology as a career path generally sucks. Can't blame you there.

2. You don't give a rat's *** about patient care and "access." You care about increasing your income.

3. Besides increasing your income, you're interested in being a pseudo-para-professional medical provider, which at best, is all you can ever be with this.

I was in psychology grad school. I used to say I was going to get prescription rights too. Then I realized how cheap and stupid that was, and wanted to look at myself in the mirror without puking. I quit and went to med school to do it right.

Prescribing isn't as exciting as you think - trust me. It's not about ego, it's about doing right by the patient. It becomes routine and to any real doctor, is only a small part of their medical evaluation and treatment regimen.



Go to med school. You'll feel a lot better about yourself and will see this whole issue from a very different perspective once you learn to realize what you didn't know.

Or, you can continue along this path, trying to hide your psychiatrry-envy forever, all the while convincing yourself that you're somehow superior to an entire group with vastly more extensive medical training because you "unprescribe meds." Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Youre preaching to choir, I am the epitome of keeping every option on the table. When Im not stock piling dried goods, ammo and gold bullion equivalents, Im taking finance, law and management course. All the while learning Arabic and Italiano, while hitting the gym 5 days/week and deleting all my internet tracks. I would keep changing my cell phone number more often but it led to on call chaos. Considering 2nd passport country, but not quite there just yet.

Dude--you are either the scariest sociopath on SDN, if not in the entire realm of medicine, or you have adopted and maintained that persona to a T to maintain your last shreds of humanity (such as they are) while slaving away amidst the corpses and diced body parts. Either way....

 

[notdeadyet]

I realize Yahoo YP is not perfect.

Far from it. Yahoo YP stinks.

Did a quick hunt and found most of the folks you listed on other yellow pages.

Like Marianne Westbrook in Hobbs, NM, or James Mash in Las Cruces, NM.

Not weighing in on this issue. Arguing against pyschologist prescribing rights on a Psychiatry web forum made up of an overwhelming Psychiatrist/medical student viewership doesn't seem like it needs any more supporters. But not finding a listing on Yahoo YP (or any YP) doesn't exactly scream conspiracy.

 

[notdeadyet]

I'm not going to even touch the other part of your argument because it's crass and I am not going to stoop to your level. However, if you think think that people who have PhDs/PsyDs with an additional MS degree are para-medical, I would LOVE to know what you think about nurses, nurse practitioners, and other mid-level providers.

I'm finding all the psychologist bashing pretty tiresome too (and yet again makes me very happy that most of my life is centered around people far outside the medicine field; the egos get tiring).

But a Ph.D. is not a medical degree. A PsyD is also not a medical degree. A Ph.D. in neuroscience or biotechnology are not medical either.

A nurse has RN training, which is medical. Nurse practitioners too. They are not doctors, but they have medical training*. Psychologists do not.

This doesn't mean that psychologists are not mental health professionals. So are marriage counselors and other job titles. But they are not medical.


* This is not intended to start one of those foot-stamping, "Only MDs can be called 'Doctor'!" threads...

 

[kugel]

Yahoo YP stinks.

Did a quick hunt and found most of the folks you listed on other yellow pages.

Just checking verifiable claims.
That's why you noticed no argument from me.
All the chest thumping in this thread (from both sides) is detestable.
So thanks for the yellowUSA link. What other yellow pages should I be checking?

 

[LADoc00]

Dude--you are either the scariest sociopath on SDN, if not in the entire realm of medicine, or you have adopted and maintained that persona to a T to maintain your last shreds of humanity (such as they are) while slaving away amidst the corpses and diced body parts. Either way....

Sociopath or genius..only time will tell. But as you should know from medical school, Pathologists hedge, thats our nature. We hedge on everything, including life itself.

 

[whopper]

Not weighing in on this issue. Arguing against pyschologist prescribing rights on a Psychiatry web forum made up of an overwhelming Psychiatrist/medical student viewership doesn't seem like it needs any more supporters. But not finding a listing on Yahoo YP (or any YP) doesn't exactly scream conspiracy.

I think you will get a majority still against psychology prescribers if they are given a comparison of the training & the hard facts, of course not as many as you would in the psychiatry section of SDN.

The overwhelming majority of psychologists & counselors I know of do not want prescribing power, or think it something a psychologist should have.

 

[DrFraud]

The overwhelming majority of psychologists & counselors I know of do not want prescribing power, or think it something a psychologist should have.

Well, lawmakers can change the law, but it will be insurance companies that truly will define the scope of Rx power for anyone outside of psychiatrists. If any legislation is passed, the premiums of those psychologists who elect to prescribe drugs will likely be significantly more, which will either be passed along to patients, or will severely limit what can be prescribed.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Well, lawmakers can change the law, but it will be insurance companies that truly will define the scope of Rx power for anyone outside of psychiatrists. If any legislation is passed, the premiums of those psychologists who elect to prescribe drugs will likely be significantly more, which will either be passed along to patients, or will severely limit what can be prescribed.

....compared to other psychologists who only conduct therapy/assessments, though there hasn't been any reports of prescribing psychologists having prohibitively high insurance premiums.

 

[whopper]

Psychologist prescribing & insurance at least as far as I know will be interesting territory.

Insurance fees are based on acturarial studies. They do not have a large pool of data to make appropriate acutrarial models. Would they make a psychologist prescriber insurance fee on the order of another psychologist by default? Put them in a new category? IF so, where will they draw their acturarial data?

 

[CGOPsych]

Psychologist prescribing & insurance at least as far as I know will be interesting territory.

Insurance fees are based on acturarial studies. They do not have a large pool of data to make appropriate acutrarial models. Would they make a psychologist prescriber insurance fee on the order of another psychologist by default? Put them in a new category? IF so, where will they draw their acturarial data?

I am a psychologist who is new to this forum and, for the sake of proper disclosure, I am adamantly opposed to the national RxP political campaign conducted by the American Psychological Association.

I understand that prescribing psychologists simply have a rider added to their insurance which is managed by the APA Insurance Trust. I don't know if APA has the power to make APAIT keep those premiums artificially low.

I agree that the risk is higher for prescribers. However, the cost of insurance is not always directly proportionate to the risk. At one seminar by APAIT I learned that the No. 1 cause of lawsuits is psychologists having sex with patients, and by far it was more common for male psychologists to be transgressing with female patients. However, I asked if premiums are higher for men, and I was told they are not.

