Marcus Berglund, OAMFT President, has been working onsite these past several months making valuable relational connections as we strive to have a voice within legislation and our state.  Watch this page for more current updates! 

---

To find and contact your legislator:

By Phone:

(503)986-1187 or (800)332-2313

Online:

Click on the link below, enter in your address and click “Submit”. 
Your federal and state legislators’ contact will appear.

www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/

---

---

On the evening of February 22, 2008, the heard ’round the world of Oregon LMFTs, LPCs, and our clients was fired, killing in the 11th second of the 11th minute of the 11th hour HB 3616, our mental health consumer choice and protection bill. The bill would have insurers cover the mental health services provided by licensed marriage and family therapists (LMFTs) and licensed professional counselors (LPCs) when those services are already part of health plans that cover the same services provided by other qualified mental health professionals (social workers, psychiatric nurse practitioners, psychologists, and psychiatrists). Consumer protection is another provision, where MFTs and PCs would have to be licensed to practice unless they were in a supervisory relationship with an Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists (OBLPCT)-approved supervisor.

Ironically, MFTs have been recognized by the Federal government as a distinct mental health discipline since 1968 (along with the other four disciplines listed above), yet, LMFT and LPC mental health services are currently not covered by the largest insurance companies in Oregon. Greater access to much needed mental health services, especially in rural counties, will result, as the provider pool is widened and consumers will have more choice in their mental health providers. This bill makes current law fairer, and an inequity and restraint of trade can, thereby, be lessened.

In politics, nothing is assured, and the unexpected routinely becomes the expected. Yet, how could we even be poised for seemingly assured victory on the evening of February 22, the last day of the legislative session, after 15 years of defeats with similar types of proposed consumer choice legislation?

A brief (relative term) history leading to and including the 2008 one-month “supplemental” session:

-June 2007 – Time runs out in the 2007 legislative session while HB 2687 languishes in the Senate Ways and Means Committee after winning passage in the House 51-7.  However, this author is not deterred, as Representative (Rep.) PeterBuckley (D-Ashland), one of the chief sponsors and stalwart supporters of HB2687, has consistently spearheaded the legislative momentum that garnered bi-partisan support of the bill and the ideas it embraces. Supportive and active in championing our bill is the House Human Services and Women’s Wellness Committee, chaired by Rep. Carolyn Tomei (D-Portland), vice chaired by Rep. Andy Olson (R-Albany) & Rep. Sara Gelser (D-Corvallis), and members Rep. Gene Cowan (D-Florence), Rep. Vic Gilliam (R-Silverton), Rep. Tina Kotek (D-Portland), and Rep. Ron Maurer (R-Grant’s Pass), especially Reps. Tomei, Kotek, Gelser, Maurer. As with clients, when motivation becomes passionate and comes from within, greater and more long-lasting change is likely to happen. Legislators communicating articulately with each other about our bill after getting facts and effects of the bill from those in our field in grassroots fashion seems to translate nicely into effective bi-partisan support.

Further, OAMFT and the Coalition for Mental Health Consumer Choice and Safety (a.k.a., “The Coalition,” the grassroots ensemble of mental health therapists and counselors in Oregon that has sprung up to support this bill primarily under the leadership of Mary Lou Brophy, and with whom OAMFT has partnered in this legislative effort) repeatedly testified and met one-on-one with legislators and their aides in forging countless relationships with legislators and raised awareness of what LMFTs and LPCs do, how we’re trained, the cost benefits of our services, how the mental health needs of Oregon citizens will be much better addressed though inclusion of our services through greater access, and how clients will be better protected through licensure and regulation.

-Oct. 2007 – The Oregon legislature typically meets every two years, but en route to possible annual sessions, a special one-month “supplementary session” is slated to take place in February 2008, as an experiment of sorts. Unique rules apply, such as only House committees can sponsor House bills, and they can only choose one instead of plausibly many bills sponsored by individual representatives in normal legislative sessions. The plan also calls for bills to be non-controversial.
 
-Nov.2007 – The House Human Services and Women’s Wellness Committee, chaired by Rep. Carolyn Tomei (D-Portland) chooses our bill as the one that they will propose and sponsor for the special supplemental session in Feb. 2008 after Rep. Peter Buckley, Mary Lou Brophy, and this author testify before this esteemed committee in support of a new version of 2007’s HB2687 (later renumbered HB 3616). Rep. Buckley continues to speak eloquently and passionately in support of our bill to his fellow legislators.

