Psych Faculty Member and Alumna Take Opposite Views of Proposed Legislative Bill

CON

As you may or may not know, a proposed legislative bill, HB3006, is being debated in the state legislature’s House Health Care Committee.  In short, this legislative bill would restrict associate-status marriage and family therapists, mental health counselors, and social workers from operating a private practice, even with proper supervision. In other words, it would require associate-status clinicians–clinicians who already have their master’s degrees but not their licenses–to obtain all post-graduate hours in agencies, institutions, or incorporated clinics.

As Chair of the CFT Program at AUS, I would like to assure you that we are working with leaders in the legislature and the Washington Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (WAMFT) to insure that this bill does not prevail. Essentially, without getting into a lot of complicated detail, this effort represents an attempt on the part of social work to restructure post-master’s clinical licensing requirements in a manner that is more consistent with their own professional practices.  However, since this proposed bill is actually inconsistent with the professional practices of mental health counseling and marriage and family therapy, we are working diligently to make sure this bill is either amended or squashed in its present form.

If you wish to get involved in influencing the outcome of this bill, please feel free to contact your legislator and ask them to oppose HB3006. To do this, find out who represents you in Olympia–go to http://www.leg.wa.gov and click on Find Your Legislators. Please only send messages to your Representatives at this time. Click on their name to find their email addresses and write to them.

Here is a sample of some of the issues you might want to address, but feel free to personalize–especially if you have a story you want to share with them.  For example, “I oppose HB3006 because it will have a negative impact on mental health care in our state. More specifically, this proposed bill is flawed because…”

· It does not clarify the circumstances under which associates may practice; rather, it significantly and detrimentally alters established rules. The Department of Health website states: “An associate cannot provide independent mental health counseling, marriage and family therapy, or social work for a fee, monetary or otherwise. If an associate is working under the supervision of an approved supervisor, it is not considered independent practice.” It could not be any clearer!

· It will severely cut the mental health care options for our citizens by drastically reducing access, especially for low-income citizens. Thousands of citizens–particularly low-income citizens–depend on associate-level mental health practitioners either because of lack of access to agencies or because they cannot afford the rates of clinical-level mental health practitioners. Under HB3006, citizens will not have this lower-cost option for trained and competent mental health care.

· It is a job-killing bill. The legislature has made job creation a priority in 2010. More than 40% of associate-level marriage and family therapists work in private practice settings with appropriate supervision. Many of them are in private practice because there are not agency, clinic, or institution positions available. Private practice is a crucial part of the marriage and family therapy profession.  Please oppose HB3006!

Paul David, Ph.D.
Antioch core faculty member, School of Applied Psychology, Counseling and Family Therapy and chair of the Couple and Family Therapy concentration

PRO

Hi Eric,
 
I would also like folks to know that not all mental health practioners share this opinion of HB 3006.
 
This bill is not intended as a “job killing bill”.  This bill is intended to protect consumers AND the mental health profession. 
 
Many new graduates do go into private practice.  They simply do not have the clinical experience to work competently with consumers.  Many do not have appropriate supervision.  There is nothing currently in the law that prevents new graduates from going into private practice and intimately not providing the best or even appropriate services to consumers.
 
Furthermore, many of us in this profession believe that it is in the best interest of the profession for new graduates to spend time working in agencies, institutions, and incorporated practices in order to further enhance their ability to appropriately and professionally provide mental health services. 
 
This bill aims to ensure that both consumers and the profession is protected.  I would encourage individuals who do not agree with the message that Paul David is sending to support this bill by calling their legislators and testifying in favor of protecting consumers and our profession by supporting this bill.
 
While I appreciate that a faculty member of Antioch has an opinion of this bill, I also believe that it is important that persons receiving this information understand that not all alumni of Antioch share this position. Many professionals in the mental health field do not share this opinion of HB 3006.   Our professional organizations have been working over many years to improve the standards of our profession and to ensure that consumers of mental health care in our State are protected.  This bill is important.  Mental Health Professionals are encouraged to look at all sides of this debate and decide how they want to engage in this issue.    
 
Linda Green-Baskett, M.A.,L.M.H.C. 
thresholdcounsel@q.com