Furthermore, the APA political operatives who are driving the RxP campagin have a very strong motive to keep those premiums down and they have shown that they are not above doing whatever it takes to make RxP look feasible and minimize any dissent or challenge.

By the way, one of those tactics is to keep the budget for this 14-year-old turf war against medicine a secret. Even the APA members who are paying for this campaign don't know what it is costing them.

 

[whopper]

The above post is the exact reason why I do not like the occasional barbed comments psychiatrists make against psychologists in this issue. Psychologists against prescription power for the profession, in addition to not wanting it just for themselves as individuals is the overwhelming majority I've encountered, and most psychologists I've worked with were able to provide insight into a case that went beyond usual psychiatric training.

 

[edieb]

The APA has taken a poll of its members and MOST psychologists are in favor of actively pursuing RxP. Even at the state level, the overwhelming support for RxP is evident by the fact that most states (38 or so) now have RxP task forces in places focusing on the goal of obtaining prescriptive authority.

The movement is about procuring the appropriate standard of care for patients, not for power. As I read elsewhere, if there is no psychiatrist around a patient for hundreds of miles and there is only a psychologist, is that patient really getting the standard of care when meds + therapy are the best practice treatment for the treatment of depression? Furthermore, if a patient can only afford meds or therapy, is he/she getting the optimal level of care? Facts are facts: Psychologists have been prescribing safely/without incident for many years in New Mexico and LA

I am a psychologist who is new to this forum and, for the sake of proper disclosure, I am adamantly opposed to the national RxP political campaign conducted by the American Psychological Association.

I understand that prescribing psychologists simply have a rider added to their insurance which is managed by the APA Insurance Trust. I don't know if APA has the power to make APAIT keep those premiums artificially low.

I agree that the risk is higher for prescribers. However, the cost of insurance is not always directly proportionate to the risk. At one seminar by APAIT I learned that the No. 1 cause of lawsuits is psychologists having sex with patients, and by far it was more common for male psychologists to be transgressing with female patients. However, I asked if premiums are higher for men, and I was told they are not.

Furthermore, the APA political operatives who are driving the RxP campagin have a very strong motive to keep those premiums down and they have shown that they are not above doing whatever it takes to make RxP look feasible and minimize any dissent or challenge.

By the way, one of those tactics is to keep the budget for this 14-year-old turf war against medicine a secret. Even the APA members who are paying for this campaign don't know what it is costing them.

 

[CGOPsych]

The APA has taken a poll of its members and MOST psychologists are in favor of actively pursuing RxP. Even at the state level, the overwhelming support for RxP is evident by the fact that most states (38 or so) now have RxP task forces in places focusing on the goal of obtaining prescriptive authority.

The movement is about procuring the appropriate standard of care for patients, not for power. As I read elsewhere, if there is no psychiatrist around a patient for hundreds of miles and there is only a psychologist, is that patient really getting the standard of care when meds + therapy are the best practice treatment for the treatment of depression? Furthermore, if a patient can only afford meds or therapy, is he/she getting the optimal level of care? Facts are facts: Psychologists have been prescribing safely/without incident for many years in New Mexico and LA

I have to differ with you. The American Psychological Association has NEVER taken a poll of its membership. In fact, it has stridently resisted any such survey because they know the answer will not be in their favor. We who oppose the APA RxP campaign would love to see a full and fair survey.

If you have a citation of a full survey of the APA membership I would be very interested in it.

You may be referring to a number of surveys of highly questionable validity, often taken within groups that are highly slanted toward guild issues such as RxP. Also, the survey language is usually twisted to create a false impression. For example, the surveys ask if you favor RxP for psychologists who are "properly trained." That term could mean anything, including full medical school and psychiatric residencies.

 

[CGOPsych]

The APA has taken a poll of its members and MOST psychologists are in favor of actively pursuing RxP. Even at the state level, the overwhelming support for RxP is evident by the fact that most states (38 or so) now have RxP task forces in places focusing on the goal of obtaining prescriptive authority.

The movement is about procuring the appropriate standard of care for patients, not for power. As I read elsewhere, if there is no psychiatrist around a patient for hundreds of miles and there is only a psychologist, is that patient really getting the standard of care when meds + therapy are the best practice treatment for the treatment of depression? Furthermore, if a patient can only afford meds or therapy, is he/she getting the optimal level of care? Facts are facts: Psychologists have been prescribing safely/without incident for many years in New Mexico and LA

Those state task forces are funded by the APA, which controls and directs all RxP initiatives. APA gives "grants" to the state associations, which are all heavily tilted towards practice issues, and it dictates exactly what bill should be offered in the state legislatures. APA members have bragged that they send "SWAT teams" to the states to push through legislation.

RxP is a political movement focused on extending the financial and political power of the APA and its special interests, such as the for-profit professional schools which benefit from this training.

Psychologists have multiple pathways available to them to obtain prescriptive authority without creating a new system of medical education, practice and oversight. They can obtain RxP through PA or APN training. However, such avenues would not give the same financial and political benefits to APA and its special interests.

Anyone interested in learning more about the opposition of psychologists to the RxP national campaign by APA can do so by going to POPPP.org

I also would direct you to the statement by the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology, which is a science-oriented unit of APA's Div. 12, the Society of Clinical Psychology, which stated this week:

"after 15-20 years, and a great deal of time and effort on the part of APA and others, only two states and Guam have granted psychologists prescription privileges. We believe that this indicates that there is little support for psychologists having prescription privileges and that APA should acknowledge this fact, give up on this issue, and get back to focusing on what psychologists do best - assess, predict, and treat behavioral and psychological problems using behavioral and psychological methods. "

 

[whopper]

If you have a citation of a full survey of the APA membership I would be very interested in it.

Which is the exact reason why I find your posts a voice of reason. I have not seen any polemics from you, and you are willing to be open to opposing points of data.

I could of course be in an extreme coincidental situation, but when I know well of 30 people with a Ph.D. or Ed.D in Psychology or Counseling, and only 1 of them thinks those groups should have prescription power--if such a poll did indicate that the majority thing psychologists should get such, I'd be in a million to 1 situation.

 

[PsyDGrrrl]

Nope, I even hope they drop it to 400. The more hours they are forced to do, the less they realize they are in the end undertrained.