-Dec. 2008 – Kristen Leonard and her associate, Elizabeth Cushwa, are hired by OAMFT and The Coalition to lobby for HB 3616. Kristen comes highly recommended and immediately sets about the delicate dance of inviting legislative support for a just cause while keeping a low-key, soft-sell style and perspective. The lobbyist funding is paid entirely by a legislative grant from the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) garnered by this author. The Coalition also generates funding for additional expenses and even a start on reserves for future lobbying.

-Feb. 2008 – Testimony before the House Human Services and Women’s Wellness Committee either in the public hearing and/or working session by Rep. Buckley, Mary Lou Brophy, Gina Nikkel and this author helped secure a 6-1 vote in favor with a “Do Pass” recommendation from the Committee despite the protests of the Oregon Psychological Association (OPA), who claim that a lack of consistent and adequate counselor and therapist training jeopardizes public safety and insurance company, Kaiser Permanente, predicting exorbidant costs associated with any mandate that forces more providers be covered.

The “Do Pass” recommendation is important when a bill hits the floor for a full House or Senate vote, as legislators often lack the time to read through entire bills, yet can read brief descriptions of a bill, hear floor speeches for and against, and put faith in the committee members who are especially credible in their eyes and who have examined the bill with scrutiny to have recommended the bill for good reason..

Only one member of the Committee votes against sponsoring the bill, Rep. Vic Gilliam (R-Silverton), for he thought that there were more important issues to address when they could only pick one bill to sponsor. “I have no doubt about the good that comes from family therapy, as I’ve driven my family to have to seek one before!” 

Part of the majority opinion in sponsoring this bill, per Chairwoman Tomei, a social worker by training, is fueled by an Oregonian newspaper article in Oct. 2007 that described three mental health clinicians who had had their licenses revoked due to ethical transgressions with clients, yet had continued to practice because Oregon is one of nine states where mental health counseling and therapy can be practiced without a license. She and other legislators see opposition by OPA “as nothing but a turf war” with counselors and therapists and expressed frustration and discontent with the OPA that mental health providers cannot stand together in serving the overwhelming mental health needs of Oregon.

The subsequent House floor vote is an even more impressive victory than in 2007 with a 53-5 vote in favor. Committee member, Rep. Maurer, carries the bill to the Floor and gives a persuasive speech on the floor of the House highlighting the cost effectiveness of licensed master’s level therapists and counselors, the good economic sense it makes to widen the pool of mental health providers due to more supply = less cost, the systemic benefits of a community’s improved mental health, and the increased public safety that will arise with required licensure to practice mental health counseling and therapy. This is truly a signal of bi-partisan support for a cause that cuts across party lines.
The next stop for our bill is the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, chaired by a skeptic from last session, Sen.Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-Gresham); vice-chaired by the chair of the Mental Health Caucus and founder of the African-American Mental Health Commission, Sen. Avel Gordly (D-Portland); and members Sen. Margaret Carter (D-Portland), a counselor by training and adamant proponent of such mental health bills as ours since her election to the Oregon legislature in 1984; Sen. Jeff Kruse (R-Roseburg), & former chair of this committee and sponsor of the Senate version of our bill in 2007, Sen. Bill Morrisette (D-Eugene).
In fairness and as proof of the capacity of people to change, Sen. Monnes Anderson did encourage this author in June 2007 to reintroduce the bill in Feb. 2008. A nurse by training, she shifts her stance from 2007’s session and concurs with the equality of master’s level therapists and counselors being reimbursed for providing mental health services within their scope of practice, since that is the level of education of social workers (who are already reimbursed by law when mental health services are covered by an insurance company). She also agrees that public safety is bolstered by our bill. In both public and work session hearings before the committee, Rep. Buckley displays typical eloquence and deftly fields critical questions. Mary Lou Brophy, Jeff Todahl, PhD (University of Oregon MFT faculty), and this author testify in support of our bill.

Despite the etiquette of giving time (as in days) for all parties to see proposed amendments, there is a flurry of as many as 11 amendments freshly  proposed in that moment during the Senate hearing. We have run in to this tactic all last session and again this session; it is troubling the legislators and us, because there is not time to thoroughly delve into the ramifications sometimes. So, they can often be used to stall movement of a bill.

