From Heather Evans, our NYMHCA Lobbyist
Dear NYMHCA Member:
As you know, legislation enacted in 2010 provides an exemption from licensure as a psychologist, licensed master social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed mental health counselor, marriage and family therapist, creative arts therapist or psychoanalyst for individuals in certain programs until July 1, 2013.
During the exemption period, the state has required each exempt agency to submit to the State Education Department ("SED") a report on the utilization of personnel subject to the provisions of those sections of law. You can access these plans on the SED website -- http://www.op.nysed.gov/news/
The public is encouraged to review the reports and submit public comments on the agencies recommendations by participating in a survey. The survey can be found at http://www.op.nysed.gov/surveys/mhpsw/exempt-agencies-survey.htm; the deadline to submit on-line comments is December 23, 2011.
Attached for your considerations are possible responses to be submitted by the NY Mental Health Counselor’s Association. There is no obligation to submit identical answers. Indeed, you are encouraged to read the agencies’ reports and respond using your own evaluation and words. Please pay particular attention to the final question of the survey that asks for any other comments. I would encourage you to consider mentioning the need for clarification in our licensure law to allow you to diagnose. Examples of how the lack of authority to diagnose has cost you jobs, internship opportunities, advancements, etc. are extremely valuable.
It is critical that you participate in the survey. NYS Office of the Profession has provided this amazing opportunity to be a part of the discussion. It is very important that they hear from as many mental health counselors as possible.
Best, Heather
Heather G. Evans
Hinman Straub
121 State Street
Albany, NY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Possible Responses to SED/OP Survey (Feel free to paraphrase and include personal references)
It is suggested that you read all of the agency reports before beginning to fill out the survey. You do not need to read them again even though the links are at the bottom of each page. You can also go back and forth through the survey at will.
In regard to the extension of the exemption for state agencies:
There is not a single licensed health care profession that is required to be licensed by Title VIII for private practice but not similarly licensed in state operated or regulated facilities. The creation of a 2 tiered system by which those with private pay are afforded qualified practitioners while Medicaid/Medicare recipients are treated by unlicensed paraprofessionals is discriminatory.
In regard to providing grandfathering or “easy” pathways to licensure for some groups working in state agencies:
Each aspect of the credentialing process is necessary to ensure the practitioner is fully qualified. Any proposal to bypass requirements for licensure will ultimately dilute the quality of care available to clients.
In regard to the clarification of scopes of practice and who cannot do psychotherapy:
There is a necessary partnership by agencies and NYSED OP to ensure that restricted scope activities are performed by licensed practitioners with the support of paraprofessionals as and when appropriate.
In regard to providing waivers to the licensure requirement for MSW’s:
MSWs who wish to do scope of practice work such as psychotherapy should seek to become a LMSW under supervision of a LCSW. Activities restricted to LCSWs should only be done by a LMSW if under the proper supervision.
In regard to a possible exemption for CASAC’s or those who have the gambling credential:
There is no need to establish an exemption for unlicensed OASAS professionals who are not either CASAC or the newly recommended Prevention Professionals or Compulsive Gambling Counselors. A multi-disciplinary approach isn't an excuse to avoid the protections of licensure or credentialing.
To be considered for the final request for comment in the survey:
The exemption language discussion is complicated by the notion that those licensed under Article 163 of the Education law - LMHC, LMFT, LCAT, and Psychoanalysts have been denied the authority to diagnose because the statute is unclear. The scope of practices for each of these professions does not include the term "diagnosis", but does state the authority to "identify, evaluate and treat dysfunctions and disorders", which is the definition of diagnosing. In addition, the educational requirement to be eligible for a license mandates the successful completion of course work in "psychopathology" the study of diagnosing. Finally, the statute states that those licensed under Article 163 "may use accepted classifications of signs, symptoms, dysfunctions and disorders". The Department -in regulations- has defined this as the authority to use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). However, regardless of these aspects of the current statute, the lack of the term "diagnosis" has denied these practitioners the clear authority to diagnose. As such, these practitioners are not able to fully perform their scope of practice which compounds agencies staffing problems. If LMHCs, LMFT, LCATs and Psychoanalyst receive clarity in statute that they are authorized to diagnose, licensed agencies, and provider groups of mental health services would have increased access to qualified practitioners to assist in their staffing models.
