Over 10% of our NASW Montana members have cast their ballots in our 2009-10 Board of Directors election. Most of our members received an email directing them to “Survey Monkey” to cast their ballot, where other members were sent a mail ballot. As of today, most ballots have been cast through “Survey Monkey” while the remainder have been cast via the USPS.

If you have not voted, please open the following NASW Montana Board of Directors elections link: http://www.naswmt.org/ to learn more about the candidates and then cast your NASW Montana Board of Directors ballot! (The Survey Monkey link is located in the original email message sent to you on either 6-12-09 or 6-16-09). If you would like to have a ballot mailed to you, please email me at john@naswmt.org.

The NASW Montana Board of Directors election "polls" close on Friday, July 3rd. If you haven't done so, please cast your ballot. Thank you!

"Brain-wise" Therapy Conference Inspires

By Margaret Watson DSW LCSW, Missoula One hundred twelve social workers, counselors, psychologists and other therapists attending a two-day workshop in Missoula in early June learned how to apply emerging research on the role the brain plays in people’s emotional lives – and the role of relationships in the development and functioning of the brain. Dr. Bonnie Badenoch, author of Being a Brain-Wise Therapist: A Practical Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology, showed therapists how the burgeoning discoveries of neuroscience can revolutionize psychotherapy. The training was designed to help therapists use current knowledge about the lifelong potential for relationships in their work to promote healing of brains affected by emotional illness and psychological trauma. Participants learned not only how relationships shape early development of the brain but how the therapy relationship contributes to healing minds injured by attachment failures and trauma. One Conference Participant summed up their overall impression of the conference by writing, “This information was phenomenal!” Another wrote they found the “practical applications of brain theory with clients most helpful.” Many attendees wrote to express their appreciation of how Bonnie “integrated the attachment literature with brain function.” The Gold sponsor of the Chapter’s annual spring clinical conference was Montana VA Healthcare System. Silver Sponsors included the Advanced Pain & Spine Institute of Montana, St. Patrick Hospital & Health Sciences Center, and Walla Walla University. The Bronze level sponsor was Montana NeuroCare, PLLC. Exhibitors included Acadia Montana, University of Montana School of Social Work, Adult and Child Counseling Service of Helena, Youth Dynamics, the Center for Mental Health, and the Northwest Center for Cognitive Behavior Therapy in Missoula. -Margaret Watson, DSW LCSW has served as the Chair of NASW MT’s Continuing Education Committee and will begin serving as President, July 1st

2009 Montana Legislative Bills Clarified and Strengthened Licensed Social Workers and Professional Counselors Scope of Practice

Senate Bill #235 was proposed by Montana’s LCPCs, and supported by NASW MT. SB 235 clarified that LCSWs and LCPCs, in addition to Psychologists could state they provide psychological services as well as perform psychological tests. Whereas this bill passed both the House and Senate, the Governor, prior to signing it, submitted an amendment to the Legislature that ultimately stated, “The Board of Social Workers and Examiners and Professional Counselors shall adopt rules that qualify a licensee under title 37, Chapter 22 or 23, to perform psychological tests, evaluations and assessments.

The rules for licensed clinical social workers and professional counselors must be consistent with the guidelines of their respective national associations. Final rules must be adopted by October 1, 2010.”

HB #530. This was a “clean-up” bill which added to the definition to what Licensed Clinical Social Workers do and included the word “diagnosis” which was not in the original statute. This bill also stipulates that LCSWs may administer, evaluate, and assess tests if they are qualified to do so.

SB #271. Created a licensing category for Marriage and Family Counselors. NASW Montana opposed this bill as we felt it was unnecessary, and, in some states has resulted in restricting the practice of marriage and family counseling and therapy to only Licensed Marriage and Family Counselors. After SB 271 was amended many times, it ultimately passed. However, through the tireless efforts of NASW MT Legislative Committee members Treas Glinnwater and Kim Gardner, the bill was amended as follows: “A licensed clinical social worker under title 37 Chapter 22 or a licensed clinical professional counselor under title 37 Chapter 23 and has practiced marriage and family therapy within the state for a period prescribed by the board are eligible to apply for a license for marriage and family counseling.” The law now states that the board for licensing marriage and family counselors is the board for social workers and professional counselors.