This day, art and music therapists propose amendments to keep their ability to practice with their title as a type of mental health “therapist” without being state-licensed. One art therapist statement even goes so far as to say that licensure is nothing more than “bureaucratic hoops to jump through,” completely ignoring the measure of clinician accountability” when there is such oversight. In fact, art therapists testifying could not say definitely where their national headquarters were located, naming a couple of different states and cities, unintentionally proving the point that a client may have trouble lodging an ethical complaint if there is not a local source through which to do so. Ironically, Marylhurst art therapy graduates are qualified to sit and take the NBCC national counseling exam if they elect to do so. Testimony for our bill offers the notion that requiring they take the NBCC Board exam (required for LPCs) that they are already trained to take and become art therapist specialists under the LPC licensing umbrella is an easy fix for ensuring public safety and therapist/counselor accountability. They can still retain their identity as art therapists. We, as MFTs, can empathize with the importance of keeping a strong professional identity as a discipline.

At this point, we must give the “purple heart” (or leg) to Elizabeth Cushwa, lobbyist, who even slips and breaks her leg in responding with vigor to yet another last-minute amendment proposal by sprinting to legislative counsel’s office. Last minute amendments are more than inconsiderate and quasi-unethical, they can be dangerous to one’s health.

OPA’s claim in testimony that counselors only learn Rogerian techniques is challenged by Sen. Carter, who tells of her Master’s degree in counseling and training in numerous theories. Further, their claim that not all LPCs are trained to diagnose is shown to be moot, given that one must assess and diagnose in order to pass the NBCC national exam, which is a requirement of LPC status. Kaiser Permanente is also scrambling to put forth amendments that would limit the coverage to group policies, unlike the law for social workers who are covered by individual policies, and are proposing other small tweaks of words that could be seen as stall tactics. Some insurance companies see any bill that requires them to do something as taking away their autonomy and ability to contain costs, yet our bill still gives them complete control over which individual practitioners get on their panels. They just can’t discriminate against an entire credentialed group.

At the Committee’s work session, Kaiser Permanente introduced more amendments targeted at limiting the coverage of LMFTs and LPCs to group policies. Although individual policies only comprise about 10% of the policies, social workers are covered by individual policies, and true equity with our closest cousin covered by law would have LMFTs and LPCs be covered by both group and individual policies. Being at the low end of the pay scale (master’s level training) makes such a move actually prudent for insurance companies rather than pay a more expensive doctoral or medically-trained provider. We, in fact, win this battle, and the group amendment limitation is scuttled.

Sen. Monnes Anderson ultimately allows only four amendments to be included out of the 11 proposed. One of the amendments gives art, music, and recreational therapists the right to practice with title as is and without being licensed. Others are minor wording changes.

In the committee’s final vote, all but one, Sen. Kruse, vote to pass the bill to the Senate floor with a “Do Pass” recommendation. Sen. Kruse in voting “no” says that he’s “too confused” by all the variations in therapists’ titles and doesn’t want to act hastily without knowing more. Little do we know that this stance will rear its head in the near future. Sen. Carter is to carry the bill to the Senate floor, although due to the added amendments, the bill will have to go back to the House if it passes the Senate, as the bill has changed. This seems a rubber stamp for “concurrence” to happen given the bi-partisan support in the House and the 53-5 less than two weeks prior.

-February 22, 2008
The last day and night of the session. Most bills die due to the ever-fleeting sands of time running its course before the bill gets out of committee or before it is voted on. This is what happened last session to our bill. This time, we are farther than ever before, and the Senate gets about its business with Sen. Carter delivering an impassioned speech introducing our bill and urging passage. There are many senatorial voices in support, and Kristen Leonard has the predictive vote count going our way by at least 4-5 votes, but nothing is guaranteed in this arena.

Quickly, what begins to emerge is a pattern of senators expressing confusion over the title of “therapist” and “counselor.” Evidently, lobbying efforts by insurance industry entities and OPA adds to the confusion by introducing a measure of doubt, especially in the last day of the session. As seen in the Senate Committee, some senators become gun-shy and opt taking out the entire public safety section with title limitations. Heated debate erupts, and the vote demonstrates the tenuous nature of any “assured vote.” However, the bill does pass 16-14.

