More Mental Health Providers Can Now Prescribe Medication, and It's Working
Getting mental health treatment in America has long been a frustrating experience. You might start with a psychologist for therapy, but if you need medication for depression or anxiety, you typically have to wait weeks or months to see a psychiatrist. With a severe shortage of psychiatrists nationwide, this wait can be dangerous for people in crisis.
But some states have found a solution: allowing specially trained psychologists to prescribe psychiatric medications. New research suggests this approach is helping more people get the care they need without compromising safety.
The Current Mental Health Crisis
Nearly one in four American adults experiences mental illness each year, yet less than half receive treatment. The biggest barrier isn't just cost or stigma anymore—it's simply finding available providers. Patients seeking medication often face a two-step process: first seeing a psychologist, then waiting weeks or months for a psychiatrist appointment to get prescriptions.
This delay can be particularly harmful for people with severe depression, anxiety, or other conditions requiring immediate medication intervention.
A New Approach Takes Hold
Six states have changed their laws to allow psychologists to prescribe psychotropic medications after completing additional training. New Mexico led the way in 2002, followed by Louisiana, Illinois, Iowa, Idaho, and Colorado. These psychologists must complete two to four years of specialized coursework in clinical psychopharmacology plus additional practical training.
The change hasn't happened without controversy. Some medical organizations worry that psychologists don't have sufficient medical training to safely prescribe psychiatric medications. Others feared patients would abandon psychiatrists entirely, potentially receiving lower quality care.
What the Research Found
A comprehensive study analyzing data from 2000 to 2019 reveals that these concerns may be unfounded. Researchers examined what happened in states that expanded prescriptive authority for psychologists compared to states that didn't.
The results show that allowing psychologists to prescribe medication led to more mental health practices opening their doors. Psychology offices increased by about 0.8 locations per 100,000 residents, while counseling services also saw growth. Importantly, the number of psychiatrist offices remained stable, suggesting that psychologists and psychiatrists work as partners rather than competitors.
This means patients gained access to more mental health resources overall, rather than simply shifting from one type of provider to another.
Safety Concerns Addressed
Perhaps most importantly for patient safety, the study found no increase in suicide rates after states implemented these policies. Suicide rates serve as an important measure of mental health outcomes, particularly for the most severely affected patients who cannot wait months for treatment.
Some states, particularly New Mexico and Illinois, actually saw decreases in suicide rates, though results varied by location. Overall, the data suggests that care quality remained consistent when psychologists gained prescribing privileges.
Mental health needs have only intensified in recent years. The COVID pandemic increased rates of depression and anxiety while simultaneously straining an already limited mental health workforce. Traditional solutions like training more psychiatrists take years and face significant bottlenecks, including limited medical residency positions.
Expanding scope of practice for psychologists offers a faster path to increasing treatment capacity. Psychologists already provide the majority of mental health counseling in the United States and often have closer relationships with patients than psychiatrists, who may focus primarily on medication management.
The research provides reassurance for policymakers considering similar legislation. Rather than creating a race to the bottom in terms of care quality, expanding psychologist prescriptive authority appears to create a win-win situation: more providers available to help patients, with no apparent compromise in safety or outcomes.
For patients struggling to access mental health care, these findings suggest that having a psychologist prescribe needed medications could be just as safe and effective as waiting months to see a psychiatrist. As mental health needs continue to grow across the country, this approach may offer a practical solution to help more people get timely, appropriate treatment.
The study's authors note that expanding psychologist scope of practice should be considered as states work to address ongoing mental health workforce shortages, particularly in rural areas where psychiatric services are often unavailable.
Shoulders, A., & Plemmons, A. (2025). Supply of mental health practices after prescriptive authority expansion for psychologists. Contemporary Economic Policy, 43(1), 116-134.
The field of positive psychology has spent decades studying what makes people thrive, but lately it's been facing some tough questions about its own health. A recent study reveals how researchers in this feel-good science are grappling with serious criticisms and working to fix their field's problems.
Positive psychology emerged as the scientific study of human wellbeing, focusing on strengths, happiness, and optimal functioning rather than mental illness and dysfunction. But critics have been pointing out some uncomfortable truths about the discipline, raising concerns about everything from sloppy research methods to cultural bias.
To address these issues head-on, researchers organized a collaborative workshop with 213 positive psychology practitioners and scholars from around the world. Rather than dismissing criticism, they decided to listen and work together on solutions. The approach was refreshingly honest: acknowledge the problems and figure out how to do better.