Things are only going to get more complicated. Soon we might see serious medications given for prevention of mental disorders. Can you imagine psychologists prescribing alpha1 blockers for prevention of PTSD? The minute someone's BP drops to dangerous levels we will see some serious retaliation.

Except that psychologists know better than to try to treat PSTD (or prevent it) using medication; CBT and exposure therapy, not drugs, is the effective treatment for PTSD and that is what psychologists have been trained to do. We have a far greater repertoire of available treatments than psychiatrists, so I don't think even those who want to prescribe are going to do a whole lot of it.

 

[PsyDGrrrl]

This is only open to psychologists because psychologists are the pre-eminent providers of mental health care. With more training in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness than any other specialty, including psychiatrists, we truly are equipped to prescribe. More importantly, however, with our extensive training in empirically supported therapies, will be able to unprescribe medications to our patients. Most psychiatrists are not trained to provide quality psychotherapeutic treatment to their patients. As a result, patients are victimize, thinking they must stay on medication for disorders that are curable with CBT (e.g., GAD, OCD, Dysthymia, non-endogenous MDD, Panic Disorder, et cetera). Psychiatrists seem to think everything is caused by some rogue neurtransmitter. However, psychologists, with our superior training in research, know this is not the case.

Psychiatrists have tried to impede psychologist scope of practice expansion at every turn. Opposition to RxP is an echo of psychiatry's resistance against psychologists' right to diagnosis and conduct therapy. However, we eventually got the right to do these and do them we have. As my professors say, we got the right to do them, and now they're "finger licking good!"

Psychologist prescribing is truly an evoloution in mental health care and the patient is the one who will benefit. With psychologists at the helm of mental health care, I rest assured that the # of persons on medication will decrease. When you see a psychiatrist, you're more than likely to walk out with a script, not so with a psychologist!!!

x2!!

 

[DrFraud]

Psychologist prescribing & insurance at least as far as I know will be interesting territory.

Insurance fees are based on acturarial studies. They do not have a large pool of data to make appropriate acutrarial models. Would they make a psychologist prescriber insurance fee on the order of another psychologist by default? Put them in a new category? IF so, where will they draw their acturarial data?

Well, to put it another way, if you were an insurance underwriter, would you be willing to underwrite the risk involved with giving prescription rights to psychologists who are not trained in biochem/pharmacology and who have not had the practice to learn psychiatric and medical management of patients during a hospital based 4-5 year residancy.

It sounds simple enough to prescribe an antidepressant, but what happens when a pt. who walks in is depressed and the clinitian determines this this is occuring secondary to b-blocker tx. D/C ing this or tinkering with a patients blood pressure control then puts the psychologist into the realm of medical management. Not recognizing this potential side affect of b-blocker tx also could put a clinition who is prescribing meds. into trouble.

Even better what happens with the management of a patient who has angina/depression treated and stable with nitroglycerine and the patient is started on setraline by the psychologist. The patient complains of impotence and after review the patient is started on viagra by the psychologist? If I was an underwriter I wouldn't underwrite this kind of stuff. The risk would be prohibitive. Some might argue that 90-95% of the time, the psychologists will get it right but it will be the 5-10% that will get them into trouble.

Some underwriters might try this out at first but after getting burned a few times there will be severe limits placed on the prescribing writes of psychologists by the underwriters and the costs of the malpractice plans will be in line with or even higher that what is charged to psychiatrists. Either the costs will be prohibitive or the limits placed will be so narrow as to only apply to the simplist of cases for short periods of time.

 

[DrFraud]

Except that psychologists know better than to try to treat PSTD (or prevent it) using medication; CBT and exposure therapy, not drugs, is the effective treatment for PTSD and that is why psychologists have been trained to do. We have a far greater repertoire of available treatments than psychiatrists, so I don't think even those who want to prescribe are going to do a whole lot if it.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that CBT exclusive of medication therapy is superior to treatment of PSTD using both CBT and medication in any population cohorts?

 

[silas2642]

Well, to put it another way, if you were an insurance underwriter, would you be willing to underwrite the risk involved with giving prescription rights to psychologists who are not trained in biochem/pharmacology and who have not had the practice to learn psychiatric and medical management of patients during a hospital based 4-5 year residancy.

It sounds simple enough to prescribe an antidepressant, but what happens when a pt. who walks in is depressed and the clinitian determines this this is occuring secondary to b-blocker tx. D/C ing this or tinkering with a patients blood pressure control then puts the psychologist into the realm of medical management. Not recognizing this potential side affect of b-blocker tx also could put a clinition who is prescribing meds. into trouble.

Even better what happens with the management of a patient who has angina/depression treated and stable with nitroglycerine and the patient is started on setraline by the psychologist. The patient complains of impotence and after review the patient is started on viagra by the psychologist? If I was an underwriter I wouldn't underwrite this kind of stuff. The risk would be prohibitive. Some might argue that 90-95% of the time, the psychologists will get it right but it will be the 5-10% that will get them into trouble.

Some underwriters might try this out at first but after getting burned a few times there will be severe limits placed on the prescribing writes of psychologists by the underwriters and the costs of the malpractice plans will be in line with or even higher that what is charged to psychiatrists. Either the costs will be prohibitive or the limits placed will be so narrow as to only apply to the simplist of cases for short periods of time.

Well, I guess if I was an insurer, I would say that I don't know because the fact of the matter is that I care about money and data and not patient care.

There is a new group of people that I can sell insurance to, and I don't know if they are going to be wise and practical and treat relatively simple cases of straight-forward cases (i.e. depression in healthy adults without comorbid illness) or start prescribing clozapine.

I guess the big question is how much damage are they going to do and if this damage is going to be great enough for the pts to sue?

 

[DrFraud]

Well, I guess if I was an insurer, I would say that I don't know because the fact of the matter is that I care about money and data and not patient care.

There is a new group of people that I can sell insurance to, and I don't know if they are going to be wise and practical and treat relatively simple cases of straight-forward cases (i.e. depression in healthy adults without comorbid illness) or start prescribing clozapine.

I guess the big question is how much damage are they going to do and if this damage is going to be great enough for the pts to sue?

The same issue comes up all the time in radiology about saving money by letting technicians interpret ultrasounds and PAs reviewing abdominal CTs and chest x-rays in the ICU and ED. The bottom line is that there is a reduced rate of mistakes/errors on the part of board certified radiologists compared to anyone else. In the end it all comes down to liability.

