Prescription Privileges for Psychologists: Is Our Consent Fully Informed?


This past June, Illinois became the 3rd state to allow psychologists to prescribe medications commonly used for psychiatric issues, after New Mexico and Louisiana have enacted similar laws.  As indicated in a recent Chicago Tribune article, the debate around prescription privileges ended with some of the following stipulations.  Psychologists currently will not be allowed to prescribe to minors, seniors, and any person with a “serious mental condition,” although the specific language of the bill indicates restrictions for those with a serious medical condition, developmental, or intellectual disability.

In order to obtain these privileges, psychologists will have to undergo 2.5 years of additional graduate training including relevant coursework.  They will see a minimum of a 100 patients under physician supervision and sign a collaborative agreement, and will be limited to only prescribing certain classes of medications, such as anti-depressants, but not stimulants.  Our own American Psychological Association (APA) applauded the decision while noting that “psychology advocates are hopeful that prescribing psychologists in Illinois will eventually earn a broader scope of prescriptive authority.” “This is a landmark moment for mental health care,” said Norman B. Anderson, PhD, APA’s executive vice president and chief executive officer. “Allowing properly trained clinical psychologists to prescribe is a logical step in helping to improve access to quality mental health care for consumers, especially the underserved.”

But are we really, really sure, it is a “landmark moment” or even a positive moment at all?  Because when it comes to gambles for our profession, and frankly for the general public, it doesn’t really get much bigger than this.  Proponents have cited a few primary (and inter-related) reasons for expanding prescription privileges to psychologists, of which APA provides more detail and resources on this link.   These include providing more comprehensive care to patients, better access to psychiatric medications to patients in underserved areas (such as rural locations), expanding psychologists’ capacity to serve patients, and utilizing psychologists’ more specialized training in mental health issues in making decisions about appropriate medication use for psychological difficulties.

Despite these and other reasons, though, I feel the push to allow psychologists to prescribe is fraught with grave concerns.  The following list provides a brief, yet certainly not comprehensive, overview of some of the most serious issues that face this discussion, both for psychologists and the general public.

Our Profession Will Follow the Path of Psychiatry, and Morph
From the Practice of Psychology to the Practice of Pharmacology

  There was a time when most, if not all, psychiatrists engaged in some psychotherapy.  Many will argue if this was a good thing, but regardless, it was the reality.  But with the increased advent of the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatrists in masses have moved from 50 minute appointments to 15 minute (or less) appointments.  I can barely begin a conversation to really know what happened in a patient’s week in that time, let alone assess the myriad of factors that may be affecting his or her biopsychosocial well-being in order to prescribe medications.

But this is the pressure that most psychiatrists are feeling, whose employers are often not supportive of them having longer appointment times.  Why?  Well, they will see fewer patients, seemingly not meet the demand of their referring physicians as well, and ultimately make less money.  Once psychologists start to obtain prescription privileges more widely, and the pharmaceutical and other financial/logistical influence creeps in, there is no reason that psychologists will not feel the same pressures, not just from their employers and their own bank accounts, but also from patients as well.

One of the best parts of my profession now is that families (most) coming to see me know that I cannot prescribe medications, and so they are much more willing to take on more long-term, systematic interventions.  If I began to prescribe, there is no doubt that the pressure I would feel would change.  My sense is that psychiatrists have felt this pressure, and it has transformed their profession in ways that many of them do not desire.  “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat.”  Do we really want to repeat it?

Doing No Harm, or, in APA Terms;

Principle A” for the American Psychological Association (APA) involves two ideas:  beneficence and nonmaleficence.  The former focuses on striving to benefit patients while the latter emphasizes doing no harm.  Any professional endeavor must take both seriously, and not pursue a course of action unless the advantages clearly outweigh the costs.  Every year, more than 770,000 people die or are seriously injured from adverse drug effects, some of which are associated with psychiatric medications.  The costs total an average of 5.6 million per hospital in the United States.

The argument that psychologists are better equipped to recognize specific mental health issues, and thus theoretically allows them to prescribe more accurately, is belied by the fact that their limited training in all other related areas seems to put them at greater, not less risk for harm as noted in the article “Prescription Authority for Psychologists: A Looming Health Hazard?

It also minimizes a seemingly more ideal circumstance in which the psychologist communicates more directly with a primary care physician or psychiatrist, who actually prescribes the medications.  But my worry is that many psychologists are not taking this issue very seriously.

