Membership details of the MBS Review Mental Health Reference Group have been published on the Department of Health website.
There are four clinical psychologists and one counselling psychologist. The rest of psychology, approximately 68%, is not represented.
The committee is chaired by a clinical psychologist from the APS College of Clinical Psychology.
The clinical psychologist, Leanne Clarke, who wrote the MBS Review submission on behalf of ACPA is on the committee. In the ACPA submission Leanne Clarke wrote:
“We support the Mental Health Commission’s (2014) recommendation for cashing out of MBS services provided by registered psychologists without accredited professional qualifications in mental health to fund psychological services on a salaried or, when necessary, sessional basis. This would enable greater quality control over service providers and service delivery and more equitable distribution of funding. Wherever possible, clinical psychologists need to fill these salaried or sessional positions. In addition to providing clinical assessment and therapy services, clinical psychologists can provide supervision to other providers to support quality outcomes, and to ensure that patients with more severe or complex presentations are appropriately referred when required. Oversight of generally registered psychologists through a Primary Health Networks (PHN) would be one possible scenario that reflects the need to oversee providers with reduced levels of mental health training.”
Lyn Littlefield is also on the committee.
Full details of committee membership can be viewed here.
Recently RAPS received a donation from a psychologist who was very angry as she had written a report for a client to apply for a Disability Support Pension with Centrelink. Her client had just informed her that Centrelink had refused to accept the report stating that it must be from a clinical psychologist. If this is a litmus barometer, and not just for Centrelink reports, RAPS expects to be rolling in money by year end.
What will the recommendations of the non-representative MBS Review Mental Health Reference Group be? Should we be shuddering already? If you want RAPS and others to do something about this situation then support groups who are prepared to represent you an act in your interests.
Submissions to the MBS Review remain open until COB on Monday 2nd July 2018. Email submissions to MBSReviews@health.gov.au.
So… Given that Chair and committee membership one wonders why we (the 68%) bothered to write submissions. Where to turn? The media?
John Faine on the ABC radio would be interested I’m sure.
Hi FFF, It’s probably a long shot but 4 corners might pick it up on the basis of corruption in the APS, questionable if not rigged EGM allowing clinicals to take control of the APS Board, minority clinical faction advising governments in their own interests, taxpayers and consumers being ripped off. Any media action needs a dedicated RAPS or AAPi spokesperson to verify and confirm press releases and to be able to expand on topics the journalists wish to pursue.
Thank you RAPS for providing good information about this. Speaking for myself, I’m suitably moved to action. It sounds like we do have information of the mis-information around this.
What we lack is some unified action and strategy in response to this.
Or at least – there may be some plan here – that I’m not aware of.
I’m happy to start some type of strategizing group – or at least join one. Would someone know one that exists – or who would like to join me?
Responding to ‘Mental health therapist’ – the media may be one arm of a strategy. But there needs to be a bit more organising, I think.
And yes, ‘MHT’ – I agree, IF the feedback to the committee is to that the MHRG is full of clinical psychs, then our submissions may be wasted?
Nonetheless, I’m unclear of the process of the MHRG. Was it just a group of APS members within the APS that decided to give feedback to the MBS?
What about feedback from psychiatrists, social workers, family therapists?
Was the closing date only for the MHRG – or was there a wider one, for rest of the mental health profession?
What’s the term of reference for advice?
Who sits on the board of the MHC (Mental Health Commission) – maybe our submissions should go there?
etc.
People who are interested to talk about action – feel free to send me your interest & maybe we can set up a skype forum or something.
pls send to: fairmhdelall@gmail.com
Cheers,
Hans
Are there any other training programs being developed? Bridging programs or something similar?
This just confirmed my decision to not renew my APS membership. I’ve been a member for the past twenty years but am ashamed by the manner in which it now holds itself.
Yes Shona, I hope many more share your wisdom to dump our treacherous society and join the AAPi. I also hope that psychologists haven’t just blindly renewed their full annual subscription to become revenue fodder for the clinical faction.
What about the argument for the recall of the “grandfather clause” for us Generalists who have been registered and doing clinical work for years. So frustrating and unfair that we are swept aside as being inferior to many newly ‘young’ graduated Clinical Masters students who have far less experience.
Many GPs are biased in referring to Clinical Psychologists despite the lack of any research evidence supporting a difference in therapeutic outcomes.
Is it not possible for a petition to be set up for the 68% to sign for submission to the relevant government bodies. We all seem to be scrambling to know how to even start getting ourselves appropriately represented.
As the universities do not want to offer any courses that don;t make them money, and students will enrol in courses only where the money is available – unless APS sets up bridging courses to help ALL psychologists – then this review will be the nail in the coffin of the psychology profession.
