CAMFT

Can MFT interns pay for supervision?

by

Aaron Feldman is frustrated. He’s spent several months telling the BBS, AAMFT-CA, CAMFT, and anyone else who will listen that he can’t run a therapy business legally and be successful in the state of California. No one has told him he’s wrong.

The problem, which Aaron is trying to conquer while others mostly ignore, is California’s Labor Law. Depending on whom you ask, it might prohibit marriage and family therapist interns from paying their employers for supervision; if it actually does (CAMFT argues otherwise), then a significant number of clinics around the state would be in violation.

But the supervision issue could be only the beginning. Mental health clinics are no different from any other business in the eyes of state labor law. But when was the last time a clinic required its therapists to take at least a 10-minute break every two hours, or mandated a lunch break for shifts lasting beyond six hours? Each of those is a labor law requirement.

At the October 2009 meeting of the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS), the licensing board’s counsel was clear: Those who employ MFT interns are subject to labor laws just like any other employer, and “there is no scenario under which it would be appropriate for a supervisee to pay an employer for supervision.” The BBS has since elaborated on that position here. CAMFT has since put forth its contrasting interpretation of the law, arguing that it is perfectly legal for an intern to pay their employer for supervision, as long as the terms of the arrangement are agreed to by both parties, in writing, in advance.

It is the Labor Board‘s opinion — or perhaps ultimately a judge’s — that matters. And so far, the Labor Board has chosen to stay away from the issue, politely rebuffing requests to attend BBS meetings or issue any written statement on the question. For the Labor Board to address this issue directly, it appears, they will have to face a complaint from a disgruntled supervisee.

And that has been Aaron’s frustration. He doesn’t want to run his clinic in constant fear of becoming the test case. CAMFT has hinted that they might try to clear up the issue through legislation, but the odds of getting a bill passed if it looks in any way like a weakening of, or exemption from, state labor laws is slim.

Without a clear set of guidelines, what is an employer or agency to do? The lowest-risk approach appears to be to abide by the BBS stated opinion: Assume MFT interns, when they are employed (as opposed to volunteering), are subject to all labor laws, and act accordingly. In practical terms, this would require an employer to go the extra mile to make sure that interns are taking adequate breaks. Do not have interns pay for supervision. Ensure that, however interns’ pay is computed, it amounts to at least minimum wage once all the intern’s time (including time spent on supervision, marketing, administrative tasks, etc.) is taken into account. (Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so please do not construe this as legal advice; any employer with questions about labor law or its application should consult an attorney.)

The problem for Aaron, and anyone else trying to run a therapy business honestly, is that even if he chooses to play by all of the labor law rules, plenty of other employers are not. If Aaron abides by the labor law, he will need to either pay his employees less, or charge his clients more, than similar clinics. The extra burden could be enough to make his clinic, as a business, unsustainable. Until at least one disgruntled intern makes a test case out of it, those who disregard the labor law appear to be at a competitive advantage.

From DC: Update on MFT inclusion in Medicare and school programs

by

I’m at the AAMFT Leadership Conference in Washington, DC, where Division leaders from across the country have spent the last three days visiting our federal representatives. Priorities this year include Medicare inclusion and adding MFTs as named providers within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (otherwise known as No Child Left Behind). Before I go to the details on the visits, some words of praise: this was the first time that AAMFT’s California Division and CAMFT, an independent organization of California MFTs, have combined efforts on their federal advocacy visits, and it went swimmingly. CAMFT’s lobbyist and leaders were kind, cooperative and helpful throughout, and I hope their experience of AAMFT was similar. Legislators and their staff people seemed impressed with the level of cooperation. As to the key issues, here is where we currently stand:

Medicare. As we were starting our second day of hill visits to California representatives on Thursday, we were greeted with bad news: the inclusion of MFTs as providers under Medicare, which had been part of the House health care reform package but not the Senate package, was pulled out of the reconciliation bill that will be voted on as early as next week. There is a slim chance that MFT inclusion in Medicare could still be accomplished this year through a different piece of legislation, but at this point that appears unlikely. On a more positive note, though, there remains significant bipartisan support in both chambers for adding MFTs in Medicare, as it would improve access to mental health care for seniors and those with disabilities. For a video of Senator John Barrasso (R – Wyoming) discussing the importance of this issue, click here.

School programs. MFTs can provide services to school populations under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), but because we are under the somewhat vague category of “other providers,” most programs do not seek to include MFTs when they apply for federal grant funding under ESEA. Adding MFTs as specifically named providers would improve the availability of behavioral health services for children. It also comes at no cost, which is helpful in seeking bipartisan support. Currently, these changes are in a House bill (HR1710) that has sponsors from both parties. I always enjoy the Leadership Conference for the trips to the Hill as well as the opportunities to connect with divisions from around the country. I’ll have another update from the conference in the next few days.

California LPCC law passes; should MFTs dually license?

by

Late in the evening of October 11, Governor Schwarzenegger signed California Senate Bill 788, adding Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors (LPCCs) to the state’s masters-level mental health professions, alongside MFTs and LCSWs. Licensure by grandparenting will take place over a six-month period in 2011, with routine licensure starting January 1, 2012. Should MFTs dually license?