In fact, Patrick DeLeon, Ph.D., J.D., Past President of the APA, contended that ” . . . prescription privileges is no big deal. It’s like learning how to use a desk-top computer” (Roan, S., Tug-of-war over prescription powers; health: Pharmacists, nurses and other non-doctors want the authority to prescribe drugs. Others insist only physicians have the training to do so safely. Los Angeles Times, September 7, 1993, Part E, 1, 6.).   I strongly disagree with this statement.  It is a huge deal and a huge risk.  Are we really sure that the undoubted costs of prescription privileges will be significantly outweighed by proposed benefits?

Are Psychiatric Medications Really Helping Us To Be
Psychologically Healthier?

In 1987, Prozac was first introduced.  Since 1996, the FDA has approved over 60 psychotropic drugs and counting for a wide variety of psychiatric conditions.  Sales of prescription stimulants have more than quintupled since 2002 to over 8 billion dollars annually.  Abilify was the number one selling drug in total sales in 2013. Meanwhile, in 1987 there were less than 20,000 severely mentally disabled children—now there are almost 600,000.  The number of children under the age of six receiving SSI has tripled over the last ten years to more than 65,000.  Mental and substance use disorders are now the leading cause of nonfatal illness worldwide.  Depression is the number one cause of illness and disability in 10- to 19-year-olds internationally.  Suicide ranks number three among causes of death.  “The CDC, on May 3, 2013, reported that the suicide rate among Americans ages 35-64 years increased 28.4% between 1999 and 2010 (from 13.7 suicides per 100,000 population in 1999 to 17.6 per 100,000 in 2010).”

The statistics are endless, but the obvious question looms:  Where exactly is the evidence that psychiatric drugs are the key to curing our mental health woes?  Even if you do not accept the reasonable evidence to suggest possible iatrogenic effects of these medications on a large scale, it seems rather easy to acknowledge that psychiatric drugs aren’t exactly eliminating mental health concerns in the way that immunizations have (despite their controversy in some circles) for so many diseases over the past century. If they were, it seems a conversation around prescription privileges might be more reasonable, but the track record for their success on a population basis seems very unconvincing, especially when it comes to expanding their access.  I fully recognize there is complexity of every possible persuasion here, but until the evidence is more convincing, it seems logical to not let more people start prescribing.

Logistical Problem of Combining Medical and
Psychological Training (and doing both well)

Most programs to obtain a doctorate in clinical psychology or a related field require at least nine years of formal training to meet state requirements to become a licensed psychologist, and routinely students spend much more time than this.  This includes four years of undergraduate training, usually (but not always) with a major in psychology or similar fields followed by at least four years in graduate training, which involves intensive coursework, research, and clinical experience.  An additional year of internship ensues to further enhance training, before an individual can finally graduate with their Ph.D. or Psy.D.  Even after this, many, such as me, will seek out a postdoctoral fellowship year (or two for neuropsychologists) to further refine and expand training, and also meet certain state licensing requirements.  Meanwhile, psychiatrists typically spend at least twelve total years in formal training, often starting with an undergraduate degree in anatomy, biology, or a related area that forms the framework for later education.  This is typically followed by four years of medical school, and four years of residency.

Although I cannot speak for my psychiatric colleagues, I can tell you that I never met a psychologist who said that their training overqualified him or her for the real life practice of psychology.  It is a very challenging profession, one in which we are humbled daily at how much there still is (and will always be) to understand.  I needed all of the training I received even to feel that I could begin to practice.  So, as groups such as APA begin to push the idea of making pharmacological training as part of graduate education, it begs a simple question.  Are we going to significantly increase the number of years it takes to become a psychologist?  Otherwise, how exactly are we going to fit in all the knowledge needed to truly be able to provide expert services, both psychologically and pharmacologically, especially given that most psychology students don’t have a medical background?  The obvious likelihood is simple: something will give, and chances are it will be areas (such as training in empirically-based therapeutic techniques and psychological testing) that currently make us unique.

Inadequate Training Despite
Additional Provisions

This reason ties closely into the last, but speaks more directly to those actually providing the training, and how this occurs, both during or after graduate school.  The first issue is just who will be providing the training, and just how scrutinized and closely supervised will this be?  If psychologists are going to be provided with additional training in medical areas, will physicians be providing this, or will this fall upon psychological colleagues?  Or will psychology programs begin expanding their staff to a number of other professionals, and just how will this work?

Even if this somehow occurs, adjunct professors (to a particular program) rarely have the time to provide extensive supervision when it does not directly involve the students their employment is based on.  Furthermore, it is likely that much of the training for current practitioners will occur online given current trends. Although a case may be made for the flexibility this mode provides, it limits the options for direct supervision, especially as so many professional programs are looking to expand enrollment in order to increase revenue.