ALL NON-CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS MUST GET INVOLVED AND WRITE TO THE COMMITTEE or JUST ROLL OVER AND CLOSE UP SHOP.
Hello,
I contributed to this debate last year from the perspective of a Clinical Psychologist. I have always been concerned at the viciousness of the splitting dynamic operating with regard to this matter, and I remain hopeful that a mature debate can occur.
I also sense increasing despair by contributors on this website, and I am sorry that you are feeling this way. That said, one of the changes that I have noted is an apparent movement in attitude such that the issue of bridging processes seem to be more palatable for at least some. If this is correct, then I sense that this might usher in a constructive middle ground. I don’t think that the majority of APS members have enjoyed this painful conflict that risks tearing the profession apart. I know that there would be many specialists who would happily involve themselves in a collaborative process in order to assist their colleagues to obtain specialist recognition.
This position seems worthy of deeper exploration, and I can’t see why it wouldn’t work. It certainly has the potential to break the apparent impasse in our relationships with each other and would have the potential of unifying us. It could also, potentially, unify RAPS, the APS and perhaps even ACPA. It’s worth some thought, but I do worry that the naysayers will mobilise against this idea.
One final thing: I might not be saying things that some on here wish to hear, but I have always endeavoured to comment in a respectful manner. I expect the same in return and will not respond to ad hominem attack. I expect the moderator to exercise due diligence with regard to this issue.
Best wishes.
Chris Theunissen
Chris, who do you think will offer these programmes? It is like saying that maybe one day wel will get equal pay for women?
Oh that’s right, it was supposed to have happened in 1975 with Gough Whitlam pushing for it, with the office of women. However, in 2018, still not equal pay in so many areas.
Has the APS actually got any bridging programmes? NO
Have any of the universities got nay bridging programmes? I don;t think so.
So now we will get a review by a committee which includes the original architect of the original APS submission in 2006, which pushed for the clinical higher tier. the original architect.
And then the committee overloaded by 3 clinical psychologists – yet clinical psychologists are STILL not the majority of psychologists in Australia.
Psychologists – please react and submit now.
I think a bridging course is a fine idea. Similar to what Social Workers need to do to become Clinical Social Workers. Then the issue is that a 4+2 and 5+1 pathway still exists allowing for seperate tiers. Bridge all current psychs and then remove alternative pathways. That would unify the profession.
Perhaps the clinical psychs who operate in my endorsed areas & claim the higher Medicare rebate should do a bridging course as well.
Quid pro quo.
We must all be disgusted in this group. Especially as Lyn Littlefield continues to accept there is a difference in outcomes with out providing much evidence – and she was instrumental in the APS submission to the government in the intial phase for the two-tiered difference in 2006. The fox in charge of the hen-house is an image which would correlate.
Pass the word to all psychologists – action must occur now.
Hi Lucy,
Would you be prepared to undertake a bridging programme if one was available?
Best wishes
Chris
Hello Chris / Lucy,
I for one would be prepared to undertake a bridging program, seems to be what is necessary. I think we need to look at the direction psychology is heading in – further professionalisation, and a need for higher level training.
Count me in.
Best,
Greg
If there was a bridging programme into a higher tier, yes?
However, all who speak about bridging programmes tend to want to push people to do a bridging programme into Clinical? Why should everyone then become a ‘clinical?
And Chris, if I have a Masters in Counselling (& others in Health or Clinical Neuro), why should we undertake a bridging programme?
And for those who have been psychologists working with severe issues, for 20 or more years, but not have a Masters, why should they undertake a Bridging programme?
Many of these psychologists who do not have a clinical Masters, give supervision to new clinicals for how to deal with clients, mental health issues.
Why should they be forced to undertake an expensive course to get a piece pof paper to validate them?
Just because the APS & Clinical psychologists feel superior due to the moniker ‘Clinical Psychologist?
The Medicare review taskforce is currently meeting – to decide whether the psychology profession remains split with two tiers.
In 2006 the APS put their submission in suggesting a two tier payment – the government gave this.
The profession has been decimated and devalued since then.
The submission only came to light after freedom of information requests.
What submission has been put forward by the APS?
Has the APS got one?
If it has, then why can the members not see it?
And as the review is happening as we speak, the APS should tell the membership what the position and submission is on behalf of the membership of the APS, most of whom are NOT clinical.
APS – supply the submission.
And recall the important point. Lyn Littlefield was at the helm of the APS in the 2006 submission. She is now on the committee that will decide if the two tier should remain? Totally objective of course. Especially after her stance in defending the two tier VIGOROUSLY over the last 10 years.
Frank, I’m not sure if what you say is actually the case –
The Medicare review taskforce is currently meeting – to decide whether the psychology profession remains split with two tiers.
