Since the listserv is very public, we value it as a tool for encouraging civil and scientific debate. We do not make IPA policy on the listserv. Policy is made by the IPA governing structure that includes Area Code Representatives, Section Chairs, and IPA Executive Officers. IPA members are welcome to observe IPA Executive Committee and Council meetings (with at least 24 hours’ notice to the President) and may speak on an issue if requested of the President (and granted by the President) at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. We encourage all members to take the time to attend and participate in Section Meetings, Regional Meetings, educational and social IPA events, and, of course, our annual Convention. This follows the IPA (and APA) rules for meetings, IPA Bylaws, and Keesey’s Rules of Order, the rules of order adopted by both the IPA and the APA.

Yes, using search engines like “Google” and “Bing” to learn about the history of an issue as well as the history of those advocating an opinion about an issue has become standard in this electronic communications era. Using the APA Website to research information, such as the APA training requirements and opportunities for a degree or certification in Clinical Psychopharmacology, is highly advised. Checking the IPA Website for postings of meetings, where the RxP issue, as well as other complex professional issues, may be discussed, is highly recommended.

We are a professional, scientific association and, as such, we support professional activities, backed by empirically valid data, in which many of our members engage or wish to engage. The RxP legislative initiative can be seen as an empirically supported professional activity in which many members wish to engage. We do not only support professional activities in which there is unanimous agreement. Certainly, it has been noted, by Dr. Mary Kay Pribyl and others, that the legislative initiative to secure insurance reimbursement for psychologists in 1976 and the legislative initiative to license psychologists in 1981 were not unanimously supported by psychologists. In fact, throughout history, many of the most important scientific and professional advances have been made by individuals with whom some have disagreed. Adhering to the IPA Mission, the IPA supports evidence based science and practice in Illinois. (This is one reason why the APA and IPA have adopted “Keesey’s Rules of Order,” a paradigm of governance that balances the rights of many different opinions in professional organizations.)

Elected IPA leadership does its best to communicate to the membership through specific processes. Items for discussion and action are first discussed in committee meetings, which anyone can attend. Committees then present any actionable items to Council where issues are discussed, debated and ultimately put to vote at quarterly Council meetings. The results of such votes and approved action items are then communicated to the entire membership in the member newsletter.

We invite all of you to our legislative update session and our all-Association meeting at the 2012 Annual Convention November 1st through 3rd. While the legislative update sessions at Convention are typically standing-room only events, our all-Association meetings tend to be less well attended. Please do consider attending both of these meetings a priority.

The passage of legislation authorizing psychologists who have specialized training in clinical psychopharmacology to prescribe medications would expand our licensing act. Thus, licensed psychologists who have 460 hours of specialized, didactic training in clinical psychopharmacology, 80 hours of physical assessment training, who have made recommendations for medication for 100 patients under close supervision from a prescribing health provider, who have passed the APA Psychopharmacology Exam for Psychologists (PEP), and have been approved by the Psychology Licensing Board in the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation will receive an additional license by the Psychology Licensing Board to prescribe medication.

In New Mexico and Louisiana, states in which psychologists prescribe, the reimbursement practices by insurance carriers, for non-prescribing psychologists, have not been affected by the presence of prescribing psychologists.

In states that have passed RxP legislation, liability insurance premiums have been raised 15% only for psychologists with licenses to prescribe who are insured by The Trust. To date, very few malpractice complaints have been filed against prescribing psychologists and most were dismissed, according to Dr. Jana Martin, CEO of The Trust. Non- prescribing psychologists have seen no increase in their rates. There has also been much testimony by prescribing psychologists throughout the country, including psychologists who prescribe on Indian reservations, psychologists who prescribe in the United States Public Health Service, psychologists who prescribe in the United States Coast Guard, psychologists who prescribe in United States military facilities throughout the world, and psychologists who prescribe in RxP states that corroborate this assertion for prescribing psychologists’ practicing over the past 30 years.

The medical community does not attack our existing license. The medical community generally aims to prevent psychologists from expanding their scope of practice and has, in the past, unsuccessfully lobbied against our seeking licensure (over “registration”), unsuccessfully lobbied against our receiving insurance reimbursement, successfully lobbied against our using the word “diagnosis” instead of “classification” in our licensing act and successfully lobbied against our having hospital admitting privileges. The medical community is presently lobbying, and has lobbied in the past, against psychologists’ receiving prescriptive authority. Once we receive prescriptive authority, the medical community will come to accept our expanded scope of practice just as they have accepted the expanded scope of practice and prescriptive authority of optometrists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other health professionals who have gained authority for practices that in earlier years had been the sole province of clinicians with medical degrees.

Our legislative initiative for prescriptive authority is very similar to the legislative initiative of other healthcare providers who are pushing to expand their scopes of practice. Scope of practice is dynamic. The world is changing and nothing stands still.