In general, training proposed by legislation, such as that through Illinois, still seems to leave large gaps in knowledge and experiential base, given it only occurs over 2.5 years while in practice.  I was in a class of eight students for graduate school, and like my classmates, I needed all the direct supervision I could get.  It wasn’t always pleasant, certainly it wasn’t without its flaws, but it was always there, especially when we most required it (which was regularly).  Ultimately, as more space and individuals become involved, especially those loosely affiliated with the trainee, my sense is that we as professionals, and the general public, will lose out.

In closing, I will return to APA’s own words in the section on their website labeled, “About Prescribing Psychologists.” It ends with, “The need is great and the evidence is clear: Allowing prescribing rights for psychologists is an essential step to providing thousands of patients with access to comprehensive mental health care.”

Yes, the need to improve the psychological health of our country is great, but I am curious to know how adopting prescribing rights for psychologists became a foregone “essential step” in addressing this need?  I know I speak for many APA members in saying that I am not only very concerned it is not an “essential step,” but most conceivably the wrong step, one that may drop us into a chasm with dire consequences.  Unless things change, we had better be sure this is where we want to go, not just for our profession, but for the people we serve.  Because if we are not, the costs could be huge, and irreversible.  Just ask our psychiatric colleagues.


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. Jim,

    Thanks for your article opposing prescription “privileges” for psychologists. I wholeheartedly agree that this is not a good idea. It seems to be motivated primarily by the desire to cash in on the lucrative practice of acting as licensed drug dealers as psychiatrists do — in a word, by greed. But giving in to this temptation means giving up the psychologist’s status as the one who can and will listen to the patient’s narrative and provide the psychotherapy that restores quality of life and normal functioning, instead of the too-often “zombie” medicated existence of psychiatric treatment.

    I’m reminded of Dr Peter Breggin’s training video where he issues his standard first words to a new patient. He begins by telling the patient that he neither writes prescriptions nor puts people in institutions; if that is what’s needed, then the patient needs to find another doctor.

    Wise words that we psychologists would do well to heed.

    Best regards.
    Mary Newton

    Report comment

    • Hi Mary, great to hear from you as always and appreciate your positive feedback. Without repeating myself, I just really worry that many psychologists advocating for prescription principles are not giving enough credence to the very psychological principles that influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (consciously and unconsciously) – the ones that many of us first learned in Psych 101, but often easily forget.

      Thanks again for your input.

      Report comment

    • “He begins by telling the patient that he neither writes prescriptions nor puts people in institutions”
      That should be a standard. Instead you are prescribed meds from the get go and threatened with involuntary treatment.

      Report comment

  2. Francesca – I think you made a wise decision in changing majors. I had a granddaughter who started out majoring in psychology but changed and is now in law school. I have a secret hope that I had something to do with her decision. At any rate, I’m much relieved!

    Mary Newton

    Report comment

  3. When one considers the wide range of difficulties observed in the current “standard practice” by psychiatrists, including incomplete histories, dismissing of trauma symptoms, overlooking of family dynamics, minimization or “treatment” of iatrogneic side effects, undue influence by pharma front men and “education,” and many more, it is hard to see how psychologists prescribing will do anything but worse in controlling this already out of control train. Based on what I see and hear from clients themselves, the last thing we need is more prescribers. We need more listeners. I thought that’s what psychologists are supposed to do.

    This effort is disgusting, and that the American Psychological Association promotes it with such blithe ease makes it clear that they are being bought off by the same PharmA reps that already own the other APA.

    A well-written post that should not have to be written. But logic is not at issue here – money and power are, and that’s the root of the problem.

    —- Steve

    Report comment

  4. I hope one day the “mentally ill will realize the system that is keeping them down, perpetuating and reinforcing illness and stigma. What we really need is strength. We need to realize that trauma is the source of our differences. Our dissociation from ourself and our suppressed memories keep us afraid. Society keeps us afraid and ashamed of our trauma, of our anxiety. This fear of being different can escalate symptoms of mental illness. “Mental illness”

    It is designed to oppress us, take away out power, our voice. There is a cure. It is realizing there are suppressed memories. We have hidden these memories to protect ourselves, but once we realize how past traumas have influenced “symptoms” we can become whole.
    My mission is to find the cure to the Illness that does not exist.

    -Tru Harlow

    Report comment

  5. I appreciate the cautious approach to the issue surrounding prescription privileges, however, I actually think this is a potential step forward for a profession (and professional association) that has been passive, complacent and frankly delusional that the public (and outcome studies) can accurately differentiate psychologists from other “helping professionals” such as social workers, counselors, life coaches, etc. In business terms, psychology has had a major problem identifying it’s value proposition for years–to consumers and prospective psychologists considering the cost-benefit ratio of education to practical/differentiated competence.