There is a whole of system review occuring of thousands of Medicare items, and 4 relate to psychology. The purpose is to examine whether the items are the best and most efficient form, not to explore the 2 tier system. The most likely outcome of this activity is status quo or perhaps other endorsed areas entering tier 1, and perhaps a change to how the items are structured. Even a case conference item like GPs and psychiatrists get.
We need to be careful about expectations i think.
Geoff
Hello Geoff, my point is more about the equality and equity of those on the committee, who may be biased as they are Clinicals – if the majority of psychologists registered in Australia are NOT clinical psychologists, why does the committee have an over-representation of clinical psychologists, including Lyn Littlefield who headed the APS submission in 2006, on the committee reviewing.
Check the names, positions and titles please Geoff.
And Geoff, it is about how items are structure as well. Bu t how things stand the only difference in Clinical – just have a look at the ACPA proposals WorkCover, etc), based purely on their title as Clinical psychologists
Chris, we also have many people who are members of various colleges (sometimes four colleges) (many on the APS Board) – yet they have not done a Masters in each discipline. They were grandfathered or other across. They did not do bridging programmes. So why do you consider it right that others should now have to do bridging courses? There are many clinical psychologists who became clinical psychologists this way.
Hi Frank,
Thanks for your email.
Yes, the anomaly that you have described is ridiculous. It came about largely because the leadership in psychology over the past 40 years sat on it’s hands and did nothing about systematically increasing the standards of training. Now we have this mess. If, as you say, there are people that are people with a number of endorsements without doing the formal training, then it is a ludicrous situation. It should not have occurred, and continuing to allow it is not going to get us anywhere.
Oh, and Lucy, you are partially correct in your responses – people with Counselling Masters (such as I believe that you might have), or other related postgrad qualifications (Neuropsych _+ others) should have been eligible for endorsement at the higher tier right from the outset of Medicare. What happened to you was simply wrong, and it needs to be fixed. This is a separate issue to the 4+2 group, and it would be wise not to lump both groups together.
I’m in agreement with Greg’s response above, and would like to see us get on with this. It’s clear that the culture of complaining and expecting that this will upgrade one’s endorsement status is not going to fly. Nor should it. Please re-read Greg’s comments as he nails this point.
Chris
Hi Chris,
There is a fact that does seem to be missed in the points you make. That is, 4+2 psychologists are treating mental illness under the MBS effectively. How can this be achieved if the training was not good enough? All psychologists, regardless of training undertaken, are registered health practitioners with the specific focus on mental health.
In saying this, I also think it is reasonable to expect that training is refined over the years too. But future training models should not invalidate past training models nor should those practitioner’s currently working in the field through previously recognised training models be disadvantaged in any way. In terms of training models; what was, what is and what we may or may not end up with down the track should flow a lot better in the transitions so as not to disrupt the profession and the clients of our services.
Kind Regards
Clive
Chris, the PsyBA figures keep being astounding –
March 2018 there are 35,906 psychologists in Australia.
Of that 8,298 are Clinical psychologists.
APS members are 24,000 – Generalists are just on 11,000. Clinicals around 7,000
Yet on the committee we have 5 clinical psychologists, and only 3 counselling.
Chris – this is committee is NOT representative of the profession in Australia, and misrepresents the views of psychologists.
The future of psychology in Australia, and the decimation of non-Clinical psychology – is being given to predominantly Clinical psychologists.
Is RAPS going to push a vote of no confidence in Lyn Littlefield at the AGM given the information available regarding her misleading and misrepresenting the APS.
Hi HAB. My understanding is that this has been tried before and she just thumbs her nose at it. Last year’s spill motion was a vote of no confidence. She’s not accountable to anyone and just does whatever she wants including zipping around the world in business class going to meetings and conferences at the members’ expense and if we’re lucky, we might get a paragraph in APS Matters about her latest junket. My concern here is that after she retires next year, the clinical Board will replace her with a clinical who is just as unaccountable and as bad.
Hello, as Lyn is powerful and has much backing, energy is best put into changing the government’s mind, through the medicare review. Remember, if there was no differentiation between tiers, then there wold be less pressure on doing stuff with the APS. Remember, the APS continues to state it does not make the decision on the Medicare rebate. It is the review. So focus more on the inequity of the structure of the group (as mentioned in the earlier post) and try to get the Medicare review to recommend a single level, tier.
Hi Frank, RAPS is working across many fronts including lobbying Government. Recently, due to this, and other lobbying psychologists the makeup of the MBS Mental Health Reference Group has changed. You can see the current member list here -> http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/MBSR-committees-mental-health-services
Thanks Frank. Excellent point!