Another Blow to ASPPB-Driven Board in Texas

Great News for Us!

Today, the Sunset Commission of the State of Texas Published Its Decisions.

Decisions included a major overhaul and HUGE blow to ASPPB-Driven Boards citing anticompetitive rules and practices from our public testimony to the State last month.

Texas officials agreed with our proposal to get rid of the outdated oral exam, eliminate the post-doctoral year, eliminate the “provisional status” license during post-doc year; keep the 2-years psychologist-supervised experience (pre- or post-doc), eliminate letters reference, dismantle the board altogether, and consolidate it with other mental health licenses. The good news for ASPPB (and all of us really), was the recommendation to adopt the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT) to enable reciprocity between member states.

While useless associations and minions in state psychological associations (Texas Psychological Association) waste your time and money  enabling the problem, we will continue fighting state-by-state against the licensing and financial scheme in the field of psychology.

Issue 1: The Board’s Oral Exam Is an Unnecessary Requirement for Licensure.

Change in Statute: Eliminate the statutory authority for the psychology board to administer an oral exam.

Issue 2: Requiring a Year of Post-Doctoral Supervision Is an Unnecessary Hurdle to Licensure, Potentially Contributing to the Mental Health Care Provider Shortage in Texas.

Change in Statute: Remove the statutory requirement for psychologists to earn half of their supervised work experience after receiving their Ph.D.

Issue 3: Key Elements of the Board’s Licensing and Regulatory Functions Do Not Conform to Common Licensing Standards. Change in Statute:  Remove the statutory limitation restricting the board’s authority to set fees. Remove subjective licensure qualifications. Remove the requirement for a separate provisional psychologist license and instead authorize the board to grant provisional status to applicants for full licensure. Authorize the board to provide biennial license renewal. Authorize the board to issue remedial plans to resolve minor complaints.

Issue 4: Texas Should Continue Regulating Psychologists, but Decisions on the Structure of the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists Await Further Review. Change in Statute: Continue the regulation of psychologists, but postpone the decision on continuation of the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists until completion of the Sunset reviews of other health licensing agencies. Update the standard across-the-board requirement related to board member training.

Proposed New Issues

Representative Thompson Proposed New Issue 1: Allow Licensed Specialists in School Psychology to practice in both public and private schools.

Representative Thompson and Senator Hinojosa Proposed New Issue 2: Rename licensure as a “Licensed Specialist in School Psychology” to licensure as a “School Psychologist.”

Vice Chair Taylor Proposed New Issue 3: Adopt the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT) to enable reciprocity between member states.

Senator Hinojosa Proposed New Issue 4: Allow a licensed psychological associate to practice independently, without supervision, if they meet certain increased requirements. Psychological associates would be required to hold a psychology-related master’s degree that consists of a minimum of 60 semester credit hours. Psychological associates would also be required to obtain at least 3,000 hours of practice supervised by a licensed psychologist after receiving their degree, to be eligible to practice independently.

Vice Chair Taylor Proposed New Issue 5: Direct the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists to evaluate all rules in the context of the Supreme Court decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission to ensure rules do not run afoul of the anti- competitive prohibitions of the Sherman Antitrust Act and clearly reflect state policies expressed by the Legislature in statute. The board should repeal any rule that, after its evaluation, it deems susceptible to legal challenge.



Here is the Full Report

Newsletter Subscription

© 2014-2020 All Rights Reserved.
All Photos Published Licensed Under Creative Commons Zero