Legislative and Advocacy Issues

bencaldwell · Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Posts: 6 Location: Sacramento, CA

We're in the midst of a great deal of work right now on legislative issues important to the profession. Two of the most frequently asked about are Approved programs and LPC licensure. I'll be offering an update on both in the next newsletter, and wanted to open this space up to questions or comments on these or other legislative issues.

_________________
Benjamin Caldwell, Psy.D.
AAMFT-CA Legislative & Advocacy Committee Chair

Linda Rio · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:11 am Post subject:

Ben, I just had to post since you have worked so hard to develop this. I sent the link to many of my therapist friends AAMFT and non AAMFT members.
I hope people ask many about the LPC issue (Licensed Professional Counselor). When I was in Washington, D.C. I got a little more information about how things are done outside of California but I still have a lot of questions. I put a post on the Division Listserve that is used for Division leaders. I am hoping to get some responses from leaders in other states in order to provide some of the answers to my questions. From those I have talked with locally, most of us are clueless as to exactly how LPC's differ from MFT's and how having an additional license in CA would impact us and the community at large. I know that on Capitol Hill there still is a lot of misinformation or misunderstanding about who MFT's are and what we do.

_________________
Linda M. Rio, M.A., MFT

mdgrubbs · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject:

OK I'll ask. What is the issue concerning LPC licensure?

_________________
M. D. Grubbs

Linda Rio · Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: LPC issue

I am open to Ben Caldwell, Olivia Lowey, or others to reply as well but I will do my best. The LPC issue is apparently on a "fast track" in California. AB 1486 adds Licensed Professional Counselors to the list of mental health professionals allowed to practice in California. LPC's are licensed in 48 states I believe. It is important for MFT's to realize how the addition of another license may change the present state. Currently AAMFT, CAMFT, & NASW are opposed but this may change. It is important for all MFT's to read and stay up to date on this issue as this may impact the future for MFT's. The public will certainly become more confused having yet another mental health discipline to choose from.

_________________
Linda M. Rio, M.A., MFT

bencaldwell · Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Posts: 6 Location: Sacramento, CA

Linda's summary is on the money. LPCs are master's-level therapists who currently have licensure in 48 states. Like MFTs, they know that if they gain licensure in 50 states, they instantly gain eligibility for a variety of federal programs. So they're aggressively pursuing licensure in California.

AAMFT-CA (and AAMFT Central) isn't opposed to this in principle. Any time currently-unregulated professions want to protect both themselves and the public through regulation, that can be a good thing. But the bills the LPCs have put forward so far have had clauses in them ranging from laughable to downright disturbing. As Mary Riemersma noted in the latest CAMFT magazine, one of the clauses in the current LPC bill could be interpreted to read that only they are allowed to do psychotherapy in CA. They've also put forward a scope of practice that is as broad as a psychologist's.

We're going to strongly oppose this bill for these and a variety of other reasons. I'll keep you updated on how it goes. The bill is AB1486, and full-text is available through the assembly's web site if you really want the gory details.

_________________
Benjamin Caldwell, Psy.D.
AAMFT-CA Legislative & Advocacy Committee Chair

Carey · Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Posts: 9 Location: CSUS - Sacramento

Coming from a state (FL) that has both licenses, I was confused as to why it didn't exist when I moved to CA. In my view, LPC is just a general counselor license, but an MFT is a specialized license. In fact, many people in CA who have an MFT often seem to me to just really be a general counselor, not so much an MFT as I understand a marriage & family therapist to be. Yet, they had to pursue an MFT license in order to practice.

I am not opposed to an LPC license at all. I'm not really clear why MFTs in CA are so opposed to it either - is it because it adds more competition to the field? I mean, LPCs have to do the same amount of hours (3,000), have the same amount of schooling that an MFT does, and pass the BBS or national exam -- they just don't fall under the specialized scope of an MFT, correct? MFTs would do marriage & family therapy and LPCs would do more general counseling, right?

OR are MFTs opposed to it because of the 'clauses' that Ben mentioned?

This whole thing is just confusing to me. Smile

I certainly would appreciate any additional information...

_________________
Carey
California State University, Sacramento
AAMFT Student Leadership Team

bencaldwell · Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Posts: 6 Location: Sacramento, CA

It's not a competition issue -- in most states, MFTs and LPCs get along swimmingly. The problem is also not the addition of another mental health license, per se. The problem is the bill itself. It would:

1) Arguably allow ONLY LPCs to perform psychotherapy
2) Give school counselors with no mental health training a license to practice mental health treatment
3) Give LPCs a scope of practice as broad as a psychologist's, without adequate training
4) Fully overlap the MFT scope of practice (if you look at MFT as a distinct discipline, as I do, then allowing LPCs to do everything MFTs do without the systemic training is a big problem)
5) Create a net loss in the public mental health workforce, as those counselors with MH training who are currently working in license-exempt settings could leave for private practice

That's just a sampling of the many problems, both substantive and technical, in the bill they've put forward. As it is currently written, it would be bad for MFTs and bad for the public.

There may eventually be an LPC license in California, but the current bill is clearly not how it should be done...

_________________
Benjamin Caldwell, Psy.D.
AAMFT-CA Legislative & Advocacy Committee Chair

mdgrubbs · Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject:

Thanks to those who clarified the issues. Like Carey, I am not opposed to LPC as a class, but the law and rules have to be reasonable.

One day psychologist, MFT, LCSW, & LPC will quit fighting over turf and get serious about legislative reform that provides parity between physical and mental health care.

There is plenty of pie for eveyone once access is addressed.

_________________
M. D. Grubbs

	AAMFT CA DIVISION Forum Index » Main Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1