VERY IMPORTANT POST SCRIPT TO THE MONTANA LEGISLATIVE SESSION:

The Montana Board of Social Work Examiners and Licensed Professional Counselors are responsible for developing the Administrative Rules for these statutes. Administrative Rules delineate how statutes are to be implemented. Please pay particular attention to the proposed rules for how the Board intends on implementing critical sections of SB 235, HB 530, and SB 271. NASW Montana will endeavor to keep you apprised of the status of the proposed rules, but you also need to check the Board of Social Work Examiners and Professional Counselors web site: http://www.mt.gov/dli/bsd/license/bsd_boards/swp_board/board_page.asp

SB #287. This bill was the Consumer Health Freedom and Access Act that would allow an individual to practice a trade in whatever they are trained in. We were opposed to this bill and testified against it. The bill was defeated.

(Editor’s Note) Special Thanks for NASW Montana’s legislative success goes to Bill Evans, Legislative Committee Chairman and Mary McCue, NASW Montana Lobbyist along with the tireless members of the NASW Montana Legislative Committee including Kim Gardner (Helena), Treas Glinnwater (Missoula/Polson), Terry Smith (Billings), Joe Loos (Missoula), Suzy Saltiel (Bozeman), Twila Costigan (Helena), & Kelly Smith (Great Falls).

NASW Montana also wants to extend a special note of thanks to our NASW Montana President, Dave Segerstrom, and Board of Directors as they provided significant guidance to the Legislative Committee and NASW Montana staff along the way.

Bill Evans, LCSW is Vice President and Chair of the NASW Montana Social Action and Policy Committee & can be reached at (406) 443-1990 x 102 adultandchildcounseling@gmail.com

Mental Health Legislation-Thoughts, Opinions and Evidenced-based Practices

The 2009 Montana Legislative Session is over and by my count, 18 bills related to mental illness were introduced and eleven of them were passed into law. In my opinion SB 119 was the most significant legislation passed this session. This Medicaid buy-in option for individuals with disabilities will allow those living with disabilities to work and still keep their Medicaid health care benefits. To me this is the first legislation ever in Montana that actually promotes RECOVERY. We need to thank the bill's sponsor Senator John Esp, Governor Brian Schweitzer, Anna Whiting-Sorrell and all of the supporters at the Department of Public Health and Human Services as well as the members of the disability community who have worked so hard over the last decade to see this legislation through.

The other big winners were HB 130, HB 131 and HB 132. This package of "crisis bills" will fund crisis services for individuals in their communities. The difficult work will now begin. It will take a collaborative effort to develop the type of services needed and how to ration the funding to allow successful outcomes. Lastly, the Addictive and Mental Disorders Division will need to develop a set of goals and outcomes and then gather data to see that the programs developed benefit the individuals involved and justify the expenditures by the taxpayers of the State of Montana.

A number of other bills were passed and we need to thank the members of the 2009 Montana Legislature who supported these many bills to improve the treatment available for individuals with mental illness. The outcome of HB 634 sponsored by Representative Dave McAlpin to revise the law on transportation of the mentally ill should be particularly interesting.

The only major disappointment was the defeat of HB 612 sponsored by Representative Bill Beck. The legislation would have required Assisted Outpatient Treatment and community commitment instead of commitment to the Montana State Hospital. This diversion bill was supported solely by NAMI-Montana and was not supported or was opposed by every other member of the Mental Health Caucus.

Last week I sent an e-mail editorial about instituting evidenced-based practices. In my opinion mental illness treatment policy has been driven for too long by the population at the Montana State Hospital. Because of this we have been unable to institute evidenced-based practices which would keep people out of the State Hospital. That being said, I believe a quality State Hospital is an integral part of a "continuum of care" in Montana. A 2, 3, 7 or even 14 day stay in a hospital is really not adequate to stabilize an individual experiencing a first episode psychotic or manic illness. Time is necessary to find and titrate the appropriate medications as well as educate the individual about the illness. What we must do is develop treatment services in the community which reduce recidivism at the Montana State Hospital. We cannot do anything to decrease the initial episodes of mental illness and as our population increases the stress on the hospital will continue to grow. The only part of the equation we can control is to develop services for those suffering from mental illness which reduce the recidivism rate.

The Addictive and Mental Disorders Division has valiantly tried for the last five or six years to develop the evidenced-based practice of the treatment of co-occurring disorders in Montana. They have brought two of the leaders in the field to Montana to lead workshops for providers. Yet NAMI-Montana families report that accessing appropriate treatment for their family members with co-occurring disorders is very difficult.