Since this is the last day of the session, proceedings continue into the night. There is a mad dash to the House immediately following the Senate vote, as the House needs to vote on a “concurrence” that would OK the amendments made on the Senate side. Numbers of lobbyists against the bill suddenly swell, trying to get the ear of Representatives before voting. To their credit in allegiance, some senators, including Sen. Alan Bates, a physician from Ashland and avid supporter of our bill in 2007 session, personally lobbies Representatives in the fray to stick to their prior vote. It appears there is much disinformation being disseminated in ways that invite some House members to question even the most accepted truths such as our training, scope of practice, credibility, etc. Rep. Buckley warns, “It’s easier to kill a bill than to pass it; just add a little possibility of doubt.”

In the later evening hours, Rep. Buckley gives the introductory floor speech clearly elucidating the main points yet again that had been accepted and agreed upon two weeks earlier. He asserts that the bill is more a corrective action of equality rather than a mandate (as stated by some conservatives in opposition) and mentions Rep. Maurer by name as a fiscal conservative in consistent support of the bill.

Within a few minutes, Rep. Maurer stands up and gives an impassioned speech about his anger over the Senate dropping the public safety aspect of the bill and how “there is nothing left but a mandate!” He says he will not vote for the bill! Mind you, he runs a medical clinic, has been a champion of our bill all of last year and just a mere two weeks before, had fervently introduced the bill on the House Floor giving economic reasons why this was not a true mandate of increased cost and that the benefits of the bill were without question.

A kind of panic ensues, and former staunch advocates such as Republicans Sale Esquivel of Medford (co-sponsor of 2007’s version of our bill) and Andy Olson of Albany (on the House Human Services and Women’s Wellness Committee and former MFT student) shockingly vote against the bill. In fact, all Republicans turn an about face and vote against. Rep. Phil Barnhart, a psychologist by training and supporter of our bill in 2007 and 2008, wavers and ends up backing the OPA position to kill the bill, making him the only Democrat to vote against it in the House. The 53-5 majority vote we had previously secured evaporates, and the House votes against the bill by three votes.

In a last second attempt to change history, Rep. Carolyn Tomei, Chair of the Human Services and Women’s Wellness Committee who sponsored the bill, social worker by training, and die-hard supporter of our cause; strategically changes her “Yes” vote to a “Nay” in the hope of a re-vote that might buy time to persuade former supporters to come back to the land of “Yes.” It is to no avail. She leaves the session devastated and in disbelief.

The experimental “supplemental session” comes to a close. Rep. Buckley, who has done more than any other legislator in trying to pass our bill in both sessions feels totally betrayed. It is a bitter irony that he has an theatre background, and his wife is the lead educator at Ashland’s Shakespearean theatre, for “Et tu, Brute?!” can still be heard on the House floor after such intense Shakespearean drama of broken promises and last moment back stabs.

There is talk that the Republican Caucus held before the last Floor session asked all Republicans to give a party-line vote. It certainly seems feasible, and pressure to slay the bill from one of the more powerful lobbyists in town added to the mix. Regardless, legislators who had built mutually respectful and trusting relationships with each other in overcoming partisan politics felt demoralized and cynical.

Similarly, this author feels a similar betrayal when mental health providers spend time, energy, and money to quell advancement in fairness and client access to their fellow providers. Ultimately, all disciplines working in collaboration with instead of against is something that this author would expect from the mental health profession, as we would hope that is the aspiration for our clients in their lives.

From this defeat, however, can also come even more motivation and a stronger sense of purpose. Rep. Buckley has been made Majority Whip, meaning that he recruits and helps support worthy candidates for the Democratic Party across the state. In talking with him last month, he said he’s more dedicated and energized than he thought possible after the way that the bill was sunk. He told of pursuing passage of this bill more fervently than ever, “and I am not alone in that conviction,” he emphasized.

We need to walk our talk and work collaboratively in reaching common ground and accord with possible critics before the 2009 session begins. That will be a push of this author, and I know Bryan Nilsen, LMFT, of the Coalition is acting in that way, too, regarding communicating with OPA and insurance leaders. Finally, Bryan, Art Tolentino, LMFT (OAMFT member and fellow Coalition leader), and this author me over a month ago to start crafting ideas for the 2009 version of our bill, including implementing a practice act. This Author has since learned that social workers in Oregon re also pursuing a practice act. This would supposedly quell criticism by OPA, stop the need to prove our credibility and abilities at each turn, and hopefully join us all as mental health providers in common cause legislatively as we are out in the field as fellow mental health providers.

