Another Leak from the Clinical College!

RAPS has gratefully received this leak from a concerned supporter sent to members by the Chair of the APS Clinical College, Ros Knight. Ros and at least 10% of her members (those who filled out the Clinical College survey late last year) actually seem to believe that the Two Tier Medicare funding has fostered  “recognition of the diversity of the psychology profession”.

Surely they must have heard that the precious diversity that flourishes in every other Western country – US, UK and Europe – will soon be lost to the Australian psychology profession as students scramble to join the higher paying clinical courses?

Can Ros please explain just how any diversity in the psychology profession can survive if there are no other psychology courses available to students – other than those promoting a biomedical CBT approach?

APAC – the Australian Psychology Accreditation Council – has a lot to answer for. This peak accreditation body made up of the APS, AHPRA and the HODSPA (Heads of Departments and Schools of Psychology Association) – might have shown more leadership in this area and protected our profession.

Nowhere else in the western world is the government financially rewarding one group of psychologists more than others. Why is this happening here?

Ros’other news about specialist registration is actually even more concerning because a clinical specialist item number will secure their place forever in Medicare – and end all hope for the other Colleges (unless, of course, they become a subsidiary of the clinical psychology).

If anyone is willing to help with the research on the specialist registration, please contact us here!

Rest of the Clinical College email  …

2. Internal Governance Conflict in the APS

My thanks to members who have forwarded emails in current circulation from members of the APS dissatisfied with the current Medicare funding system. The emails are clear that they would prefer that all psychologists should be paid the same amount. Their solution in the first instance seems to be to alter the constitution or members of the APS Board, which will then allow them to change the APS position on Medicare to their preferred option. The College committee is monitoring the situation and will respond if helpful.We affirm our commitment, as voiced through the survey of our members, to Two Tier Medicare funding as a recognition of the diversity of the profession. We hope that the conflict can be resolved so that a united voice is presented for our profession going forward. The pending Governance Review changes may provide an opportunity to resolve some of the concerns.We will keep you posted….

3. Changes to APAC

We expect to be informed in the next couple of months as to the outcome of the PsyBA deliberations over the new proposed model.

 4. Specialist Registration

This issue is with the PsyBA currently. Members are welcome to send further documentation in support of specialist title to the PsyBA direct, or via the committee if they wish. 

I hope 2017 is looking like a productive, interesting and enjoyable year ahead.


5 thoughts on “Another Leak from the Clinical College!

  1. I could not agree more! I work with a clinical psychologist who is a great colleague who I have a lot of respect for. She freely tells me she does not work with personality disorders, trauma or dissociative disorders. She is happy to refer these to me, a generalist psychologist.
    How the APS continues to argue that clinical psychologists, per se, see more complex cases is beyond comprehension.
    Also I personally know a number of psychologists who have returned and done a clinical masters later in life. All of them considered the training to be disappointing. They all felt that they learnt more from their internship. They have done the degree for the medicare rebate – and who blames them, but they have not concluded they are better therapists as a result!

  2. Great previous post. Yes, as far as I can ascertain, the only ‘evidence based’ backing that Clinicals have thus far supplied, is that which belongs to ‘attitudinal science’….sloppy really.

  3. Great post Jenny. Yes, as far as I can ascertain, the only ‘evidence based’ backing that Clinicals have thus far supplied, is that which belongs to ‘attitudinal science’….sloppy really .

  4. I initially registered as a ‘Generalist’ Psychologist and later returned to study my Clinical Masters. I am now a practising Clinical Psychologist.
    Sure I learnt some more in the clinical masters, in regards to clinical assessment/testing and acute psychopathology but does this knowledge I learnt translate into better client outcomes, above my generalist colleagues who did not complete a clinical masters?
    I hate to say it but no.. And any ‘Clinical’ who tells you otherwise, has no true appreciation for what the ‘Generalist’ pathways offer in terms of richness of experience/knowledge and is merely a product of what we have been conditioned to believe as ‘fact’ within our profession, that Clinical = superior and elitist (pseudo-medical professionals).

    Having worked as a Generalist prior to completing my Clinical Masters, I found it fascinating (and shocking) how rife this attitude was within the Clinical fraternity.
    And I find it laughable that some Clinicals attempt to argue that they deserve the higher rebate, due to seeing more complex clients, when this simply is not the case. Many Clinicals I know would never accept what many would consider a ‘complex referral’, within a private setting. I am sure some do but this would be the exception, rather than the norm. And even then, who’s to say a Clinical Psychologist can produce better outcomes with ‘complex clientele’ merely because of a few extra units and placements, as opposed to other Psychologists ? By that logic, a recently ‘endorsed’ Clinical should be more capable at working with complex clients, than say a ‘Generalist’ who has been working in a variety of settings for 10+ years.. Yeah. OK.

    For an ‘evidence based’ profession, we sure do love to make claims without any supportive evidence. And no, you cannot compare Endorsed psychologists to specialist GP’s! Specialist GP’s can treat and manage issues that most general GP’s would have no clue about. The same cannot be said for Psychologists! We Clinical Psychologists are not medical professionals! Again, this argument holds no weight nor is it backed by any evidence.

    Whilst I and many of my Clinical colleagues have been more than happy to advertise as ‘Clinicals’ and collect a higher rebate, deep down we all know the facts :
    The two-tier system is based on NO EVIDENCE of better client outcomes and overall is extremely problematic for Psychology as a profession going forward.
    What many do not realise is that this ongoing debate of a two-tier system simply divides us and makes us look extremely unprofessional . We need to accept that there are a range of specialties within our profession yes but that one is no better than the other and that further tertiary training does not simply equate to better client outcomes.

    The sooner one flat rebate is implemented and accepted, the sooner we can re-unite as a profession and re-commence advocating as a whole, on significantly more important issues, like extending the 6+4 session limit for example.
    I truly fear that if unity is not achieved in the near future, it could be the beginning of irreversible divisions and damage to our profession as a whole. And whilst we as Psychologist’s will suffer, ultimately it will be our clients that will be worse off long term.

    APS get your act together, get off your high horse and stop the lip service.

Leave a Reply