Psychiatric research indicates the most important services necessary for RECOVERY, and avoiding hospitalization and relapse, are decent, safe, affordable housing and meaningful employment. This is why SB 119 is so important. Yet consumers and mental illness treatment professionals continually report the lack of housing is the single biggest problem. One of the main reasons why individuals cannot be released form the Montana State Hospital is because they have no place to live. Supportive employment is also very difficult. Although 85% of the people living with mental illness would like to be employed, only 15% actually have jobs.

So, as you can see, the 2009 Montana Legislative Session can be considered a success, but there is still a long way to go.

Dr. Gary Mihelish: is a co-founder and past President of NAMI Montana, and is a tireless advocate for mental health consumers and their families. (406) 442-4990 2mihelishes@bresnan.net

NEW MFT LICENSE Category: Opportunity for LCSWs

This legislative session saw the passage of SB271, the bill that bestows licenses to marriage and family therapists. A group of marriage and family therapists met with the Social Work and Counseling Board on June 12, 2009 to work out more of the fine print regarding the statutes and rules delineating how they will be licensed. It was a very productive meeting. It is now time for the Board to work on the rules regarding the amendment to SB271 that grandfather in currently licensed LCSWs and LCPCs who are practicing marriage and family therapy for a period of time prescribed by the Board. This is a tremendous opportunity for LCSWs and LCPCs to acquire an MFT license without needing to pass the MFT exam. The advantage of holding these two licenses is that it increases one’s credentials as well as gives the opportunity to be engaged in any debate/discussion that the LMFTs may hold regarding proposed changes to the MFT statutes or rules. There has been some confusion over whether an LCSW or LCPC must obtain a LMFT in order to even practice marriage or family therapy. It is not necessary to have both licenses in order to practice marriage and family therapy. However, as stated above, it is advantageous to acquire an LMFT now.

Treasa Glinnwater, LCSW

A Personal Perspective on the National Health Care debate

I have had the opportunity to speak, on a personal level, about the issue of national health care, and more specifically about the “single payer” plan. However when NASW Montana asked me to write about what I said for the Montana Social Worker ENewsletter I hesitated because I didn’t think that what I said was unique. After all I am not the only social worker who is self employed (as an independent management consultant for the last 25 years) and have to pay what feels to me like way too much for what turns out to be way too little!

So, here are my thoughts as one of the “lucky ones!” who had the “opportunity” to purchase a $10000.00 deductable major medical policy from BCBS of Montana. First it doesn’t cover any prevention, alternative care (chiropractic, ND services,) no annual physicals, pap smears and mammograms for my wife or daughter. No pharmacy benefits, no benefits for wellness or prevention! To be able to qualify for any “benefits” for the family, at least two of us have to meet the deductable in the calendar year for the full family coverage to kick in! So, what do I get for the privilege of being covered and paying $584.00 per month? Well I suppose I get the “peace of mind” of knowing that I will only have to pay $10000.00 out of pocket coverage each year, and if I happen to develop a serious illness or life threatening condition then I will not be destitute! Hum! Seems I might be better off on both fronts if I could have a little better choice of “options”! I want the choice of a single payer universal health care program run by the government!

The option I would like to have discussed, listen up Max, is a single payer government run universal plan just like I hope to have when I am older. Everyone in, no one left out! Let’s have what everyone else in the industrialized world seems to have! What do the other 19 industrialized countries know that we don’t? Why is it that our neighbors to the north have universal coverage and yet they pay on average less than we do as a percentage of GNP? IN FACT all the countries that have universal coverage pay less than we do! Why do we in the US pay so much?

I am a social worker and I want congress to have an open debate on the merits of all plans so we can have the best one! It just doesn’t make sense to me! Why let medicine and our health be compromised by “special interests?” Why not trust our government with this critical need? It seems funny that we trust to the government to protect us from enemies both domestic and foreign and to regulate so many of our commercial and international interests but we are afraid to trust them to run the system to provide health care? I’m not afraid! I want it and I want it now not in 10 years!

We as tax payers have had to bail out all those “free enterprise” folks once again and yet we can’t seem to wrest control of our health care from the for profit” folks who have brought us the most expensive care in the world and yet 50 million of our citizens aren’t even covered! We need to wake up! I don’t know about you but I have seen enough of the “free market” when it comes to providing my health care! I want the debate to begin with all the options on the table. If congress can’t get it done we need to elect people who will represent the will of folks who sent them to Washington not the ones who paid the most to get their ear! Are you listening Max?