And yes, insurance companies do assess risk and premium costs with certain drugs and procedures, and give discounts to clinicians who restrict their scope of practice. The best example I can think of are OB/GYNs who stop delivering babies but do other procedures that are less risky to reduce malpractice premiums.

 

[whopper]

Except that psychologists know better than to try to treat PSTD (or prevent it) using medication; CBT and exposure therapy, not drugs, is the effective treatment for PTSD and that is why psychologists have been trained to do

Don't question this statement. This statement is for the most part true. Medications can help, but psychotherapy from some of the data is superior to medications.

Psychiatrists are trained in psychotherapy, though from my experience on a level not on the part as most psychologists I've seen. On that same par, the one counseling program I've seen appears to be superior in psychotherapy training to many psychology programs I've seen--where I've seen some psychologists complain that their training was too academic, and based on statisticsm, not so much on clinical experience. (I guess this wouldn't apply to a Psy.D.)

psychologists are the pre-eminent providers of mental health care. With more training in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness than any other specialty, including psychiatrists, we truly are equipped to prescribe.

As for the psychiatry shortage statement, the majority of psychotropic providers are PCPs, not psychiatrists. In fact the statement that psychologists are the "pre-eminent" providers is bogus, unless it is based on something I'm not considering.

From the National Comorbidity Survey Replication--which is considered a very strong and well done study: Of those with mental illness that were getting treatment, 30% were treated by a psychiatrist, 39.0%-a non-psychiatrist mental health specialist, and 55% treated by a generalist clinician*
*Wang PS, Lane M, Olfson M, Pincus HA, Wells KB, Kessler RC. Twelve-month use of mental health services in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:629-640.

The statement on superiority with diagnosis is debateable. I've had my own qualms with psychiatric residency curriculums, but the curriculum & experience for diagnosis in that curriculum is quite extensive. IMHO, psychiatrists should be getting more psychotherapy & psychological training, even taking some psychology courses at a local college.

However again, that doesn't IMHO qualify someone with psychological training as having medical training.

Psychologists just like Psychiatrists can work in tandem with the PCP, where the shortage vs a psychiatrists is not comparable. PCPs usually handle the easier psychiatric cases that may only need an SSRI. PCPs usually refer the more difficult cases to psychiatrists. As I mentioned before, psychologists even with the Oregon law based training is not enough to handle the psychotropics with dangerous side effects such as the mood stabilizers or antipsychotics. PCPs can handle the SSRI end, where even there bad medical effects can happen.

As for insurance coverage for psychologist prescribers, I don't know how insurance companies will handle it, but the above explanation makes sense---if it indeed is covered by the APA (Psychological) provided insurance, and they have an agenda to push this, they could possibly be pumping in more funds into the insurance coverage to back the agenda. Kinda like how Wal-Mart was trying to put Toys R Us out of business by selling toys at a loss because they could still be profitable by selling the other stuff at WalMart.

It makes sense, however while I believe it (this entire prescription thing is embroiled in politics and people wanting to push agendas for profit, not patient care), I would though like to see hard data on it.

 

[Thorazine]

This is only open to psychologists because psychologists are the pre-eminent providers of mental health care. With more training in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness than any other specialty, including psychiatrists, we truly are equipped to prescribe. More importantly, however, with our extensive training in empirically supported therapies, will be able to unprescribe medications to our patients. Most psychiatrists are not trained to provide quality psychotherapeutic treatment to their patients. As a result, patients are victimize, thinking they must stay on medication for disorders that are curable with CBT (e.g., GAD, OCD, Dysthymia, non-endogenous MDD, Panic Disorder, et cetera). Psychiatrists seem to think everything is caused by some rogue neurtransmitter. However, psychologists, with our superior training in research, know this is not the case.

Psychiatrists have tried to impede psychologist scope of practice expansion at every turn. Opposition to RxP is an echo of psychiatry's resistance against psychologists' right to diagnosis and conduct therapy. However, we eventually got the right to do these and do them we have. As my professors say, we got the right to do them, and now they're "finger licking good!"

Psychologist prescribing is truly an evoloution in mental health care and the patient is the one who will benefit. With psychologists at the helm of mental health care, I rest assured that the # of persons on medication will decrease. When you see a psychiatrist, you're more than likely to walk out with a script, not so with a psychologist!!!

so you want the right to prescribe in order to unprescribe meds? that makes ALOT of sense
you dont believe mental illness is caused by some "rogue neurotransmitter" but you want the rights to prescribe meds that tinker with these neurotransmitters.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I guess the big question is how much damage are they going to do and if this damage is going to be great enough for the pts to sue?

Based on the 10+ years of data out there, I believe this has been answered.

Peer Reviewed Data = 1, "Danger/Death!" Strawman = 0

so you want the right to prescribe in order to unprescribe meds? that makes ALOT of sense you dont believe mental illness is caused by some "rogue neurotransmitter" but you want the rights to prescribe meds that tinker with these neurotransmitters.

I believe this speaks to the lack of efficacy for most polypharmacy that seems to have fallen into favor in the psych world.....without the data to back it up. I'm not saying all polypharmacy is bad, but often times pts benefit from a reduction and re-evaluation. The DoD study found that prescribing psychologists prescribed less and were more likely to d/c meds than their counter-parts.

 

[ronin12]

people who have no background in "medicine", invent their own training in "medicine" , evaluate practice standards in "medicine", quote their own studies for quality and safety and behave as experts of everything . at the same time they are asking for Louisiana medical board for their oversight to either block future quacks or find some legitimacy and false sense of prestige for being a " pseudo medical provider"

it can not be more ridiculous then this.

 

[CGOPsych]

Whopper,

RxP is all politics. It's about power and money. And nothing else. It is most certainly not about the public good or professional integrity.

The American Psychological Association was once a scientific and professional organization. Then it was taken over by hustlers, lawyers and politicians.

Many of APA's best scientists have quit and started a new organization, called the Association for Psychological Science.

A new organization is now forming to accredit psychology training because APA's standards have been lowered in deference to special interests, profitable schools with low standards, high tuition, and big influence. The hucksters dumbed-down psychological training and now they want to dumb-down medical training.

Meanwhile, as I said earlier, APA runs its RxP program with a black budget, as secret as any CIA covert program. The membership doesn't know how much it's paying for this.

APA controls almost all the information on RxP that gets to its members and the public. This disinformation campaign, elements of which are seen on these boards, makes people believe RxP is fabulously successful, supported by everyone, non-controversial, non-costly, and is inevitable.