The Critics Have Valid Points
The workshop revealed six major areas of concern that critics have raised about positive psychology. The field has been accused of lacking solid theoretical foundations, with researchers studying happiness and wellbeing without a clear, unified understanding of what these concepts actually mean or how they work.
Methodological problems represent another major issue. Many studies rely too heavily on simple surveys and self-reports, often using quick and easy research approaches rather than rigorous scientific methods. This has led to concerns about whether the findings are actually reliable or meaningful.
Some critics go further, arguing that positive psychology resembles pseudoscience more than legitimate research. They point to studies that can't be replicated, exaggerated claims about the benefits of interventions, and a tendency to ignore negative or inconclusive results.
The field has also been criticized for lacking originality, with some arguing it simply repackages existing psychological concepts with new labels. Critics suggest positive psychology artificially separated itself from mainstream psychology without offering genuinely new insights.
Perhaps most seriously, some view positive psychology as pushing a harmful ideology that places all responsibility for happiness on individuals while ignoring broader social and cultural factors. This criticism suggests the field promotes Western values as universal truths and may actually harm people by making them feel personally responsible for systemic problems.
Finally, there's concern that positive psychology has become too commercialized, with profit motives potentially compromising scientific integrity and limiting access to research-based tools and interventions.
Solutions From the Inside
The workshop participants didn't shy away from these criticisms. Instead, they proposed concrete solutions across all problem areas. Their suggestions reveal both the field's genuine commitment to improvement and the challenges of implementing real change.
For theoretical problems, participants suggested incorporating insights from other disciplines and philosophical traditions to create more comprehensive frameworks for understanding wellbeing. They emphasized the need for bottom-up approaches that include diverse voices in defining what happiness and thriving actually mean in different contexts.
To address methodological concerns, researchers proposed expanding beyond surveys and self-reports to include more creative assessment methods, qualitative approaches, and objective measures. They also called for embracing open science practices, sharing data more freely, and publishing studies that don't find significant results to combat publication bias.
Responding to pseudoscience accusations, participants emphasized improving public communication about research, actively engaging with critics rather than dismissing them, and being more transparent about limitations and uncertainties in their findings.
The novelty criticism prompted calls for better collaboration with related fields and clearer articulation of what makes positive psychology unique. Rather than claiming complete originality, researchers suggested positioning their field as offering complementary perspectives and integrative approaches.
Addressing ideological concerns proved more complex, with proposed solutions including greater cultural sensitivity, collaborative research with diverse communities, and acknowledging the role of social and political factors in wellbeing. Participants emphasized the importance of "do no harm" approaches and ensuring interventions are tailored to individual needs and contexts.
For commercialization concerns, suggestions included balancing free and paid access to tools and interventions, making publicly funded research freely available, and developing ethical guidelines for practice.
Reality Check
While these solutions show promise, the researchers who conducted this study took a hard look at their practicality. Many proposals, while admirable, face significant real-world obstacles.
Incorporating diverse philosophical perspectives sounds appealing, but different worldviews often have fundamentally incompatible assumptions about reality and knowledge. Trying to merge incompatible frameworks might create more confusion rather than clarity.
Expanding research methods beyond surveys and self-reports has merit, but qualitative approaches bring their own challenges around bias and generalizability. Publishing null results and sharing data require resources many researchers lack.
Cultural sensitivity initiatives face power imbalances and practical difficulties in scaling locally developed approaches to broader contexts. Training standards and practice guidelines need careful balance between ensuring quality and allowing innovation.
Even well-intentioned solutions like offering free versions of paid tools often result in deliberately limited resources that don't truly serve people who can't afford premium options.
This collaborative effort represents something valuable in science: honest self-reflection combined with commitment to improvement. The fact that positive psychology researchers were willing to engage seriously with criticism rather than becoming defensive suggests a field capable of growth.
However, the gap between idealistic solutions and practical realities highlights the complexity of reforming an established discipline. Real change requires more than good intentions; it needs sustainable approaches that work within existing academic and economic systems while pushing for meaningful progress.
The study reveals that positive psychology stands at a crossroads. It can continue evolving into a more rigorous, culturally sensitive, and socially responsible science, but only if it maintains this spirit of critical self-examination alongside its characteristic optimism.
Rather than claiming to have all the answers about human flourishing, perhaps positive psychology's greatest contribution lies in its willingness to keep asking difficult questions about itself. In a field dedicated to growth and improvement, that might be the most positive approach of all.