---

As the cherry blossom bloomage still shined resilient under overcast skies and falling rain throughout the U.S. Capitol grounds, six legislative bills similarly continued to blossom in both chambers of Congress. As part of the annual American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) Leadership Conference, OAMFT Division President-Elect, Shelley Hanson, and Division President, Marcus Berglund, traveled to Washington D.C. to lobby Oregon legislators at the Federal level to vote for bills that support Medicare coverage of MFTs as mental health service providers and to vote for explicit language that delineates MFTs as qualified providers of mental health services in K-12 schools via proposed “No Child Left Behind” revisions that are currently being considered by Congress.

Relationships: One Degree of Separation?
Although we had no infants or toddlers in tow as magnets of legislative attention like we’ve had the last two years with Past Division President and Mom, Elizabeth Limbocker, LMFT, prior establishment of rapport helped us affirm and solidify our message with the legislative aides of Senators Wyden and Smith and Representatives Wu, Walden, and Hooley.  They were attentive and conversed in ways that seemed to show their understanding of MFTs as a distinct mental health profession and the benefits of our services. Relationship-building is an investment and sometimes key to getting a message heard and understood, much less acted upon.

In an uncanny example of systemic connectedness, relational significance, and ONE degree of separation, the legislative aide that I had not met previously, Nils Trillstrom, Health Aide in Rep. David Wu’s office, when asked if he knew what MFTs do, replied that he had two friends who were recently married, and they had sought “pre-marital counseling as a way to strengthen their relationship even more before they got married.” In the ensuing 30-minute conversation that widened the description of our skills and training, Nils seemed genuinely intrigued with what we do as MFTs and agreed with the premises we offered.

Three days later, having supper with my MFT wife, Rachel Berglund, and her MSW friend and colleague, Heather, I spoke of the MFT Capitol Hill lobbying effort, and Heather happened to mention knowing a legislative aide in Rep. Wu’s camp. As she uttered, “Nils Trillstrom,” I skeptically remarked, “Not Nils Trillstrom.” Unbelievably, it was not only the same Nils, but Heather and her husband were the couple to whom Nils referred as seeking pre-marital counseling! In fact, Nils was the best man at their wedding, having grown up with Heather’s husband.

On her own initiative, Heather called Nils the next day to tell of the coincidence, and Nils reacted favorably, per Heather, saying that talking about MFT was “one of the most interesting conversations he’d had all week.” Heather went on to describe to Nils her clinical work with Rachel at a day treatment school and the value of the MFT perspective. The chances now are much higher that Nils will remember what MFTs do, why Medicare should cover their mental health services, and how they work effectively in schools. He will likely be more energized to see the benefits of our cause and do something about it.

This story of relational connectedness is fun to think about because of the against-the-odds, “small world” aura it exudes. Yet, that is precisely why relationship-building is so powerful. By blending topics both personal and professional in building a more substantive relationship, the chances increase of discovering some element of commonality, connection, and coincidence. It shrinks the world such that stories such as these become more common, and the messages we want to send can get communicated in ways and directions unanticipated. Small changes can lead to larger changes in unpredictable ways. Sound familiar, oh systemic folk?

What To Do
In the Summer of 2007, the House of Representatives passed a bill that includes MFTs in the list of covered mental health services (CHAMP Act, HR 3162). The Senate is presently in the process of debating their own Medicare bill (Senior Mental Health Improvement Act, SR 921). There is also another bill in the Senate that would include MFTs in Medicare coverage, S 1605 (Rurual Medicare). All in all, there are five other bills in the House in addition to the already-passed CHAMP Act that would include MFT services in Medicare coverage. It is important to urge your Representative to support HR 820 (Standalone MFTs), HR 1588 (Standalone MFTs/LPCs), HR 1663 (Mental Health package), HR 2860 (Rural Medicare), and HR 3104 (Minority Health).

We want to urge legislators to support and pass this bill, not only to be able to the shortage of providers in serving those on Medicare, but increase the likelihood that other funding sources who model their criteria for coverage after Medicare will then start recognizing and covering MFTs.

It is most effective to call, 2nd best to email or fax. I do both. Do not send letters via snail mail, as the anthrax scare of past years has invoked a processing delay that takes months.
Rationales to offer legislators for the bill’s support include:

-Greater access to much needed mental health services will be increased to those covered by Medicare - senior citizen and developmentally disabled populations.

-The Surgeon General has proclaimed that 37% of seniors suffer from symptoms of depression “in a primary care environment.” Demographically, males over 80 years old now have the highest suicide rate.