APA refuses to survey its members because they know the answer won't be good. They continue to spin disinformation that it is widely supported.

APA forbids any organization or officer of APA from publicly criticizing RxP. One subgroup took a vote, which ran 9-1 against RxP, and they were forbidden from putting it on their website. Dissent and debate are always suppressed.

 

[CGOPsych]

Don't question this statement. This statement is for the most part true. Medications can help, but psychotherapy from some of the data is superior to medications.

Psychiatrists are trained in psychotherapy, though from my experience on a level not on the part as most psychologists I've seen. On that same par, the one counseling program I've seen appears to be superior in psychotherapy training to many psychology programs I've seen--where I've seen some psychologists complain that their training was too academic, and based on statisticsm, not so much on clinical experience. (I guess this wouldn't apply to a Psy.D.)

--------------------------------------

Whopper, good thoughts but don't be so quick to buy into the stereotype that Psy.D's. have more clinical experience. That was supposed to be the idea when the Psy.D. degree was first introduced in university programs ... an emphasis on clinical work and a de-emphasis on scientific research.

However, the Psy.D. is now the degree of choice for the massive for-profit professional schools so they don't have to teach students science, but just rush them out en masse and as fast as possible. Students in these programs have very few opportunities for clinical work because they are not in a university and are competing with scores and scores of other students for some sort of practicum before they rush out to become "doctors of psychology."

I recall one Psy.D. student telling me he was looking for his internship on the school bulletin board. I saw another fufill all of his pre-internship requirement for assessment by doing exactly two psychological evaluations. Two! In my university program we were doing one per week for two full years, in addition to carrying therapy caseloads for 3-4 years.

The scientific training in university-based Ph.D. programs means that psychologists can continue to learn and evaluate ideas, and thus grow. The Ph.D. is just the beginning. Those in professional schools are taught that psychology is a bunch of facts to be memorized and then practiced.

This is also why most of the adherents of wacky, unscientific and bogus "therapies" are from programs that did not have any scientific or critical thinking training to them.

 

[PsyDGrrrl]

Students in these programs have very few opportunities for clinical work because they are not in a university and are competing with scores and scores of other students for some sort of practicum before they rush out to become "doctors of psychology."

Not necessarily true; at my school we had 3 years of required practica before internship.

I recall one Psy.D. student telling me he was looking for his internship on the school bulletin board. I saw another fufill all of his pre-internship requirement for assessment by doing exactly two psychological evaluations.

What school (and internship) was THAT?! I worked my ASS off to get the best clinical training I could, which meant I did an extra practicum and a half-time internship (because I went part-time for a while), then a full-time APPIC internship PLUS an extra year there while finishing my dissertation, AND an APPIC post-doc.

So just because a professional school might not require or offer as much doesn't mean that those of us who are dedicated don't find a way to get good training.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I recall one Psy.D. student telling me he was looking for his internship on the school bulletin board. I saw another fufill all of his pre-internship requirement for assessment by doing exactly two psychological evaluations. Two! In my university program we were doing one per week for two full years, in addition to carrying therapy caseloads for 3-4 years.

I find the above to be quite a stretch, and your inferences about the Psy.D. rather offensive. The internship process is handled through APPIC/the match system, so I'm not sure how the above is possible.

This is also why most of the adherents of wacky, unscientific and bogus "therapies" are from programs that did not have any scientific or critical thinking training to them.

Citation for this...."fact"?

And now back on topic.......

 

[CGOPsych]

people who have no background in "medicine", invent their own training in "medicine" , evaluate practice standards in "medicine", quote their own studies for quality and safety and behave as experts of everything and at the same time asking for Louisiana medical board for their oversight to either block future quacks or find some legitimacy and false sense of prestige for being a " pseudo medical provider"

it can not be more redicoulos then this.

Ronin, could you say more about this move by the Louisiana prescribers? Any extra sources of information you point to?

It doesn't seem to serve their purposes to make themselves subject to medical oversight. There's obviously more to it than meets the eye.

Thanks.

 

[ronin12]

Ronin, could you say more about this move by the Louisiana prescribers? Any extra sources of information you point to?

It doesn't seem to serve their purposes to make themselves subject to medical oversight. There's obviously more to it than meets the eye.

Thanks.

I read a post in this conversation and it led m to psychology prescriber discussion. it seems There is new proposed law in Louisiana state where psychologists are asking for Louisiana medical board to oversee the prescription training and certification process. it seems it has been put forward by the already prescribing psychologists. being a psychologist you might be able to put some light on this.

 

[DrFraud]

Based on the 10+ years of data out there, I believe this has been answered.

Peer Reviewed Data = 1, "Danger/Death!" Strawman = 0

I believe this speaks to the lack of efficacy for most polypharmacy that seems to have fallen into favor in the psych world.....without the data to back it up. I'm not saying all polypharmacy is bad, but often times pts benefit from a reduction and re-evaluation. The DoD study found that prescribing psychologists prescribed less and were more likely to d/c meds than their counter-parts.

Your perspective of medication adjustments is an interesting one. You sort of see Psychologists overseeing Psychiatrists with regard to medications - without any real acknowledgement that there will be many times that errors is judgement and medications that will be made by Psychologists, (including the premature D/C ing of Rxs) that will need to be corrected by Psychiatrists.

The reality is that there have been and will continue to be disagreements between Psychologists and Psychiatrists with reguard to treatment, medications, and interpretation of studies, with some concerns more legitament that others.

Just as an aside, if two Psychiatrists are involved in Pt. care such as out-patient and in-patient, there can often be disagreement regarding meds so I can only imagine the confusion a patient will have when he/she becomes involved in a tug of war between Psychologist and Psychiatrist - and I don't see how this can positively impact patient care. Why I found your above statements so peculiar is the while your references were to generalities there is behind your arguments the suggestion that when disagreement exists that automatically the Psychologist has a superior treatment approach to a Psychiatrist.

Having both entities prescribe meds is proposed as a solution by psychologists for instances where there is disagreement (one of the major reasons behind this push in addition to cost reduction and health care access issues) to benifit patient care but one failure amongst the advocates for this solution is the acknowledgement or self-assessment to realistically present the negatives with the positives of this proposed legislation, or to present the involved entities, both Psyciatrists and Psycologists, as partners in patient care, which lends itself to the characterization of Psychologists who are advocates for RxP sounding less and less like doctors & scientists and more like biased advertisers who are selectively cherry picking facts and arguments to make a case.