The conversation between positive psychology and its critics is far from over, but this collaborative effort shows that meaningful dialogue is possible. Whether the field can successfully implement the changes it has identified remains to be seen, but the commitment to trying represents an important step forward.
Van Zyl, L. E. (2025). Exploring the potential solutions to the criticisms of positive psychology: But can the bold, idealistic visions of positive psychologists survive real-world scrutiny?. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1511128.
When the Helpers Need Help: How Disasters Are Taking a Toll on Australia's Psychologists
Australia's psychologists are struggling. A new study reveals that the very professionals we rely on to help us through mental health crises are experiencing alarming rates of burnout, anxiety, and depression themselves.
Between late 2019 and 2022, Australia faced an unprecedented series of challenges: devastating bushfires, widespread flooding, severe storms, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. While much attention has focused on how these events affected the general public, researchers wanted to understand their impact on the mental health workforce tasked with supporting everyone else.
The findings paint a concerning picture. Among the 469 psychologists surveyed, more than one in four was experiencing work burnout. Nearly half reported low personal wellbeing, while significant numbers showed symptoms of depression and anxiety. These rates are particularly troubling given that the survey participants were experienced professionals with an average of 17 years in practice.
The Compound Effect of Multiple Disasters
What makes these findings especially significant is how multiple disasters created a compounding effect. Psychologists who experienced both weather-related disasters and COVID-19 fared much worse than those who only dealt with the pandemic. Those affected by bushfires, floods, or storms reported higher levels of burnout and anxiety, along with significantly lower wellbeing.
This suggests that resilience has limits. While people might recover from one major stressor, facing multiple disasters in quick succession can overwhelm even trained mental health professionals.
The Self-Care Struggle
The research uncovered a troubling paradox: the very people trained to help others manage stress were struggling to care for themselves. Nearly all participants reported barriers to self-care, with time being the biggest obstacle. More than 80% said time was a moderate or major barrier to looking after their own mental health.
Other significant barriers included cost, mental energy, motivation, organizational support, and accessibility. These aren't trivial inconveniences but serious obstacles that prevented psychologists from accessing the support they needed during particularly challenging times.
The study found that these barriers to self-care helped explain why disaster-affected psychologists experienced poorer mental health outcomes. When professionals couldn't find time for exercise, couldn't afford their own therapy, or lacked energy for stress-reducing activities, their wellbeing suffered accordingly.
The Power of Self-Efficacy
Despite these challenges, the research identified one factor that helped protect psychologists' mental health: occupational self-efficacy. This refers to confidence in one's ability to handle job-specific tasks and cope with work-related challenges.
Psychologists with higher self-efficacy were better able to maintain their mental health even when facing barriers to self-care. This suggests that building professional confidence and competence could serve as a crucial buffer against the negative effects of disasters.
The researchers argue that supporting psychologists' wellbeing isn't just about helping individuals, it's about protecting an essential public resource. When psychologists burn out or develop mental health problems, it affects their ability to help clients and can lead to workforce shortages in areas where mental health support is desperately needed.
The study calls for comprehensive changes across multiple levels. Policymakers need to develop disaster-specific protocols for supporting mental health workers. Professional organizations should focus on building self-efficacy through training and preparedness programs. Employers need to reduce administrative burdens and provide better access to supervision and peer support.
Importantly, the researchers emphasize that simply telling psychologists to practice better self-care isn't enough. Structural changes are needed to remove barriers and create environments where self-care is actually possible.
With climate change expected to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, these findings take on added urgency. Australia's mental health workforce needs to be prepared not just for individual disasters, but for the cumulative impact of multiple, overlapping crises.
The study suggests that investment in psychologist wellbeing isn't just compassionate policy, it's practical necessity. A burnt-out, overwhelmed mental health workforce cannot effectively support a community in crisis.
As Australia continues to face environmental and health challenges, ensuring that our mental health professionals are supported, prepared, and resilient becomes not just important for them personally, but essential for the wellbeing of everyone who might need their help in the future.
The research serves as a wake-up call: if we want our psychologists to be there for us during tough times, we need to be there for them too.
Macleod, E., Curll, S., Walker, I., Cruwys, T., Greenwood, L. M., Reynolds, J., ... & Calear, A. L. (2025). Mental health, wellbeing, and burnout among practicing psychologists following Australian weather disasters and COVID-19. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 117, 105195.
