Winter 2009 issue
NEW YORK STATE TASK FORCE ON OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION (NYSTF)
and NEW YORK STATE GROUP OF EIGHT (G8)
Donna W. Polen, LCAT, MT-BC, Chair
Information current as of 1/18/09
The voting members of the NYSTF, appointed by the MAR Executive Board, are: Mary E. Boyle, EdD, LCAT, MT-BC; Beth R. McLaughlin, MS, LCAT, MT-BC; Donna W. Polen, LCAT, MT-BC, Chair; Evelyn C. Selesky, MA, LCAT, MT-BC; Madelaine Ventre, MS, FAMI, LCAT, MT-BC. Ex-officio members, without the right to vote, are: Carol Ann Blank, MMT, MT-BC, MAR Government Relations Chair; Judy Simpson, MHP, MT-BC, AMTA Director of Government Relations; Brian Abrams, PhD, MT-BC, LPC, LCAT, FAMI, MAR President.
The voting members of the G8, with 2 representatives each from AMTA, CBMT, MAR and NYSTF are:
AMTA: Paul Nolan, MCAT, MT-BC, LPC; Judy Simpson, MHP, MT-BC
CBMT: Nancy Hadsell, PhD, MT-BC; Dena Register, PhD, MT-BC
MAR: Mary E. Boyle, EdD, LCAT, MT-BC; Carol Ann Blank, MMT, MT-BC
NYSTF: Beth R. McLaughlin, MS, LCAT, MT-BC; Donna W. Polen, LCAT, MT-BC, Chair.
AMTA Conference in St. Louis
The NYSTF presented a concurrent session at the AMTA annual conference in St. Louis last November, with up-to-the-minute information on the status of the licensure law. Attendees ranged from undergraduate students to university program directors to new and seasoned practitioners.
12/11/08 NYS Mental Health Practitioners Board Meeting
Beth McLaughlin, NYSTF member, and Donna Polen, NYSTF Chair, attended the December 11th open meeting of the New York State Mental Health Practitioners Board (MHPB). The meeting was very encouraging, and the State Education Department (SED), the Office of the Professions (OP), the Legislature, and the Governor are all acutely aware of the “unintended consequences” that have arisen following implementation of the licensure law. While the “intended consequences” were to protect consumers, the “unintended consequences” are that people are being prohibited from practicing, resulting in the “unintended consequence” that consumers are not receiving services. David Hamilton, Executive Secretary of the MHPB, as well as staff members from various divisions of the Department, indicated that follow-up legislation would be crafted and presented to the NYS legislature. We are very optimistic about this turn of events. The following is a brief summary of main topics discussed at the meeting.
Processing Applications:
The OP will be implementing an online application process, which will reduce the time necessary for an application to be processed as well as reduce the incidence of incomplete forms.
Settings/Corporate Practice
As indicated in law, certain settings are currently considered exempt. Specifically, the law states:
“Nothing in this act shall prohibit or limit the activities or services on the part of any person in the employ of a program or service operated, regulated, funded, or approved by the department of mental hygiene or the office of children and family services, or a local government unit as that term is defined in article 41 of the mental hygiene law or a social services district as defined in section 61 of the social services law, provided, however, this section shall not authorize the use of any title authorized pursuant to article 153 or 163 of the education law, except as otherwise provided by such articles, except that this section shall be deemed repealed on January 1, 2010.”
In NYS, this refers to entities that hold an operating certificate from a State agency (e.g., Office of Mental Health {OMH}, Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services {OASAS}, Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities {OMRDD}, Office of Children and Family Services {OCFS}) or local government (e.g., county social services). However, there have been incidents of other settings that have presumed they were also exempt and could employ licensed professionals, which is inaccurate based on corporate practice law.
In addition, there have also been incidents of practitioners having their hours for supervised experience denied based on the employment status and activities of the supervisor. The OP can’t approve Limited Permits, or accept the experience, from someone working in “an illegal setting,” defined as a setting not authorized to hire a licensed professional such as a corporate practice or a not-for-profit agency. The example offered to help illustrate the distinction of an “authorized setting” vs. a “corporate practice” is the common situation of having a pharmacy operating within the physical confines of a supermarket. The pharmacy employees who dispense medication are licensed professionals; the cashiers employed by the supermarket are not. The pharmacy operates as its own authorized setting, with separate hours and often with folding walls that secure the area from the rest of the supermarket during hours that the pharmacy is not in operation. The supermarket itself is not an authorized setting for the licensed practice of pharmacy.
This is a complicated and confusing area, but there was discussion that the law must be fixed and that precedent exists in similar legislation regarding special education settings. Doug Lentivech, from the Office of Professional Responsibility, spoke about the possibility of establishing a registration process for those entities that have presumed exemption so that they can come forward, describe what they do and apply for authorization without being held to the current corporate practice law.
Supervised Experience
The SED Office of Counsel is discussing ways of accepting experience that does not currently comply with the letter of the law. For example, they are considering the possibility of creating another grandparenting period or waiving the examination component.
Exempt Settings
Board members expressed concern regarding the 1/1/2010 sunset provision for certain programs. MHP Board member Bryan Hunter made a motion that was unanimously approved by the Board, which roughly states:
‘The State Board of Mental Health Practitioners supports an extension of the 2010 exemption contingent upon the development by exempt agencies of a plan to comply with the law.’
Processing and Portability (Endorsement)
The OP has been exploring how other states track various details of state licensing, such as exempt settings, authorized settings, etc. Some states use disclosure forms, and have forms for tracking hours and pre-approving supervisors. A staff member stated that it would be important at this time to encourage people to get a limited permit just to be safe, in case their setting is not acceptable.
In the interest of increasing portability, there is discussion that the Board of Regents may endorse an applicant who has met the licensing requirements in another state. Language for such a process already exists in section 59.6 of the Commissioner’s Regulations:
§59.6 License by endorsement.
An applicant for endorsement of a license issued by another jurisdiction shall establish that the applicant:
a. meets all requirements of section 6506 (6) of the Education Law;
b. has had satisfactory professional experience of at least two years following initial licensure, unless a different period is provided in the regulations pertaining to a particular profession; and
c. has not attempted unsuccessfully a licensing examination used by the State of New York either prior to or after making application for licensure by endorsement, unless such applicant has later passed a comparable licensing examination.
Upcoming MAR Conference in Richmond
The NYSTF will be providing a follow-up to our 2007 Ocean City panel presentation with representatives from the New York State schools offering MT programs, this time with the programs operational and highlighting the uniqueness and diversity within and between them. In addition, we will be available with up-to-date information and answers to your questions at the New York State meeting, typically held on Saturday mornings at our conferences.
Please continue to contact us at nystf@aol.com with your questions, comments, or concerns.