Quality of care
Dr. Zoe D. Katze is quite the prodigy in her field. In less than a year, she earned her Ph.D., and was certified by several organizations including the International Medical and Dental Hypnotherapy Association. The catch? She’s a cat.
In 2002, psychologist Steve K. D. Eichel observed the rise of dubious credentials among mental health professionals. To expose their unreliability, he accredited his pet cat. Eichel unveiled the ease with which one could pay online providers for certifications—purportedly backed by thorough reviews of the applicants’ backgrounds. And due to a reciprocity agreement wherein organizations recognize the certification issued by another, it was not long for Zoe to have multiple associations. Despite Eichel’s highly publicized endeavor to raise awareness about the problematic credentialing process of certain organizations, it seems the issue remains largely unaddressed. BBC presenter Chris Jackson tried years later and was also able to secure hypnotherapy credentials for his cat George.
As conversations about mental health have become more commonplace, people have also shown greater openness to seeking therapy. Unfortunately, as these pets and their Ph.D. highlight, the increased demand also attracted providers that care more about profiting from the growing industry, rather than ensuring the quality of their services. Apart from diploma mills that readily issue degrees for a fee, Eichel also highlighted the growing field of “certified specialists” on practices that are not recognized by the field of psychology, but may sound quite impressive to a client. Some examples he mentioned were “energy therapist” and “past life regression therapist.” While there are people who may experience benefits from these alternative approaches, the ease of getting these “licenses” combined with a lack of regulation may result in practitioners with misplaced confidence in their understanding of complex psychological phenomena, and cause unintended harm.
As part of its efforts to uphold the integrity of the profession, the Professional Regulatory Board (PRB) of Psychology enacted PRC Resolution No. 04, s. 2023 last June, introducing new guidelines for running psychology and psychometric clinics. Yet, the measure met swift opposition from practitioners who believe that the new provisions could significantly impede, rather than improve, mental health care in the country.
The primary contention is the mandate for every public and private psychological facility to now have a psychological services unit (PSU) head in order to operate. The outlined qualifications for the position are quite limiting: requiring seven years of experience as a psychologist with at least three years in a supervisory role. Since the first batch of psychologists was only licensed in 2014—just nine years ago—the current pool of seasoned professionals who meet this requirement is undeniably small, posing a great challenge in filling the needed positions nationwide.
The new seven-year benchmark also bars licensed psychologists from 2017 onwards from being PSUs. This means that even if they have already been heading their own clinics, they are now ineligible to do so and would have to close down. Given the scarcity of mental health services, especially in rural areas, one can just imagine how difficult it would be to find an immediate replacement, compromising the mental health care of all the clients under these clinicians’ care.
The Psychological Association of the Philippines has called for a temporary moratorium, asserting that the resolution “penalizes the many in the vain hope of catching the hypothetical view.” They recommended seven action points, including allowing for appropriate transitional periods to enable clinics to comply, as well as implementing mechanisms to address unethical practices, rather than “blanket solutions” to restrictions. PRB committed to responding to the raised concerns, but as of writing, no amendments or follow-up plans have surfaced since the resolution took effect on July 16. Several clinics have already paused operations as a result.
Given the worrying state of mental health in the country, epitomized by the high number of actual and attempted suicides among Filipino students, it is in everyone’s best interest to ensure greater access to licensed professionals. Work disruption of clinical psychologists might force people to stop treatment or seek unregulated healing modes that could jeopardize their recovery progress. Prompt dialogue and closer consultation with stakeholders could guide PRB in creating safeguards that would foster the development of the field and elevate the profession, without unnecessarily limiting access. Through a more nuanced approach to regulation as well as increased educational initiatives to help the public navigate mental health offerings, we can look forward to a thriving psychology landscape that could effectively support and champion the mental well-being of every Filipino.