Steve McArthur, MSW ACSW (406) 251-5965 stevemcarthur@aol.com

Steve McArthur MSW, ACSW was licensed in Tennessee as a LCSW in the 80's and was appointed to the first Tennessee State Licensure Board in the mid 80's. After 12 years in the mental health field, including work in community mental health, alcohol and drug and private practice he left clinical work in the late 80's to work in the Quality management and team building arena. Since 1999 he has been working as an independent management consultant out of Missoula, Montana.

NASW Montana Support for the Post Deployment Health Assessment Act of 2009 Noted by NAMI Montana

I would like to personally thank NASW Montana for its efforts to help ensure our nation’s warriors receive early and effective treatment for their hidden wounds. NASW was one of the first organizations in Montana to demonstrate a commitment to caring for our service members’ and veterans’ post-traumatic stress injuries. NASW Montana conference in December of 2007 was critical part of informing Montana’s treatment community about the scope of the problem in Montana, the challenges of caring for these injuries, and the Montana National Guard’s plan for ensuring its injured service members receive the care they need.

In the year and a half since that conference, Montana has emerged as a nationwide model for how to care for our service members’ post-traumatic stress injuries. In August of last year, the National Guard Bureau named Montana National Guard’s model as the premier program in the country for caring for members of the National Guard returning from combat. Soon afterwards, then-Senator Barrack Obama agreed that the Montana National Guard’s mental health assessment model which relies upon periodic, face-to-face screenings should be replicated across the country

This Spring Senator Max Baucus, Senator Jon Tester, and Representative Denny Rehberg sponsored the Post-Deployment Health Assessment Act (S. 711)(H.R. 2058) to effectively take the Montana assessment model nationwide. The Act requires a face-to-face mental health screening for every service member prior to deploying to combat, upon their return home, and every six months for two years.

After learning about the specifics of the Act, John Wilkinson of the NASW Montana approached NASW’s national office and asked them to run a call-to-action alert to all of their members to support this critical legislation. The national office agreed. Their call-to-action alert was the most responded to alert in the organization’s history. While it is hard to tell exactly how many Senators and Representative co-sponsored the Act due to calls or emails from NASW members, there is no denying that NASW’s membership were critical to help get the Act’s first co-sponsors on board.

As we move closer to a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee, I cannot thank NASW Montana enough for all of their support in helping our wounded heroes get the care they need.

Matt Kuntz, Executive Director

National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Montana Chapter (406) 443-7871 | matt@namimt.org

For more information on national NASW’s support for this act, click on the following Link: Support the Post Deployment Health Assessment Act of 2009!

Social Workers and Identity Theft: The FTC “Red Flags” Rule

By Sherri Morgan, LDF Associate Counsel, and Carolyn I. Polowy, NASW General Counsel
© NASW June 2009

Identity Theft and NASW
Medical identity theft is a problem of increasing proportions and disturbing implications for the provision of health care. Medical identity theft occurs when a person uses the health insurance benefits of another by appropriating identification documents or data and may be fraudulent. The NASW Code of Ethics prohibits social workers from participating in, condoning or being associated with “dishonesty, fraud, or deception” (NASW, 2008, Standard 4.04).   The Code of Ethics’ provisions regarding confidentiality and privacy also require social workers to protect the privacy of clients’ information and to “take reasonable steps to ensure that…clients’ records are not available to others who are not authorized to have access” (NASW, 2008, Standard 1.07(l)). These records may include clients’ medical insurance card or copies of other identifying information. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued new regulations to address identity theft, including medical identity theft, and clinical social workers will need to review their operating procedures for compliance with the new requirements.

What is the Red Flags Rule?
The Red Flags Rule is a set of federal regulations issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to reduce and prevent identity theft. The Rule is primarily directed to financial institutions and creditors; however, a broad interpretation of the new regulations by the FTC includes health care providers as “creditors” under certain circumstances.   Entities subject to the Rule are required to implement an identity theft program that is capable of recognizing and responding to possible fraudulent activity. The "potential patterns, practices or specific activities indicating the possibility of identity theft" are considered “red flags” that should alert businesses to take further action.

Compliance Date
The compliance date for the Red Flags Rule has been postponed from May 1, 2009 to August 1, 2009.

