The Broad View https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&rss=sv5kFbpc Thu, 4 Jun 2026 22:25:01 GMT Mon, 30 Sep 2024 14:52:18 GMT Copyright © 2024 Ohio Psychological Association Master's Level Licensure within Psychology https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=504656 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=504656 Navigating Controversy, Change & the Workforce Crisis

Currently, 20 states allow for some path to licensure within psychology for those with a master’s degree in psychology, with about half of those states allowing for independent practice by master’s level psychological professionals. However, there is a lack of uniformity in both the scope of practice for providers with a master’s degree and the titles they adopt after becoming licensed.

This change - driven in part by the desire of some state legislatures to increase access to care - has continued to spark debate within the psychological community.  Many psychologists are raising questions about the implications of this trend on the future of the profession, quality of care, and the role of educational standards in shaping the way forward.

Background and Current Developments
As OPA members are aware, the path to becoming a licensed psychologist in the U.S. has traditionally required a doctoral degree (Ph.D. or Psy.D.). The rigorous and extensive preparation associated with a doctoral program in psychology has been seen by many as essential for ensuring the high level of expertise necessary to diagnose and treat complex mental health conditions with the same efficacy and quality that the public has come to expect from psychologists. 

Over the last several years, a growing demand for mental health services and a stagnation in the number of licensed behavioral health professionals entering the field has led to a bottleneck in access to behavioral health care for most of the United States population.  This increasing lack of access has prompted some states to consider expanding the license options under psychology licensing boards.  

As this trend has developed, some psychologists have expressed concerns about the growing number of states allowing for a master's level path to licensure for psychological professionals, citing the potential dilution of professional standards and the impact on the public’s perception of the profession.  A significant number of psychologists worry that reducing the educational requirements for licensure could compromise the quality of care provided to patients and weaken the identity of psychologists as highly trained experts in mental health.  Proponents point to research showing little-to-no significant difference in therapeutic outcomes between master’s level therapists and doctoral level psychologists.  However, opponents and those with lingering concerns point out that research on this issue is exceptionally difficult to conduct and even more complicated to interpret.

Workforce Crisis
Over the last two decades, the demand for behavioral healthcare and psychological services has far outstripped the supply of professionals available to meet the need for psychological assessment, diagnosis and treatment.  Some of the increased demand for services is the result of the largely successful efforts of behavioral health advocates to eliminate the stigma of receiving care for mental health or substance use conditions.  This reduction in stigma has opened up many to seeking care at the same time that the reported incidence of behavioral health conditions has appeared to increase, particularly among those aged 18-25 years of age.  It is not clear why the number of diagnosed mental health conditions have increased, but many point to the increasing strains of life in our modern society, and recent crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in a dramatic escalation in the number of people experiencing and seeking care for behavioral health distress.   

As this workforce crisis has deepened, some state legislators outside of Ohio have pursued the creation of a path to licensure for those with a master’s degree in psychology.  However, the Ohio Psychological Association (OPA), who has an outstanding presence on Ohio’s Capitol Square, has not observed this same interest developing among members of the Ohio General Assembly.  Even those policy makers in Ohio who are particularly attuned to the growing behavioral health workforce crisis and bottleneck in Ohioans’ access to mental health and substance use disorder services have not discussed or proposed the creation of such a path as part of Ohio’s strategy to address this growing problem.

OPA’s Response to Workforce Crisis
Currently, the Ohio Psychological Association is focused on workforce development strategies unrelated to creating a path to licensure in Ohio for those with a master’s degree in psychology.  In the last few months, OPA has had unprecedented success with our advocacy efforts with the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (OMHAS) and the Ohio Department of Insurance (ODI).  