    Psychology and the APA may be one of the most fragmented and divisive professions in existence today and the excuse that it’s a “young science” is more about avoiding its own “difficult conversations.” Applied (Clinical/Counseling) Psychology is becoming less and less relevant with so many other practitioners in the space yet the APA continues to lower the bar for accreditation standards to the degree that “anybody who wants to help others” can find a degree somewhere to establish his or her credentials. Can you imagine if medicine permitted the same thing?

    So it’s a paradox. Based on the amount of training and education in a typical psychology doctoral program, you’ve gotta be asking “what the hell are we spending time learning if outcome research or public perception sees it as no more effective than a 2 year or less social work or executive coaching certification (believe me–they ARE addressing issues that would often be reserved for psychologists). I fear that a rejection of our potential competence to prescribe (which a MSN with two years post Bachelor’s can do mind you) we are concurrently indicting the intellectual capability and ineffectiveness of the doctoral psychology curriculum.

    I’m also pretty annoyed at the idea that pharmacology, biology and neuroanatomy is somehow “out of our league”. As someone who worked in medical residency programs (teaching behavioral medicine rotations to ER, Family, Pediatricians) I knew WAY more about neuroanatomy and neurology in addition to behavioral research and psychotherapy. With two more years of training exclusively in pharmacology and physiological study, I’d certainly put that knowledge against any test or certification required by these specialties who are KNOWN to probably prescribe more psychoactive drugs that psychiatrists by far. And from what I witnessed, it was more about trial/error based on PDR recommendations and hearsay more than good science. The biological paradigm is primarily all that physicians have so to introduce psychologists into the mix where discretion based on multiple paradigms is present–how much more capable could you get with that formula.

    As it stands to day, I’d guide any bright student considering a doctoral program in psychology to medicine in a heartbeat. I’d push this recommendation because as it stands, psychology will never get out of its own way to focus, enforce high standards, and effectively articulate and advocate for its own differentiated brand in the public eye. Psychology is change resistant for a lot of reasons and few of them for the best interest of current and future psychologists in my opinion.

    Report comment

  6. Hi Iski,

    I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this matter. It is obviously a critical one, and I think that you make a number of valid points. But without rehashing my entire article, I think a few main contentions can’t be ignored. One, we as psychologists really do have to learn from history on this one – look at how the field of psychiatry has largely morphed over the past 50 years into medication management. The lure of pharmaceuticals is so, so str0ng (despite concerns) and the moment that a psychologist opens their doors to prescription privileges, it is the moment that many pressures (conscious and unconscious) become a reality and our profession is at real risk for also just becoming medication managers. We have to be realistic with ourselves in considering this option.

    But if the benefits of psychotropic medications clearly reduced or eliminated many areas of mental illness (as vaccines have done for many serious diseases), then I think this possible risk might be worth to consider. Yet it hasn’t, and many signs/research suggest that we have never been more psychologically unhealthy (which I fully recognize is connected to many more factors than just psychopharmacology). If this is the case, then, why would psychology risk diluting its profession to take on something that doesn’t have clear gain. I just think the risks are too big and the benefits are too small or not at all.

    Despite understandable concerns, I actually do believe that psychologists have unique value to our public as a whole that is not available by others in the mental health field. We see this in our own practice, as our skills in psychological testing, empirically-based interventions, consult & liaison, truly holistic treatment (biopsychosociospiritual model) among other things can shine through. I feel that many people in our community have come to recognize the palpable difference between seeing a pediatric psychologist and someone trained with a briefer, more general mental health degree. Our waiting list is one reflection of this, as many local mental health professionals offer spots within a week or two as opposed to the 4-6 months our waitlist generally remains. I say this not to toot our horn, but suggest that a high-level of training (one in which never stops) can be recognized for what it is. But so often, I think that psychologists do not utilize, maintain, and enhance the training they have received, and dive into a mode of practice (e.g., doing general therapy) that makes them appear very similar to other mental practitioners.

    In the end, I think that one of the worst things a profession can do is to diversify beyond its expertise, and start doing things, especially those with potential for great harm, at a mediocre (or worse) level instead of taking on a few important roles, and doing them really, really well. We aren’t the only profession being pushed in this way. Multiple OT colleagues bemoan the fact that they used to really, really focus most of their profession on reducing and eliminating fine-motor problems, which is a really important area for humanity. Now they are asked to do sensory therapy, general social skills, adaptive skill training, etc.. (especially in the schools) that they are less well trained to do, and are feeling less satisfied and competent in their careers.