Who is Subject to the Red Flags Rule?
The FTC has issued guidance for health care providers, indicating that they are subject to the regulations if they act as creditors for patients by deferring the collection of payment for services (Toporoff, 2009; see also, Winston, 2009). Thus, providers, such as clinical social workers in private practice who bill patients and insurance companies,   fall within the definition of “creditors” because they are allowing patient to defer payments. Practitioners who collect all payments at the time of service would not be considered creditors. However, there is some conflict between the FTC and professional associations for health care providers regarding whether health care practitioners should be subject to the Red Flags Rule. For now, the FTC definition is in effect and would apply to social workers who “defer” client payment.

What are “Red Flags”?
“Red flags” are activities that signal that identity theft has occurred or is occurring. The Rule does not provide a comprehensive checklist; however, the FTC has provided some examples that health care providers may encounter, such as:

•    Suspicious documents. Has a new patient given you identification documents that look altered or forged? Is the photograph or physical description on the ID inconsistent with what the patient looks like? Did the patient give you other documentation inconsistent with what he or she has told you — for example, an inconsistent date of birth or a chronic medical condition not mentioned elsewhere? Under the Red Flags Rule, you may need to ask for additional information from that patient.
•    Suspicious personally identifying information. If a patient gives you information that doesn’t match what you’ve learned from other sources, it may be a red flag of identity theft. For example, if the patient gives you a home address, birth date, or Social Security number that doesn’t match information on file or from the insurer, fraud could be afoot.
•    Suspicious activities. Is mail returned repeatedly as undeliverable, even though the patient still shows up for appointments? Does a patient complain about receiving a bill for a service that he or she didn’t get? Is there an inconsistency between a physical examination or medical history reported by the patient and the treatment records? These questionable activities may be red flags of identity theft.
•    Notices from victims of identity theft, law enforcement authorities, insurers, or others suggesting possible identity theft. Have you received word about identity theft from another source? Cooperation is key. Heed warnings from others that identity theft may be ongoing. (Toporoff, 2009)
What is Required for Compliance?
According to the FTC guidance for health care providers, entities that are subject to the “Red Flags” Rule must develop a written identity theft prevention program to:

1.    Identify the kinds of red flags that are relevant to your practice;
2.    Explain your process for detecting them;
3.    Describe how you’ll respond to red flags to prevent and mitigate identity theft; and
4.    Spell out how you’ll keep your program current.

The identity theft program is to be tailored to the size and nature of the business, so a small social work practice can develop simple written policies to readily comply. This may incorporate activities that are already occurring as an informal part of the business operations of social work private practices. The FTC has provided a guide for businesses and a do-it-yourself guide for entities that are at low risk for identity theft, such as small practices that personally know each client. The do-it-yourself four-step process is available to be completed online and then printed out: Click to open the Do-it-yourself Prevention Program

Conclusion
Clinical social workers in fee-for-service practice settings will need to comply with the FTC “Red Flags” Rule by August 1, 2009 if they are billing health insurers for services. The FTC has issued guidance for health care providers and is expected to develop a template for businesses to use in creating an easy-to-use identity theft prevention program. Other resources are listed in the references below.

Health care provider organizations are actively lobbying Congress and advocating directly with the FTC to obtain an exemption for health care providers from the new requirements. NASW is monitoring these developments and working to inform social workers about the FTC rule and any changes.

Connecting With Social Workers through Social Work Peer Review and Journal Groups

One of the most frequent requests received at the regional Spring 2008 Montana NASW meeting in Missoula, was to find ways to connect with other social workers. I would like to present a model of something several social workers in Missoula have done to meet that need. Several years ago under the requirements of managed care to have oversight, we decided to be proactive and formed the Social Work Peer Review and Journal group.

This group meets monthly at the same time and place. We have time during the meeting for discussing difficult and interesting cases. This is a good process to learn new techniques for therapy and to get support. Each meeting has a clinically relevant book, journal article or movie as the focus of the meeting. These meetings last for 1 ½ hours and fulfill some of the continuing education requirements.

They have been an excellent way to connect with other social workers and broaden our knowledge. The support and encouragement from peers is invaluable. Getting constructive feedback is also beneficial for providing the services in our challenging profession.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Rashel Jeffrey
Center for Cognitive Behavior Therapy
406 327 3350
rjeffrey@mtneuro.com

The Montana Pain Initiative and 3rd Annual Conference in Bozeman

Untreated and under-treated pain is a serious public health problem. The American Pain Foundation estimates that 76.5 million people suffer from persistent pain. Pain and other symptoms can be debilitating, causing not only physical strain but serious financial, social and quality of life issues for many pain sufferers.     It is estimated that chronic pain in the United States costs $100 billion annually in lost wages, worker productivity and health care expenses. Local statistics are difficult to obtain, but 62% of 329 Montana respondents in a convenience sample study indicated they experienced pain (results can be viewed at www.MTPain.org).