OPA has made remarkable progress with our recent proposal to OMHAS and the Ohio General Assembly to create and invest significant state funds in a new OPA-designed grant program aimed at attracting the best and brightest talent to Ohio’s accredited doctoral psychology internships.  OPA’s advocacy with ODI has also been remarkably effective – focusing on increasing access to care by improving market conditions for Ohio psychologists by reforming unfair insurance company practices, increasing the enforcement of existing insurance laws and improving the integration of primary care, pediatric care and behavioral health care.  These efforts will result in more psychologists remaining in the insurance market, and will make Ohio a more attractive place for psychologists to locate and maintain their practices.

APA Response to Masters License Trend
In addition to the workforce crisis and decreasing access to behavioral healthcare, developments in higher education programs and state changes to licensing requirements for master’s level behavioral health professionals (e.g. clinical counselors) have also had a significant impact on the collective response of major players in the profession of psychology like the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB).

The American Psychological Association (APA), the largest and most influential professional organization for psychologists in the U.S., has taken a cautious stance on this issue.  However, the lack of uniformity in the scope of practice granted by different states to master’s level psychological professionals, the lack of defined competencies differentiating doctoral-level psychology programs from master’s-level programs and the absence of a uniform title for master’s psychology providers in different states has led APA’s Council of Representatives to take action.  In 2018, APA’s Council of Representatives approved a motion to pursue the accreditation of master’s level programs in health service psychology (HSP) which include instruction in clinical, counseling and school psychology.  In February of 2021, the APA approved these accreditation standards.

According to Lynn Bufka, PhD, APA’s Deputy Chief of Professional Practice, “Developing competencies for these programs and accrediting them could increase the numbers of clinicians trained in the science of psychology practice at the master’s level and increase access to psychological services for consumers.”  

Changes in Academia, Clinical Counseling Accreditation & Licensing 
Another force driving APA’s decision to develop uniform accreditation standards for HSP master’s programs are the relatively recent changes made by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) to the accreditation standards of master’s-level clinical counseling programs.

In 2013, CACREP began to require counseling program faculty to have doctoral degrees in counselor education, not psychology.  The CACREP changes to the accreditation standards impacted the entire composition of faculty employed by universities to train both master’s students in psychology and clinical counseling.  Partially as a result, some counseling psychology master’s programs were forced to close.  This negatively impacted doctoral psychology programs because the same faculty members employed to train master’s students in psychology were also serving as doctoral psychology program faculty, and the revenue generated by these more profitable master’s psychology programs traditionally helped to support the financial viability of small doctoral psychology programs, which are typically less financially sustainable for colleges and universities to maintain.  

During this same time period, state boards of clinical counseling began requiring license applicants for clinical counseling to hold a degree from an accredited clinical counseling program only - rejecting those with a master’s in psychology. These dual developments have spurred academia to clamor for clearer standards for master’s psychology programs and to advocate for a unique path to licensure for those with master’s degrees in psychology.

Role of Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) 
The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB), which represents the licensing boards in the U.S. and Canada, has also been at the forefront of this issue.  Recognizing the growing trend towards master's level licensure, the ASPPB has taken steps to develop standardized legislative language and regulations to ensure that any expansion of licensure to master's level practitioners is done in a way that maintains high standards for training and practice.

In 2024, the ASPPB released a model piece of state legislation that provides a framework for states considering master's level licensure for psychological professionals. This model act includes provisions for the education, training, and supervision of master's level psychology professionals, with the goal of ensuring that these practitioners are adequately prepared to provide safe and effective care. 

ASPPB’s “Potential Regulatory Implications of Master’s Licensure (PRI-LM) Task Force” outlined a standard set of requirements, titles, scopes of practice, and processes for licensing graduates from master’s psychology programs.
 
The ASPPB PRI-LM Task Force requested public comments from interested parties and stakeholders about the recently completed work product draft of this Task Force; including: (A.) an outline of the licensure process for master’s-level psychology practitioners, (B.) a detailed diagram that provides a snapshot of the process, (C.) a suggested Model Act (state legislation) and Model Regulations (state administrative rules), and further elaboration for the testing and assessment track for those state psychology regulatory boards and colleges considering adding this license status or amending already existing laws and regulations regarding the licensure of master’s-trained individuals from psychology programs. To view comments, click here. 