 

[Bluemirage]

Ronin, could you say more about this move by the Louisiana prescribers? Any extra sources of information you point to?

It doesn't seem to serve their purposes to make themselves subject to medical oversight. There's obviously more to it than meets the eye.

Thanks.

From reading the Clinical Psychology forum and various internet sources it seems like the current RX'ing psychologists are pushing for the the medical board to oversee their activities in an effort to lock other psychologists out and prevent the flooding of RX'ing psychologists into the market. They are trying to prevent new graduating psychologists from driving down their own salaries/earning potential. This is one of the many indicators that the current psychologists' push for RX'ing has nothing to do with patient care but everything to do with financial and professional incentives.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Your perspective of medication adjustments is an interesting one. You sort of see Psychologists overseeing Psychiatrists with regard to medications - without any real acknowledgement that there will be many times that errors is judgement and medications that will be made by Psychologists, (including the premature D/C ing of Rxs) that will need to be corrected by Psychiatrists.

I did not state nor imply this. My statement was about a documented observation, which was the prescribing psychologist was less likely to prescribe and more likely to d/c compared to other prescribers (not just psychiatrists).

Why I found your above statements so peculiar is the while your references were to generalities there is behind your arguments the suggestion that when disagreement exists that automatically the Psychologist has a superior treatment approach to a Psychiatrist.

Again, this is your interpretation of what I said. I didn't judge one way or the other. I was stating a willingness to bring a different perspective to a case, which was also documented in the report.

 

[CGOPsych]

The DoD study found that prescribing psychologists prescribed less and were more likely to d/c meds than their counter-parts.

Using the DoD project as part of the argument for RxP is part of APA's grossly disengenuous political campaign. Comparing it to what is being proposed is like comparing apples and bicycles.

Let's talk about some facts:

There were only 10 people in the DoD program and they received very focused attention (3 more dropped out). They were trained for 1-2 years in a university medical school condition - Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences - with first and second-year medical students (the RxP bills want psychologist to have 400 "contact hours" which can be - and is - done entirely online - that's embarrassingly pitiful).

Clinical practica were in the medical centers and were full-time for a year. RxP bills such as Missouri's suggest a "weekly supervision" of undetermined length with any person who has prescription privileges (a dermatologist would be eligible) which could also be over the phone, and the supervisor could be anywhere in the country. That bill requires the psychologist getting his clinical experience to have at least one patient receiving prescriptions, but the rest of the practice can be the usual psychology work.

Their training was by medical professionals (not psychologists) designed by medical professionals (not psychologists) and they were supervised by medical professionals (not psychologists).

They practiced in medical centers (not psychology private practice offices), surrounded by medical professionals, labs, facilities, all available for consultation. The RxP bills would have psychologists practice anywhere they please. In fact, it would give RxP to someone who may have never stepped foot in a hospital in his life, except maybe to be born.

Because it was in the military then extra consultations with the psychologist and other medical professionals were free. The patients could very easily be referred to physicians nearby.

The prescribing psychologists were free of all financial pressures since their income was the same no matter what they did. (One of the Louisiana prescribing psychologists says he sometimes writes 15-20 prescriptions a day, and some of them write 25 per day ... so much for psychologists not being "prescription mills").

As they were in the military, they did not treat anyone under 18 or over 65, nor did they treat anyone with a serious medical or psychiatric illness. Now would the RxP devotees agree to THAT in their bills?

Their medical associates were favorable in their assessment of them, and said that their practice was roughly equal to that of a competent medical student.

The program failed in that they could not get enough psychologists to fill the available slots, even when they opened it up to civilians. The GAO also said the program failed in that it was not cost-effective.

By the way, if you think the DoD undertook this project because anyone in the military wanted this or thought it was a good idea, guess again. It was all politics: The godfather of RxP in APA, Patrick DeLeon, is a former aide to Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who sat on the powerful Appropriations Committee and had oversight duties of the military budget. It was he who "asked" the military to undertake this.

Comparing the bills from the APA RxP national campaign to the DoD is absurd. If you disagree, then I invite you to submit bills that have the same demands and limitations as the DoD program.

 

[whopper]

Comparing the bills from the APA RxP national campaign to the DoD is absurd. If you disagree, then I invite you to submit bills that have the same demands and limitations as the DoD program.

Anasazi mentioned the limitations of the above study, though you have clarified on some more limitations.

Using that study in comparison to the Oregan law is absurd, and I agree with the apples to oranges argument.

Allowing a psychologist prescriber to prescribe any psychotropic medication--including the antipsychotics which by standard of care require medical lab testing & interpretation or a mood stabilizer such as lithium which will cause renal failure in 10-20 years of chronic use, a B-Blocker which can cause hypotension--> leading to someone falling & possibly hitting their head, or Clozaril which can cause fatal agranulocytosis & put a patient in a sterilized environment for their safety does not compare to a study where the psychologists only gave SSRIs, only had non-child, non-geri patients, all of whom had no medical problems as determined by an M.D., not a psychologist.

Even under the DOD/GAO study, it did not help much with the psychiatrist "shortage" problem, and was not cost effective.

The GAO concluded that the PDP program did not substantially improve the medical readiness of the Department of Defense.

If that study is used to justify psychologist prescriber power, by the GAO's own report it didn't help the shortage problem much, which the intent of the Oregon law. Further it mentioned that there are differences with it psychologist prescribers in the military, and several of the points of data in the study might not be applicable outside the military.

So far the DOD/GAO study, and the argument that psychologists are the "pre-eminent" treaters of mental illness have been the only arguments IMHO that had some rational basis for the Oregon law--both of which have been debunked in terms of backing that law. The majority of the treaters of mental illness are generalist clinicians (NPs, PCPs), not psychologists nor psychiatrists.

 

[ProRealDoc]

This is only open to psychologists because psychologists are the pre-eminent providers of mental health care. With more training in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness than any other specialty, including psychiatrists, we truly are equipped to prescribe. More importantly, however, with our extensive training in empirically supported therapies, will be able to unprescribe medications to our patients. Most psychiatrists are not trained to provide quality psychotherapeutic treatment to their patients. As a result, patients are victimize, thinking they must stay on medication for disorders that are curable with CBT (e.g., GAD, OCD, Dysthymia, non-endogenous MDD, Panic Disorder, et cetera). Psychiatrists seem to think everything is caused by some rogue neurtransmitter. However, psychologists, with our superior training in research, know this is not the case.