    Anyway, appreciate the continued interest, and certainly all of us need to make sure that our resistance to change doesn’t just occur because we dislike change, but is actually for good reasons.

    Report comment

  7. Greetings Dr. Schroeder

    I greatly appreciate the balanced tone of your post; it contrasts substantially with some of the rhetoric I have seen over the years. Just to provide a bit of context. I am a clinical psychologist in Illinois, where RxP just became a reality, after almost 15 years of fighting. I also teach at a professional psychology school, and one of the courses I have taught for almost 10 years is intro to clinical pharmacology.

    I’ll just make a few comments that I hope are more refreshing than the usual “psychologists don’t have the training” “if you want to prescribe, go to med school,” “psychologists are going to kill people,” “psychologists are going to become junior psychologists…” etc. yawn.

    First, despite my interest in the subject and support for RxP over the years, I have become more ambivalent as the years have gone by, in large part because of pharma malfeasance. I introduce my class every year this way. Here’s one thing to consider: in case you haven’t noticed, pharma is not investing $ in psych disorders any more. This means that most meds are generic and therefore we don’t see the same marketing push as we did in the past. Thus, the “history” that MDs faced no longer applies from that standpoint. This also means that prescribing practice and research will finally start to clear out the garbage. And, prescribers are returning to the “tried and true.”

    Second, a mantra often brought out in legislative battles, and sometimes in online arguments, is that “the authority to prescribe is the authority to unprescribe” This should not be taken lightly. How many psychologists have been hamstrung when working with clients on meds that are clearly wrong, but powerless to act? Every year, I hear horror stories from my students at various training sites. When NM and LA got privileges, psychologist prescribers were removing meds from clients right and left. This is related to the next point.

    Three, as much as we would like to think that we can talk and listen all clients into mental health/wellness, there are simply some cases where meds are needed. One of the common threads of these cases is that the symptoms are interfering with the client’s capacity to engage in therapy. One cannot engage in systematic desensitization, cognitive behavioral therapy, or psychoanalytic engagement if the client is too anxious to stay in their own skin, or too severely depressed to get out of bed, or too manic to function. The key point here, and which is too often not seen in MD treatment plans or philosophy, is that meds are not meant to be a permanent fixture. This is a key difference between the biomedical model and biopsychosocialspiritual model. I have spoken to several prescribing psychologists about how they blend meds and talk: It’s just another art form, really, that changes with each client.

    Fourth, there is no way that prescription privileges will overtake the profession, such that all psychologists will have to manage another angle in a crowded and challenging caseload. I don’t know about you but the bulk of psychologists I know have no interest, but more importantly no strength in science to pursue it. This is not a continuing education program that you listen to and answer a few questions to get credit. Nor is it a standard masters degree. This is TOUGH, especially if you are not comfortable with bio-related material. A post-doctoral masters assumes a level of clinical and academic knowledge that far surpasses what is expected for a first year medical student. And those people who think that psychologists are doing this for the money? All I can say is, there are PLENTY of ways to make money that don’t require the level of commitment that this training demands. Easy street this is not.

    Fifth, always consider that there is no black-white here, as far as “is this good/is this bad.” It, like every other human issue in our world, is complex, ambiguous, and uncertain. Unfortunately, this had to play out in the legislative arena, which demands YES/NO, THUMBS-UP/THUMBS-DOWN, thinking. It brought out the worst in people. It dumbed many people down. At the end of the day, though, we can only rely on our own judgment and ethical stance to make a good-faith effort and do the right thing by our clients. There will most certainly be psychologists who “behave badly,” although it might take a few years. That is inevitable but should not be baby-bathwatered.

    Last, we don’t know what the near-future mental health landscape will look like, but it is definitely going to be different over the next 10 years. We need to look at the bigger picture. Prescriptive authority is not just about being able to use a script pad. It is more symbolic of being take more seriously in a multidisciplinary environment. Psychologists who prescribe in NM and LA are key players in hospitals and community mental health centers, whether they actually prescribe or not. I really hope that aspect does not get lost.

    SO. Yes, meds are potentially dangerous, and some clearly more than others. Yes, oh yes, there have been many evils committed by pharma in the name of big profits. Yes, we need to see clients in a wider lens than just symptoms to be medicated. Yes, there will be some mistakes from this, some ongoing doubts, some ethical dilemmas. These are challenges to be faced. BUT none beyond our scope or capacity to manage complexity. In fact, I would argue that clinical psychologists face some of the most complex phenomena on the planet, and yet seem to approach them in a deceptively simple manner. It won’t be far in the future, I believe, that we will look back and wonder, “why was this such a big deal?”

    Thanks for listening
    Ken Fogel, Psy.D.

    Report comment