In addition to ASPPB’s PRI-LM Taskforce, the APA has formed a Task Force to modernize the APA Model Act for State Licensure for Psychologists (i.e. state legislation governing the licensing of psychologists).  This APA Task Force is beginning by creating its own recommendations for title and scope of practice for professionals with master’s degrees in psychology and will release their work soon for public comment.

To comment on APA's Model Act for State Licensure for Psychologists, please click here.


The Path Forward: Balancing Access and Quality
Although Ohio is currently not moving towards a licensure path for master’s level psychology professionals, OPA and its members will continue to play a critical role in shaping the future of the profession.  OPA will continue advocating for policies that protect the public while addressing the evolving needs of the mental health workforce.  Our recent and exceedingly successful advocacy efforts on workforce development and insurance reform are ongoing, and OPA members interested in learning more about these issues and participating in our efforts can join the OPA Advocacy Committee, which meets on the second Thursday of each month at 8am via Zoom.  Members can contact OPA Advocacy Committee Chair, Dr. Laura Fogarty about joining the committee or attending the monthly meeting.

For Ohio psychologists, staying informed about these national developments and participating in the ongoing dialogue will be essential as the profession navigates this complex and rapidly changing landscape.  OPA will continue to monitor developments on this issue at the state and national level and will continue to work to keep members informed.

]]> Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:52:18 GMT Accessing Full-Length Research Articles https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495628 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495628 Thu, 16 Nov 2023 19:19:09 GMT OPA Advocacy Update https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495263 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495263 Fri, 3 Nov 2023 17:51:49 GMT OPA Advocacy Update https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495262 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495262 Fri, 3 Nov 2023 17:50:55 GMT OPA Advocacy Update https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495261 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495261 Fri, 3 Nov 2023 17:49:44 GMT OPA Advocacy Update https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495260 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495260 Fri, 3 Nov 2023 17:48:28 GMT Advocacy Update March 2023 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495259 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495259 Fri, 3 Nov 2023 17:46:37 GMT Advocacy Update March 2023 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495258 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=495258 Fri, 3 Nov 2023 17:46:24 GMT The Broad View: February 2022 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=451117 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=451117 We are asking OPA members to weigh-in on an important issue.  HB454 prohibits trans youth and non-binary and gender non-confirming youth from accessing affirming health care.  The sponsor has characterized it as “….. not about hate. This bill is about kindness, love, and compassion.” It’s impact on vulnerable kids is far from love and compassion.  Below is an ACTION ALERT we sent out this week.  Please contact the people listed in it and share this message with friends and family.

 

OHIO PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
ACTION ALERT

OPA OPPOSES HB454 and we ask you to join us in expressing your concerns about this bill

FROM AN EQUALITY OHIO ANALYSIS:  HB454 prohibits trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming youth from accessing affirming health care in Ohio.  Its sole purpose is to prevent transgender children from transitioning, regardless of parental consent and despite previous or current care-plans approved by qualified medical professionals, despite studies showing affirming medical and mental health care treatment is suicide prevention .”  Banning affirming mental and medical care for minors goes against the recommended medical advice and would harm the mental and physical well-being of LGBTQ+ youth across the state, especially transgender and non-binary youth. Gender-affirming medical care is recommended for transgender youth by the American Academy of Pediatricians and the Endocrine Society and is viewed by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as evidence-based patient care.

Call or email to the following:
House Speaker Robert Cupp; House leadership; HB454 Sponsor; Committee Chair Susan Manchester; Members of the Families, Aging, and Human Services Committee of the Ohio House of Representatives. (Listed below)

Talking points:

  • I am a licensed psychologist (OR GRADUATE STUDENT) in Ohio and am writing you in opposition to HB 454. 
  • It attempts to address very complex psychological and medical issues in an overly simplistic and places a wedge between a client and provider.
  • This legislation would result in the provider having to decide between the provision of competent and ethical care or following State law. 
  • The bill ignores a solid body of research as to the dangers inherent in depriving a vulnerable population of needed medical and psychological care and the potential for suicide because of it.

