Quote:
Originally Posted by danimal
I hope you're right, OhioBlue. I worry though that it's a decision that psychologists won't be making. Managed care will make it. Psychologists who don't prescribe will end up getting reimbursed at a lower level -- it won't be cose effective enough for them. 9 out of 10 psychologists can disagree with it, they'll just end up poorer for it. It will no longer be worth getting a phd when you can get paid the same to be a social worker.
People like you, who work at counseling centers (at least I think you do) at Universities, may be better off because you don't deal with managed care. But for those who deal with managed care, I think the writing is on the wall.
|
Edit---sorry this was supposed to quote Mike's post about CBT.
I could go on for a while on this topic, so I'll try to be concise. I have no problem with CBT per se. I have a problem with mindless implementation of any set of techniques at the expense of the effort it takes to try to understand the person in front of you. I have a problem with therapists that, when faced with the complexity and ambiguity of trying to help another human being, assuage their own anxiety by just picking up their favorite hammer and assuming everyone is a nail. I have a problem with those who sing the praises of CBT or other similar techniques but whose eyes glaze over with confusion when you ask them about the implications and philosophical assumptions of what they're doing and why. IMO, some of the most dangerous therapists out there are those who use technique for technique's sake, with no ability to explain why they are doing what they are doing. The ones that are constantly looking to fill up their tool belt with cute little in-session activities and techniques, and take a flavor-of-the-month approach to their client's problems. I believe that fortunately, sometimes these therapists succeed in spite of themselves, because thankfully our clients are often capable of distilling from the therapy experience those things that are actually helpful to them. But it's interesting to me that, despite every camp's efforts to prove the greater efficacy of their approach (CBT, DBT, Cognitive, dynamic, etc etc etc), the meta-analytic research simply does not bear that out. In other words, we're not very good as a profession at identifying how it is that we're actually most helpful to people (see anything by Bruce Wampold, or google therapy and the Dodo Bird effect).
I hope that explains my position a little better.
I use cognitive and behavioral principles all the time in my work, and successfully.