-Rural areas are especially suffering mental health provider shortages, and 26 counties in Oregon are considered rural.

-The Federal government has long recognizes five distinct mental health disciplines and their providers: MFTs, Social Workers, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners, Psychologists, and Psychiatrists. Medicare covers all but MFTs. This bill is not a new mandate, but a corrective action in fairness. Adding MFTs helps correct a discriminatory law.

-MFTs are recognized as mental health providers capable of assessing, diagnosing, and treating mental health disorders by other Federal entities such as Dept. of Defense (since 1968), Veteran’s Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Transportation, Indian Health Service, National Health Services Corps, and Department of Health and Human Services.

-This bill does NOT increase covered mental health services, nor does it change MFT’s scope of practice.

-The 2005 White House Conference on aging recommended MFTs be included by Medicare coverage.

-Similar bills calling for MFT inclusion in the past two legislative sessions have garnered bi-partisan support and passed in the Senate.

AAMFT’s website (www.aamft.org) is a great way to get pertinent info on this and other issues, as well as who your legislators are and contact info. Click on the “Legislation and Policy” prompt (lower center of screen), click on “Support Medicare Coverage of MFTs,” Ignore “Alert has expired” and click “Legislative Alerts and Updates,” click “Tell US Senate to Include MFTs in 2008 Medicare Bill.” Here you have rationale for the bill’s support and links directly to congressional offices if you choose to email a letter (that you can edit to your taste or use the AAMFT letter already written).

Oregon has two senators (like all states) and five representatives. As an Oregon citizen, you are constituents of both senators and one representative. Legislators pay most attention to their own constituency since they represent votes for re-election, thus you will want to contact both senators and your representative. You will want to urge that your senators support the two Senate bills and your one representative support the five House bills. Their Washington, D.C. contact info:

Sen. Wyden (D) – phone: 202-224-5244, fax: 202-228-2717
Sen. Gordon Smith (R) – phone: 202-224-3753, fax: 202-228-3997
Rep. David Wu (D-District 1) – phone: 202-225-0855, fax: 202-225-9497
Rep. Greg Walden (R-District 2) – phone: 202-225-6730, fax: 202-225-5774
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-District 3) – phone: 202-225-4811, fax: 202-225-8941
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-District 4) – phone: 202-225-6416, fax: 202-225-0032
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-District 5) – phone: 202-225-5711, fax: 202-225-5699

Once you’ve communicated with legislative offices, AAMFT asks that you notify them to keep track of the amount of legislative contact from MFTs.
*LET YOUR MFT VOICES BE HEARD IN SYSTEMIC, GRASSROOTS FASHION!*

---

    Remember the classic film where Jimmy Stewart holds a philabuster and finally has the listening ears of the lawmakers of the land before he collapses in exhaustion?  Well, it was a little like that except the exhaustion was more from walking long distances, navigating the Metro, learning the protocols for visiting Senators and Congresswo/men, and keeping your head in the midst of promoting MFT inclusion in the Medicare and No Child Left Behind documents. Oh, and there was no actual philabuster, but still, it was quite an experience. For me, it was about keeping my feet in Oregon with our needs for mental health service access, while my head navigated the rest.  Next to entering a voting ballet, it was quite an American experience.  It was about being a citizen; about being a mental health professional; about having a voice as both.
    Right now AAMFT is striving for the inclusion of MFTs to be recognized in these two important documents.  Why weren’t we originally?  MFTs are recognized by the federal government as one of 5 core mental health fields (MSW, LPNP, Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology being the other four), but at the time of the documents original drafting, apparently MFTs did not have licensure across the nation.  Now we do.  48 of the states as well as the District of Columbia, all have a licensure procedure for MFTs.  Due to the Medicare document serving as a template for other insurances, it is time that MFTs be recognized so that access is not denied based upon the lack of available coverage.  Likewise, the No Child Left Behind document’s inclusion of MFTs would potentially provide the means for Family Therapists to come alongside of school staff – including school counselors and psychologists – to provide family work by the only mental health professionals who receive extensive family therapy training.
    It’s an exciting time to be a marriage and family therapist.  Our work is invaluable to our society.  If you are a new member reading this article, welcome.  If you are a veteran member, then thank you for your continued commitment to quality care for families in Oregon!  It is a privilege to represent you to legislators.  If you would ever desire to meet with one of your local legislators regarding MFT issues in Oregon and would like an OAMFT board member to accompany you, please contact us.