Legal Setback to Psychiatrists’ Attack On
Psychologists’ Authority
California psychiatrists' recent
lawsuit attempting to limit psychologists' practice may have
backfired on the psychiatrists. As a direct consequence of the
psychiatrists' lawsuit, the California Attorney General's office has
responded by filing a brief in the lawsuit which fully supports
psychologists' legal position. In its brief, the Attorney
General (AG) declared that settled California law provides that
psychologists may provide services within their scope of practice in
health facilities without physician supervision and without
discrimination.
In its
filing, the Attorney General strongly affirmed that
California law, as interpreted by the
California Supreme Court in the 1990 CAPP v. Rank Supreme Court
decision, recognizes the rights of psychologists in California to
admit, treat, and discharge hospitalized patients without physician
oversight. The position taken by the Attorney General is an important
victory for Psychology Shield which has intervened in the case in support
of the regulations that were issued by the California Department of Health
Services.
The lawsuit filed by the
California Psychiatric Association and the Union of American Physicians
and Dentists is intended to overturn regulations adopted in 2005 by the
California Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL). DHS adopted the regulations as a result of
a petition by Psychology Shield. DHS' justification for the
new regulations is that the law and the Supreme Court's interpretation of
the law required the new regulations. DHS agreed. CPA Executive
Director Dr. Jo
Linder-Crow commented that "This positive legal
development shows what can be accomplished when psychologists come
together in a common effort."
CPA’s
Division of Professional Practice (Division I) recently approved a $10,000
dollar-for-dollar matching grant for Psychology Shield. APA, CPA and
most of CPA's Divisions and Chapters and many individuals are
contributing to support this important legal effort. Checks
should be made payable to Psychology Shield, to 5100 Cascabel Road, Atascadero, CA
93422-2345.
Psychology Board Improves Flexibility For
Completing CE for License Renewal
The California Board of
Psychology approved a plan for psychologists to meet the law and ethics
requirement in a variety of ways. Regulations have been drafted which
provide that a psychologist renewing a license certifies that training in
law and ethics, including recent changes/updates, as well as accepted
standards of practice, have been completed. Taking a relevant course in
law and ethics will still fulfill the requirement but so will other
experiences which provide direction and education in laws and ethics. The
bulk of the responsibility for how the requirement should be
fulfilled will be up to the professional judgment of the psychologist.
Before the proposed regulation is given a formal public hearing for input,
there may be some additional language added to clarify what fulfills the
requirement. In many ways, the proposed new regulation will trust the
word of the psychologist who certifies that the requirement has been met.
The Board does have the authority to audit psychologists to confirm
they have met the requirement but it is not expected that most
psychologists will be routinely audited. PROGRESS NOTES will let readers
know when public comment on this proposed regulation is
requested.
Still pending is the change in
regulations that will allow up to 27 hours of CE required for licensure to
be obtained through "independent learning". These regulations have already
had their required public hearing and are now in the final approval
stages. All that remains is for attorneys from the state to review them
and after that review they will become effective. PROGRESS NOTES' readers
will be informed when that happens.
In other Board of Psychology
news, the Board approved guidelines which it will use in considering
proposed mandates for additional continuing education. The guidelines were
developed because of the Board's concern about the legislature
adding mandates for continuing education without obtaining much empirical
information about whether the mandate will actually resolve the problem.
The Board will use the guidelines when it is considering the advantages
and disadvantages of legislative proposals for additional mandates.
The Board has also interviewed
the final top five candidates for its vacant Executive Officer position.
It is expected that a candidate will be chosen to fill the vacancy within
a few weeks.
Concerns Raised About Safety of Common
Psychotropic Meds
A briefing document
prepared by Food and Drug Administration officials reported that adults
taking medications such as Adderall and Ritalin to treat attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder might be at higher risk of sudden death and other
serious side effects, especially if they have high blood pressure.
According to the FDA report,
from 1999 to 2003, there were 28 domestic deaths among patients taking
Adderall and 16 domestic deaths among patients taking the drug
methylphenidate, most commonly sold as Ritalin. The statistics excluded
deaths among patients who were taking ADHD drugs in conjunction with other
medications.
Another report also raised
concerns about antidepressant medication. Newborns whose mothers took
antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft in the last trimester of
pregnancy had six times the risk of suffering oxygen deprivation after
birth compared with newborns whose mothers had not taken the drugs,
according to a study published yesterday in the New England Journal of
Medicine.
The report above is based on a
Washington Post article that can be found online
at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802350.html
Additional Washington Post
article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902325.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
Medicare Top Ten Claim Submission
Errors
NHIC Medicare Part B is
starting a new series of articles “Focus on…..” which will be posted on
the NHIC website: http://www.medicarenhic.com/
The articles will
feature billing tips based on the Top Ten Claim Submission Errors.
Each month will focus on one billing error and offer tips to correct the
problem. The top Claim Submission Errors for the month of December were:
1. Duplicate
Claims
2. The need for this service was
not supported on this claim
3. Medicare
eligibility not in effect when services were received
4. Service denied/reduced because this
service is not paid separately
5.
Medicare is secondary payer on this
claim
6. This service is part of another
service done at the same time
7. Not
payable, service part of another service performed same
day
8. Service not considered. Requested
information was not received
9. This item
or service is not covered by Medicare
10. This charge
is included in the surgical fee
The website articles on these
and other top denials will start in March 2006.
Give a
Colleague a Free Subscription to PROGRESS NOTES:
To sign up a colleague for a
free four month subscription to PROGRESS NOTES, send an email to
Annie DeMaria Norris at:
adnorris@CalPsychlink.org and
ask for the free subscription to PROGRESS NOTES. The email
should include the name of the CPA member who referred the new subscriber
and the new subscriber’s name and preferred email
address.
Please
contact Annie DeMaria Norris with any questions regarding the free
subscription offer.
To unsubscribe from this
newsletter, please send a blank e-mail with the word "unsubscribe" in the
subject line to progressnotes@calpsychlink.org.
To provide feedback to the
editor of PROGRESS NOTES, email cpadpa@pacbell.net.
© California
Psychological Association, 2006
All Rights
Reserved | 