Psychiatrists have tried to impede psychologist scope of practice expansion at every turn. Opposition to RxP is an echo of psychiatry's resistance against psychologists' right to diagnosis and conduct therapy. However, we eventually got the right to do these and do them we have. As my professors say, we got the right to do them, and now they're "finger licking good!"

Psychologist prescribing is truly an evoloution in mental health care and the patient is the one who will benefit. With psychologists at the helm of mental health care, I rest assured that the # of persons on medication will decrease. When you see a psychiatrist, you're more than likely to walk out with a script, not so with a psychologist!!!

This argument is eerely similar to that used by nurse anesthetists to encroach into anesthesiologists' turf. Lesser educated folks trying to play doctor and attempting to achieve through legislation what they failed to achieve through education.

These folks are willing to jeopardize patient safety in the name of prescription rights and increasing their income potential.

For all of you psychiatrists, I suggest you become expert witnesses against these quacks and notify the malpractice lawyers about this new fraud being committed by 'physician-wannabes' on the american public.

 

[whopper]

For all of you psychiatrists, I suggest you become expert witness and notify the malpractice lawyers about this new fraud being committed by 'physician-wannabes' on the american public.

Which is a suggestion I have, and in fact even inform my patients in similar areas (e.g. a patient is dumped to the psychiatry emergency center from the ER, and the patient has a broken leg, and the ER doc refuses to treat it or allow the patient back to the ER--oh yeah, I will tell my patient why he's not getting the proper treatment--after all, isn't that his right?)

This can create a ripe situation for malpractice lawyers & forensic psychiatrists working in states where a psychologist prescribes something such as an antipsychotic without an M.D. overlooking the labs. As I mentioned before, a psychologist prescriber put on the stand could be asked by the plaintiff lawyer to answer some very difficult questions such as interpreting EKGs, labs such blood sugars, and the Somogyi effect. I don't know how well a psychologist with just 1 year of clinical training is going to fare on these.

A typical scenario I have encountered in court is the lawyers on both sides acknowledge that the person's training is accepted as adequate. Even if the person has the legally accepted standards, either lawyer can still call into question the person's expertise & competency in their training.

E.g. I'm not yet board certified--I'm board eligible, which some lawyers have brought up in court to question my competency as a practicing doctor even though by all legal standards I'm allowed to practice.

If I were working with a malpractice lawyer on a case, I would ask that lawyer to grill the defendent by giving them 20 EKGs to interpret,, or ask other very tough medical questions (though standard of care to know the answer) where IMHO the Oregon law would not provide enough training.

However as Anasazi mentioned, it can take years of bureacracy before a court will hear a malpractice case.

 

[LovinPsych]

Well I personally have no problem with Psychologists prescribing medication . I believe it could benefit greatly in the shortage of psychiatrists . I do agree with some posters here that it wouldn't mean diminishing psychiatrists . I mean seriously we both have our place here . However , if psychologists had the knowledge and license to prescribe medications it would make for treating better . We both have our own ways of dealing in our professions concerning our patients mental health and well being . I believe it could put a whole new spin on it . If in the event we're allowed to prescribe , i'll be more than happy to do so in fact I hope it is allowed in time .

 

[silas2642]

Well I personally have no problem with Psychologists prescribing medication . I believe it could benefit greatly in the shortage of psychiatrists . I do agree with some posters here that it wouldn't mean diminishing psychiatrists . I mean seriously we both have our place here . However , if psychologists had the knowledge and license to prescribe medications it would make for treating better . We both have our own ways of dealing in our professions concerning our patients mental health and well being . I believe it could put a whole new spin on it . If in the event we're allowed to prescribe , i'll be more than happy to do so in fact I hope it is allowed in time .

I guess that is what the psychiatrists' point is-- psychologists don't have the appropriate knowledge to safely prescribe psychotropic medications. The thing is, ignorance is bliss; is incredibly easy to think that you know a lot about a subject until you actually start to learn about it-- go to med school and you'll realize how ignorant you are in about a day.

No one is saying that psychologists aren't valuable or stupid but they should be practicing psychology and not psychiatry, which is a field of medicine.

 

[LovinPsych]

I guess that is what the psychiatrists' point is-- psychologists don't have the appropriate knowledge to safely prescribe psychotropic medications. The thing is, ignorance is bliss; is incredibly easy to think that you know a lot about a subject until you actually start to learn about it-- go to med school and you'll realize how ignorant you are in about a day.

No one is saying that psychologists aren't valuable or stupid but they should be practicing psychology and not psychiatry, which is a field of medicine.

My gosh I don't get why you must be so rude and defensive towards my statement I voiced an opinion no need to take it personal . I am just saying I disagree with the fact psychologists aren't allowed to prescribe medicine . There can be ways to train us to do so , is all I am saying even if it's limited somehow . Plus i didn't even say half of what you wrote maybe you need to re-read before responding next time .

 

[LovinPsych]

From reading the Clinical Psychology forum and various internet sources it seems like the current RX'ing psychologists are pushing for the the medical board to oversee their activities in an effort to lock other psychologists out and prevent the flooding of RX'ing psychologists into the market. They are trying to prevent new graduating psychologists from driving down their own salaries/earning potential. This is one of the many indicators that the current psychologists' push for RX'ing has nothing to do with patient care but everything to do with financial and professional incentives.

You concluded this from an internet search and talk on the Clinical Psychology forum? Seriously? You are serious ? exactly where did you come up with these "sites" ? How competent are they ? Reliable resources is a must so I want to see this .

 

[benjee]

Well I personally have no problem with Psychologists prescribing medication . I believe it could benefit greatly in the shortage of psychiatrists . I do agree with some posters here that it wouldn't mean diminishing psychiatrists . I mean seriously we both have our place here . However , if psychologists had the knowledge and license to prescribe medications it would make for treating better . We both have our own ways of dealing in our professions concerning our patients mental health and well being . I believe it could put a whole new spin on it . If in the event we're allowed to prescribe , i'll be more than happy to do so in fact I hope it is allowed in time .