For most, there would be no benefit, and significant added expense. Since licensure is inherently a state-based activity, there is no reason to believe that licensing as an LPCC will make one’s license more portable; in fact, a license obtained through grandparenting may have greater trouble getting recognized in another state. Add to that the still-unclear question of whether California will recognize national exams in counseling (national exams in MFT and Clinical Social Work are not recognized in the state), and the likelihood of a portability benefit grows even slimmer. The added expense of two renewal fees could be little more than wasted money.

There is, however, a legitimate reason why some MFTs may want to dually license: They want to reflect what their professional orientation has been all along. California was the first state in the US to license MFTs, and the last in the country to license LPCCs. As a result, some who work under the MFT license do so because that was the masters-level entry point into a career in mental health, and not because they particularly identify with systemic concepts. For those therapists, the Clinical Counselor license is probably a better fit.

They will not, however, want to switch over entirely. Counselors will enter the mental health marketplace in California more than four decades after MFTs did, and will need to fight for themselves every battle MFTs waged and won for recognition in hiring and reimbursement. They’ll be able to make up ground, but it will be many years before counselors can claim the kind of recognition and stature in the state that MFTs claim today, thanks to decades of good work by CAMFT and AAMFT.

CAMFT steps forward on same-sex marriage

by

At its board meeting in Sedona, AZ over the weekend, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT, not affiliated with AAMFT or its California Division) voted to support marriage equality for same-sex couples. This is a significant step forward for an association that had spent months struggling with the issue.

As a quick recap, CAMFT has been mired in controversy following their unwillingness to make any kind of statement about same-sex marriage or parenting. They made matters worse with a broad anti-discrimination statement that, while fine on its own, failed to address any of the relevant issues members had been asking CAMFT to address. Then they made matters worse again with the publication of several hateful and homophobic articles on the topic. Executive Director Mary Riemersma and the CAMFT Board both eventually apologized for the articles, and the California Therapists for Marriage Equality organized to try to push CAMFT toward a more socially and scientifically responsible stance.

Angela Kahn, who serves on the board of the Los Angeles chapter of CAMFT, reportedly gave an impassioned presentation to the statewide board in Sedona, systematically dismantling every possible reason for CAMFT’s continued silence on the issue. The board then voted 9-1 to endorse marriage equality.

Pending their permission, I’ll post the full text of the statement here.

I’m elated that CAMFT is be moving in the right direction, finally, on same-sex marriage. I am hopeful that the positive movement and responsiveness CAMFT is showing on same-sex marriage will extend to other areas as well.

CAMFT director apologies for articles opposing same-sex marriage

by

In a message on the organization’s web site, CAMFT Executive Director Mary Riemersma has apologized for the association’s publication of several articles opposing same-sex marriage. The apology is sincere, but the bigger issue remains: CAMFT is alone in the mental health world in its refusal to seriously address same-sex marriage.

As background, CAMFT (the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, which is has no affiliation with AAMFT or its California Division) has been harshly and rightly criticized by members, educational institutions, and in the media for their failure to make any kind of comment on same-sex marriage. Every other major mental health organization (APA | American Psychiatric Association | NASW | AAMFT) has taken a stand on the issue, and it is especially relevant to marriage and family therapists. The CAMFT board response has been underwhelming in the face of such criticism, issuing only a broad non-discrimination statement (members only) that sidestepped the important questions entirely.

In order to look like they were doing something on the issue without actually doing anything about it, CAMFT chose to publish a variety of articles supporting and opposing same-sex marriage in the May/June 2009 issue of its magazine, The Therapist. The sections were accompanied by a clear statement that while the articles presented a variety of viewpoints, the organization was not endorsing any of them.

The “pro” articles in the magazine were largely culled from scientific journals, as the science around the issue is quite clear. The origin of the “con” articles is unclear. Whatever their origin, their logic was horrible, and their arguments ranged from the potentially-worth-discussing to the blatantly homophobic and inflammatory.

Executive Director Mary Riemersma has now apologized for the publication of the “con” articles, and the entire issue of the magazine has been removed from their web site. (The next logical question, “Why were the ‘pro’ articles removed too, when there wasn’t a problem with them?” actually is answered in CAMFT’s non-stance on the issue. Leaving up the “pro” articles while taking down the “con” would appear to be endorsing the pro-same-sex-marriage point of view. As long as CAMFT is refusing to take a position, they were obligated to take down both sides.) The apology, which appears on the organization’s web site but is restricted to members, reads:

I am sorry that the objectionable articles appeared in the prior issue of The Therapist and that many found them offensive. I too found them distasteful and did not think they were credible. We were trying to create a balance of views and there was a paucity of articles submitted opposing marriage equality. If I had it to do over, we would have rejected the articles. Our ethics for the profession do not condone homophobia, I do not tolerate homophobia, and neither does the CAMFT Board. Let me know what we can do to overcome the unintended harm that some believe we have caused.

It’s not an outstanding apology, as apologies go (the phrase “these articles were homophobic,” or anything to that effect, is conspicuously absent, and “some believe” is a little grating), but it’s about as far as Riemersma can go. She’s responsible for the operations of the magazine, but the board determines CAMFT policies. And by staying silent on such an important issue, the CAMFT board wades father out of the mental health mainstream by the day, and harms the reputation of the profession of marriage and family therapy around the country.

Who will apologize for that?

Update: Apparently — and to their great credit — CAMFT will.