The legislation assumes that parents are not included in the care of their gender-non-conforming children and adolescents, when parents are most often driving the care of their children in the matters addressed by HB 454.  

HB 454 is dangerous to the health and well-being of gender non-conforming children and teens and it blocks treatments for children and adolescents that are more often than not sought by their parents.

Speaker Robert Cupp Rep04@ohiohouse.gov  614-466-9624 
Representative Gary Click Rep88@ohiohouse.gov  614-466-1374 (Bill Sponsor)
Chairwoman Susan Manchester Rep84@ohiohouse.gov 614-466-6344 
Representative Al Cutrona Rep59@ohiohouse.gov  614-466-6107
Representative Sedrick Denson Rep33@ohiohouse.gov  614-466-1308
Representative Cindy Abrams Rep29@ohiohouse.gov   614-466-9091 
Representative Sara Carruthers Rep51@ohiohouse.gov  614-644-6721 
Representative Jay Edwards Rep94@ohiohouse.gov 614-466-2158 
Representative Diane Grendell Rep76@ohiohouse.gov  614-644-5088 
Representative Latyna Humphrey Rep26@ohiohouse.gov  614-466-8010 
Representative Marilyn John Rep02@ohiohouse.gov  614-466-5802 
Representative/Dr. Beth Liston Rep21@ohiohouse.gov  614-644-6030 
Representative Dan Troy Rep60@ohiohouse.gov 614-466-1251 
Representative Monique Smith Rep16@ohiohouse.gov  614-466-0961

Christine Morrison Christine.Morrison@ohiohouse.gov
Sheila Boehner Sheila.Boehner@ohiohouse.gov 

Here is a link to the bill:
https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA134-HB-454 

]]> Fri, 25 Feb 2022 20:18:46 GMT The Broad View: December 2021 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=396226 https://ohpsych.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=1500207&post=396226 The OPA Board met earlier this month.. 

We are in the process of assessing how the “new structure” is working.  You will recall that about three years ago we reduced the size of our Board, increased the frequency of Board meetings, planned for most meetings to be virtual, and changed from a Board of committee chairs appointed by the President to a Board of Vice Presidents elected by the membership, plus the Chair of OPAGS elected by our student members.

We took time in the Board meeting to discuss how each VP viewed their role and how they were relating to the committees in their portfolio.  It was a rich discussion and what we heard was that there was a great deal of consistency in the ways the VPs were functioning.

Here is what the VPs do:

  • Participate in some of the monthly meetings, to address any Committee concerns and bring those concerns to the OPA Board; relay information back to the Committees.
  • Support and mentor new chairs
  • Be available to all their committee chairs for individual meetings as needed.
  • Help mentor committee members—to become chairs as well as VPs
  • Make sure committees accomplish tasks and meet overall goals
  • Ensure that the activities are consistent with the association mission.
  • Assess and monitor engagement and conflicts within committees
  • Have quarterly meetings with their team of committee chairs.  
  • Facilitate collaboration between committees and help them form alliances
  • Direct discussions with members to assess overall morale and needs
  • Gauge interest and investment of committee members
  • Facilitate meeting scheduling to improve participation and engagement  
  • Help committee members overcome the impact of the pandemic.
  • Try to focus on the broader picture issues, including work-life balance
  • Encourage chairs to do succession planning
  • Passing along important dates to help committees plan!
  • Participate in appropriate strategic plan priority quarterly team meetings


One Advocacy Update:  HB122 (telehealth) has passed both the Ohio House and Senate.  At this writing it is due to be signed by the Governor at soon.

]]> Mon, 20 Dec 2021 19:52:15 GMT