Psychologist's RxP and shortage of psychiatrists are too different issues , please don't try to pretend doctors wanna be and say by prescribing medicine can help the shortage problems. This is the same arguement that is used by DNP who try to act as a quasi doctors by practice medicine independently while there is a big shortage in nurses in all areas.
Psychologists should do what they are trained for , not to pretend what they were not.If they want to prescribe medicine, please go to medical school, then complete residency. This is very simple,and there is no other way to substitute it. Don't give me all these quasi training and claimed they are equivalent to a decade of medical training and education.

 

[LovinPsych]

Psychologist's RxP and shortage of psychiatrists are too different issues , please don't try to pretend doctors wanna be and say by prescribing medicine can help the shortage problems. This is the same arguement that is used by DNP who try to act as a quasi doctors by practice medicine independently while there is a big shortage in nurses in all areas.
Psychologists should do what they are trained for , not to pretend what they were not.If they want to prescribe medicine, please go to medical school, then complete residency. This is very simple,and there is no other way to substitute it. Don't give me all these quasi training and claimed they are equivalent to a decade of medical training and education.

You have your opinion and I have mine . We are trained differently yes but that doesn't handicap us from learning how to write prescriptions . Seriously , I am noticing it's like a threat to some of you .

I disagree completely with you . It does help bridge the gap between the shortage of psychiatrists and written prescriptions from psychologists . If a patient or potential patient has mental health issues and problems , they may need medication so you rather them go without medicine just so only psychiatrists will be the only ones to write them ? Seriously , what if some people can not afford to travel to see a psychiatrist but can see a psychologist and get some treatment . I said before perhaps our ability to write prescriptions could be limited , that still leaves a wide gap for psychiatrists in comparison to psychologists . Trust me i don't like being lumped up with the opposite ( psychiatrists ) in the first place , it's frustrating cause we are " nothing " alike in my opinion . Cause I am a Psychology Student on a mission to become a Clinical Psychologist not a psychiatrist . Perhaps only certain types of psychologists could write them , there's ways around this .

 

[silas2642]

You have your opinion and I have mine . We are trained differently yes but that doesn't handicap us from learning how to write prescriptions . Seriously , I am noticing it's like a threat to some of you .

I disagree completely with you . It does help bridge the gap between the shortage of psychiatrists and written prescriptions from psychologists . If a patient or potential patient has mental health issues and problems , they may need medication so you rather them go without medicine just so only psychiatrists will be the only ones to write them ? Seriously , what if some people can not afford to travel to see a psychiatrist but can see a psychologist and get some treatment . I said before perhaps our ability to write prescriptions could be limited , that still leaves a wide gap for psychiatrists in comparison to psychologists . Trust me i don't like being lumped up with the opposite ( psychiatrists ) in the first place , it's frustrating cause we are " nothing " alike in my opinion . Cause I am a Psychology Student on a mission to become a Clinical Psychologist not a psychiatrist . Perhaps only certain types of psychologists could write them , there's ways around this .

Look, if you want to solve the problem of too few psychiatrists, then train more psychiatrists-- fund more psychiatry residencies. Create better incentives to practice psych in underserved areas. The answer isn't to give non-medical professionals prescription privilidges. Patients deserve better.

Yeah, psychologists can learn how to safely write prescriptions for their patients-- its called medical school and residency, There's not short cut or way around it.

 

[LovinPsych]

Look, if you want to solve the problem of too few psychiatrists, then train more psychiatrists-- fund more psychiatry residencies. Create better incentives to practice psych in underserved areas. The answer isn't to give non-medical professionals prescription privilidges. Patients deserve better.

Yeah, psychologists can learn how to safely write prescriptions for their patients-- its called medical school and residency, There's not short cut or way around it.

You act as though a psychologist couldn't attend for an amount of time to write limited prescriptions , I notice no one will touch that tid bit . As for funding for psychiatrists? That's not our place a bit more than it is for you to fund us and our research . That's impractical at best .

Patients deserve better ? They deserve to be cared for , if we want to talk about better , let's review the facts shall we , psychologists study the mind more in depth than psychiatrists , if anything psychologists should be the ones writing the prescriptions not someone who attends med school like many other doctors do and take a few years of psych just to slam a fancy name on it .

I hate to come off aggressive but that's how I feel on the subject matter . Instead of pointing out why we shouldn't , look at what all it could do if we could . It could benefit greatly . That's how I feel and it's what I believe .

 

[grandslam521]

You have your opinion and I have mine . We are trained differently yes but that doesn't handicap us from learning how to write prescriptions . Seriously , I am noticing it's like a threat to some of you .

I disagree completely with you . It does help bridge the gap between the shortage of psychiatrists and written prescriptions from psychologists . If a patient or potential patient has mental health issues and problems , they may need medication so you rather them go without medicine just so only psychiatrists will be the only ones to write them ? Seriously , what if some people can not afford to travel to see a psychiatrist but can see a psychologist and get some treatment . I said before perhaps our ability to write prescriptions could be limited , that still leaves a wide gap for psychiatrists in comparison to psychologists . Trust me i don't like being lumped up with the opposite ( psychiatrists ) in the first place , it's frustrating cause we are " nothing " alike in my opinion . Cause I am a Psychology Student on a mission to become a Clinical Psychologist not a psychiatrist . Perhaps only certain types of psychologists could write them , there's ways around this .

Are you a high school student?

 

[LovinPsych]

Are you a high school student?

No , so if you are going to start in on me over being a High School Student you can't.

 

[silas2642]

You have your opinion and I have mine . We are trained differently yes but that doesn't handicap us from learning how to write prescriptions . Seriously , I am noticing it's like a threat to some of you .

I disagree completely with you . It does help bridge the gap between the shortage of psychiatrists and written prescriptions from psychologists . If a patient or potential patient has mental health issues and problems , they may need medication so you rather them go without medicine just so only psychiatrists will be the only ones to write them ? Seriously , what if some people can not afford to travel to see a psychiatrist but can see a psychologist and get some treatment . I said before perhaps our ability to write prescriptions could be limited , that still leaves a wide gap for psychiatrists in comparison to psychologists . Trust me i don't like being lumped up with the opposite ( psychiatrists ) in the first place , it's frustrating cause we are " nothing " alike in my opinion . Cause I am a Psychology Student on a mission to become a Clinical Psychologist not a psychiatrist . Perhaps only certain types of psychologists could write them , there's ways around this .

No , so if you are going to start in on me over being a High School Student you can't.

You're still in college, aren't you?