You know, I don't know what ticks me off more. The fact that I keep seeing employment opportunities that call for LICSW's or LMHC's with Substantial Substance Abuse Experience, or, the last time "We" LADC's had a chance to state our case at the State House before the Insurance Committee for third-party billing rights and only about ten of us showed up. That's right, a measly ten people.
Do you think they took us seriously? Obviously not! Those of us that are LADC's should learn a lesson from the LICSW's and LMHC's.
If you want to be taken seriously, then Organize, Organize, Organize. Like they have and continue to do. As it stands at the present time we have a meaningless license. What good is a license if it does not advance our position both financially and increase our professional stature?
It doesn't.
Not to mention the fact that Department of Public Health which licenses us, does not require programs that accept their money to hire us. I am not saying that "all" the positions within a program should be LADC's.
However, it might be nice if the lead roles went to us rather than LICSW's or LMHC's, with "Substantial Substance Abuse Experience."
I mean come on. You licensed us. You require a Master's degree in a behavorial science in addition to a CADAC. Some people have suggested that the reason we still do not have third-party billing rights is due to the number of CADAC's without a Masters' that were "grand-fathered" in.
Well guess what. The same situation was present when the LMHC's were "grand-fathered" in. So...what's the difference?
The LMHC's had a formidable presence at the State House when their third-party billing issue was being discussed, that's the difference.
I understand our profession as addiction counselors is still being looked at through the origins of our beginning. Namely, "Hey, got six months clean? O.K., then we'll make you an addiction counselor."
Those days are long over. As a matter-of-fact, many of us in the addiction profession have been working with dual-diagnosed people for years; from detoxification centers to inpatient psychiatric units.
Maybe the day will come when I read an employment opportunity that says, LADC-I with "Substantial Psych Experience."
Then again, maybe not.
2 comments:
This is great! It should be an editorial in every newspaper, related professional magazine, related professional organization, and to DPH. I'm a grandfathered LADC-I without a masters but had stellar qualifications for the credentialing. Now with over 20 years experience at some of the best facilities with some of the best professionals I've hold my own or outperform the LICSW's and LMHC's I've worked with, with few exceptions. It's very discouraging to be sought out for consultation, especially on current issues in substance use disorders, and then not be recognized.
Woot woot willy. Fight the power!! Great points made, you need to ask why to your fellow LADC's that are not bothered by this, I have amazing credentials and 18 yrs in field and I missed the " grandfathering into being a LADC'" so I'm a bit angered that I'm looked upon ad without any degree other than a M.ED. But there are bachelor level addiction counselors that are looked at and chosen before me!
Post a Comment