I've been looking at Masters courses leading to counseling licensure, and I have some trepidation about going forward because of the kind of issues that you highlight. I also sense that the existing education for counselors is turning out methodological experts with no practical life experience, this being a problem not just because the life experience helps one understand and give better advice, but because life teaches humility, while purely academic credentials tend to engender over-confidence in by-the-book solutions and models. Anyhoo, I like this idea of a new approach. But as someone with a lot of experience with the mental health world, I agree the comment below that insurance is a big issue, and some kind of institutional legitimation is probably necessary. As this moves forward, please let me know how I can help
I like this idea on the whole and have consiered some semblance of it for quite a while. My hangup is always how we get people to pay for these services when they're already paying through the nose for "insurance" benefits. Ostensibly they'd rather use because it's "cheaper" and no one cares to differentiate among elite, good, fair, poor in the marketplace. We would no doubt find cash consumers in the wealthier demographics but what about the impoverished who cannot afford it?
I also wonder how we avoid recreating the wheel, so to speak, against the backdrop of existing organizations such as the International Coaching Federation and others like it. Separating from them would be challenging I think. I do favor an accountability system like you present; sort of a BBB of mental healthcare. Right now it's too easy to abuse Yelp and Google reviews so something more robust, transparent, and non-anonymous.
Some of what you are getting is educating the public. Starbucks did this in helping people understand why paying quadruple the cost for coffee was worth it. That may seem like a pat answer in hindsight, but before they did it, it was just a scary gamble.
Clients who understand the risks to being medicalized and the potential loss of freedom without due process under the old model would see the value in paying out of pocket if they really needed the help.
Also, insurance companies would be potential allies in changing the laws that support the current system. The million-dollar clients that ‘affirming care’ creates come at a cost to insurance companies, and to their ability to cover other medical care that is arguably more lifesaving.
There would be some very ugly truths that would have to be confronted in this process, but at this point, it’s either confront that or bear the consequences of pretending it’s not a problem.
As far as coaching, practitioners could still use the credibility of their training in the formation of an organization to highlight the differences, but it’s a worthy point of discussion. Because if the current difference amounts to licensing as proof of ‘superior’ services, while also not delivering on that promise, you already have that problem, it’s just the general public doesn’t realize that yet. So the opportunity to capitalize on those grounds already exists.
Outstanding points, all. I do share your optimism because I trust the free market, which is undefeated, if sometimes delayed. But my skepticism is in how oblivious (and vapid) the overwhelming majority of our colleagues really are to this. They won't wake up until it's too late and insurance has put them out of business in deference to AI chat bot therapy as a "free" benefit to their insurance plans. No more co-pays for mental health! And also, no more humans.
On the upside, you don't need the majority of your colleagues to agree. Competitively speaking, you are better off with a handful who agree with the course of action and are willing to take dynamic, calculated risks. This is start-up territory that's moving fast and breaking things.
As for AI, it's more a threat to the old model, and it may be that AI will serve the lower end of the market, with human therapists serving those willing and able to pay for the human touch. The question is, would those clients prefer to go to practitioners who set themselves apart as ethical and science-backed or ideologues?
100 percent. We are in agreement here, I believe. I think I need to examine my own biases and blind spots because I sense that I am self-obstructing...
Not gonna lie, taking the risk is scary. There is a chance of failure. But I can tell you from committing just to doing this writing, not only do I feel in alignment with myself, but I've also never felt more alive.
What comes with that is moments, often at night, where you have your head in your hands and you have no idea how you are going to pay for things or solve the problem in front of you. That's the deal.
I've been looking at Masters courses leading to counseling licensure, and I have some trepidation about going forward because of the kind of issues that you highlight. I also sense that the existing education for counselors is turning out methodological experts with no practical life experience, this being a problem not just because the life experience helps one understand and give better advice, but because life teaches humility, while purely academic credentials tend to engender over-confidence in by-the-book solutions and models. Anyhoo, I like this idea of a new approach. But as someone with a lot of experience with the mental health world, I agree the comment below that insurance is a big issue, and some kind of institutional legitimation is probably necessary. As this moves forward, please let me know how I can help
I like this idea on the whole and have consiered some semblance of it for quite a while. My hangup is always how we get people to pay for these services when they're already paying through the nose for "insurance" benefits. Ostensibly they'd rather use because it's "cheaper" and no one cares to differentiate among elite, good, fair, poor in the marketplace. We would no doubt find cash consumers in the wealthier demographics but what about the impoverished who cannot afford it?
I also wonder how we avoid recreating the wheel, so to speak, against the backdrop of existing organizations such as the International Coaching Federation and others like it. Separating from them would be challenging I think. I do favor an accountability system like you present; sort of a BBB of mental healthcare. Right now it's too easy to abuse Yelp and Google reviews so something more robust, transparent, and non-anonymous.
Let's keep this discussion going!
Some of what you are getting is educating the public. Starbucks did this in helping people understand why paying quadruple the cost for coffee was worth it. That may seem like a pat answer in hindsight, but before they did it, it was just a scary gamble.
Clients who understand the risks to being medicalized and the potential loss of freedom without due process under the old model would see the value in paying out of pocket if they really needed the help.
Also, insurance companies would be potential allies in changing the laws that support the current system. The million-dollar clients that ‘affirming care’ creates come at a cost to insurance companies, and to their ability to cover other medical care that is arguably more lifesaving.
There would be some very ugly truths that would have to be confronted in this process, but at this point, it’s either confront that or bear the consequences of pretending it’s not a problem.
As far as coaching, practitioners could still use the credibility of their training in the formation of an organization to highlight the differences, but it’s a worthy point of discussion. Because if the current difference amounts to licensing as proof of ‘superior’ services, while also not delivering on that promise, you already have that problem, it’s just the general public doesn’t realize that yet. So the opportunity to capitalize on those grounds already exists.
Outstanding points, all. I do share your optimism because I trust the free market, which is undefeated, if sometimes delayed. But my skepticism is in how oblivious (and vapid) the overwhelming majority of our colleagues really are to this. They won't wake up until it's too late and insurance has put them out of business in deference to AI chat bot therapy as a "free" benefit to their insurance plans. No more co-pays for mental health! And also, no more humans.
And so forth.
On the upside, you don't need the majority of your colleagues to agree. Competitively speaking, you are better off with a handful who agree with the course of action and are willing to take dynamic, calculated risks. This is start-up territory that's moving fast and breaking things.
As for AI, it's more a threat to the old model, and it may be that AI will serve the lower end of the market, with human therapists serving those willing and able to pay for the human touch. The question is, would those clients prefer to go to practitioners who set themselves apart as ethical and science-backed or ideologues?
100 percent. We are in agreement here, I believe. I think I need to examine my own biases and blind spots because I sense that I am self-obstructing...
Not gonna lie, taking the risk is scary. There is a chance of failure. But I can tell you from committing just to doing this writing, not only do I feel in alignment with myself, but I've also never felt more alive.
What comes with that is moments, often at night, where you have your head in your hands and you have no idea how you are going to pay for things or solve the problem in front of you. That's the deal.