Skip to content
Psychotherapy Notes
  • Exam Prep
    • California LMFT Clinical Exam Prep
    • California LMFT Law & Ethics Exam Prep
    • California LPCC Law & Ethics Exam Prep
    • California LCSW Law & Ethics Exam Prep
    • National MFT Exam Test Bank
  • CE Courses
    • California Law & Ethics for BBS Associates (AMFTs, APCCs, and ASWs) – 2023
    • Telehealth for California LMFTs, LPCCs, and LCSWs
  • Books
    • Basics of California Law for LMFTs, LPCCs, and LCSWs (10th ed)
    • Saving Psychotherapy
    • Preparing for the 2023 California MFT Law & Ethics Exam
    • Preparing for the 2023 California Clinical Social Work Law & Ethics Exam
  • Resources
  • Blog
    • Blog home
    • Psychology
    • Professional Counseling
    • Family therapy
    • Clinical social work
    • Law and ethics
    • Education
    • Employment
    • Licensure
    • Public policy

Fee splitting in private practice may be illegal and unethical

June 4, 2018March 12, 2018 by Ben Caldwell

Basics of California Law 5th edition coverWe’ve talked here many a time about employment of prelicensed therapists. Most of our discussion has focused on employer abuses and how you can push back. But of course it’s worth noting that plenty of employers are fantastic, and that even a lot of the illegality in employment arrangements can be chalked up to well-meaning mistakes rather than purposeful villainy. It is in that spirit that we approach what seems to be one of the most common structures for paying prelicensed therapists who work in private practices here in California: Fee splitting.

In a fee split arrangement, the employer and employee agree to divide any client fees brought in by the employee in a proportional manner. For example, a prelicensed therapist working in a private practice might be paid 40% of the fees their clients pay, while the employer/supervisor keeps the other 60%.

One advantage of a fee split arrangement is that, in the eyes of many supervisors, it creates the right kind of incentives for the supervisee. The supervisee gets paid more when they either have more clients or when they raise their fees, something that many private practice supervisors want to encourage. If the supervisee was paid a flat rate, the theory goes, the supervisee would be incentivized to lower their rates (to the degree they’re allowed to control rates) to keep as many clients coming back as possible. However, while fee splitting arrangements are common, the question of whether they are legal and ethical is actually more than a bit gray, especially if the employer is referring patients to the associate.

Basics of California Law 5th edition coverEd. note: This post is a lightly-edited excerpt from the new fifth edition of Basics of California Law for LMFTs, LPCCs, and LCSWs. In stock and available now at our main site.

Of course, state laws on this will vary, so it’s important to understand the law where you are.
California law generally prohibits health care providers from charging, receiving, or giving fees for client referrals. This protection appears to be in state law to ensure that referrals from one health professional to another are based solely on the best interests of the client, and not on what is financially best for the referrer.

The legal issue with a fee split is this: When a supervisor refers a client to their supervisee for treatment, the portion of the client fee that the supervisor ultimately keeps could easily be considered a kickback — a fee the supervisor receives as a result of making the referral. There’s even a provision in this section of California law that clarifies that the prohibition of referral fees applies “irrespective of any membership, proprietary interest, or coownership in or with any person to whom these patients, clients, or customers are referred.” Not every state has a law like this, though, so if you’re outside of California, check to see whether there is a parallel rule where you are.

The ACA Code of Ethics specifically prohibits fee splitting, and the NASW Code of Ethics prohibits social workers from “giving or receiving a payment for referral when no professional service is provided by the referring social worker.” In each of these cases, there is no exception given for when the referrer is the employer of the referee, though it is less clear whether supervising the social worker providing treatment would count as providing a professional service.

What makes this gray is that by working in the same practice, it could be argued that both supervisor and supervisee are parts of the same business entity, and therefore a fee split between them isn’t the kind of referral kickback that the ethical standards are aiming to prevent. But as noted above, the relevant section of state law is actually fairly strict. I’m not a lawyer, but it appears to suggest that the “same business entity” argument for fee splitting many not be enough to relieve the legal concerns.

The question could be settled by the Legislature through clearer statutory language, by the professional associations through clarification or interpretation of their codes, or by a court, if the court is called upon to settle a test case where someone is sued over fee splitting. In the meantime, those employers wishing to stay safely out of this murky area may prefer to set wage scales based on a flat hourly rate rather than a percentage of fees collected.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Tweet

Related

Getting (and giving) better answers to legal questions on Facebook
Handling sexist comments in therapy

📈 Trending 📈

  • Decoding counselor alphabet soup: LPC, LPCC, LMHC, and more
  • Is a sliding fee scale unethical?
  • What's the difference between an MFT (or LMFT), an LPC (or LPCC), and an LCSW?
  • Therapists should not write Emotional Support Animal letters
  • California sets new rules for therapists writing ESA letters

📣 New Posts 📣

  • Write a letter to the editor: Drop the ASWB exams March 7, 2023
  • The mental health workforce shortage solution is right there February 14, 2023
  • The ASWB Clinical Exam reckoning has begun February 7, 2023
  • CareDash shuts down February 3, 2023
  • How to diagnose telehealth connection problems January 18, 2023
Ben Caldwell Labs

Psychotherapy Notes is the official blog of Ben Caldwell Labs

All content and images © Copyright 2009-2023 Ben Caldwell Labs unless otherwise noted.
Some images are used under Creative Commons licensing (information embedded).

Ben Caldwell Labs, the Ben Caldwell Labs logo, and Psychotherapy Notes are registered trademarks of Ben Caldwell Labs Inc.

The opinions expressed on posts on this site are solely those of the author.
While this blog does sometimes cover legal issues, unless otherwise noted authors are practicing clinicians and not attorneys.
Nothing here should be interpreted as legal advice, nor should it be considered a substitute for consulting with a qualified attorney.
  • Exam Prep
    • California LMFT Clinical Exam Prep
    • California LMFT Law & Ethics Exam Prep
    • California LPCC Law & Ethics Exam Prep
    • California LCSW Law & Ethics Exam Prep
    • National MFT Exam Test Bank
  • CE Courses
    • California Law & Ethics for BBS Associates (AMFTs, APCCs, and ASWs) – 2023
    • Telehealth for California LMFTs, LPCCs, and LCSWs
  • Books
    • Basics of California Law for LMFTs, LPCCs, and LCSWs (10th ed)
    • Saving Psychotherapy
    • Preparing for the 2023 California MFT Law & Ethics Exam
    • Preparing for the 2023 California Clinical Social Work Law & Ethics Exam
  • Resources
  • Blog
    • Blog home
    • Psychology
    • Professional Counseling
    • Family therapy
    • Clinical social work
    • Law and ethics
    • Education
    • Employment
    • Licensure
    • Public policy

Basics of California Law for LMFTs, LPCCs, and LCSWs – 10th ed

Basics of California Law for LMFTs, LPCCs, and LCSWs - 10th edition front cover (c) Copyright 2023 Ben Caldwell LabsTenth edition (2023). A concise, digestible summary of vital elements of state law for master’s level therapists and mental health professionals.