Pain and symptom management are complex, multi-faceted issues. Social, cultural and psychological factors play significant roles in the experience of pain, the willingness or reluctance to report it and the way it is managed.   Disparities in pain treatment and experience exist between men and women, veteran and non-veteran populations, racial and ethnic groups, and elderly populations. Factors such as racial profiling for diversion, gender-bias in treatment, and higher rates of pain incidence for institutionalized elders all contribute to complexity in pain management. Effective pain management cuts across professional disciplines and may include a variety of providers and modalities of treatment. Health care systems, however, are generally compartmentalized and do not necessarily facilitate easy communications among providers. Insurance coverage, similarly, is not comprehensive; reimbursement for pain treatment may be limited and may tend to over-emphasize certain modalities

The Montana Pain Initiative, which is a project of the American Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, is a grassroots, interdisciplinary coalition dedicated to improving the quality of life of Montanans with pain by removing the barriers to effective pain assessment and management through research, education, and advocacy.

The primary activities of the Montana Pain Initiative (MTPI) are to:
•    Improve public policy to reduce barriers to appropriate pain management;
•    Improve provider practice to ensure effective pain assessment and management;
•    Institutionalize effective pain management policy and structure in long-term care facilities, home health agencies, and rural community hospitals, including Indian Health Services and Tribal Health facilities;
•    Work with lawmakers to reduce the incidence of addiction and diversion while keeping patient care as the primary focus;
•    Conduct public engagement and patient advocacy to improve knowledge of pain management issues; and,
•    Evaluate the impact of MTPI activities.

For more information about the Montana Pain Initiative, please contact Kaye Norris, PhD, 406-728-1004, ext 208, or kayenorris@hughes.net .

Montana Pain Initiative 3rd Annual Conference:
Practical Approaches to Managing Pain

September 18-19, 2009
Best Western Gran Tree Inn
Bozeman, Montana

For more information go to: http://www.mtpain.org/conference.htm

Contributed by Ashley Olsen, LCSW (605) 390-9283 praxispainsolutions@ymail.com from Bozeman

Significant and Sweeping Administrative Rule Changes Impacting Social Workers and Counselors

Proposed Montana Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Professional Counselors (including Social Worker and Professional Counselor “Candidates”) Administrative Rule Amendments “Walkthrough”

The Montana Board of Social Work Examiners and Licensed Professional Counselors has written a number of significant Rule changes. Everyone who is engaged in the process of supervision towards becoming licensed as an LCSW or an LCPC is required to maintain and submit a detailed record of clinical supervision which must reflect specific clinical issues. There are also new rules regarding inactive status.

The Board had extended its comment period to June 11, 2009 and the final rules will go into effect in July, 2009. Download the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Please understand the scope of these proposed amendments is comprehensive and sweeping. At the end of each section a “Reason” for the proposed amendment is provided in the Notice of Public Hearing Amendment download.

Overview of Proposed Amendments (Administrative Rules of Montana) for Social Workers and Professional Counselors
24.219.301-Proposed Definitions:
•    Changes/clarifies the definition of Supervision for Social Work Applicants.
•    Defines “Dual Relationship”
•    Defines “Exploitation”
•    Defines “Sexual Contact”

24.219.401-Fee Schedule for Social Workers, re: inactive status

24.219.501-Application Procedures for Social Workers-Provides that Social Work Applicants will have a maximum of 3 attempts to successfully pass the licensure exam. Provisions for not passing after 3 attempts are delineated.

24.219.504-License Requirements
•    Requiring the Social Work and Professional Counselor Applicant to maintain a record of supervision & outlines the areas to be covered in supervision including:
•    identified theory base
•    application of a differential diagnosis,
•    establishing and monitoring a treatment plan,
•    development and appropriate use of the professional relationship,
•    assessing the client for risk of imminent danger,
•    implementing a professional and ethical relationship with clients and colleagues
•    content demonstrating the applicant's developing competence in the areas identified
•    attestation of the record of supervision by the supervisor. Falsification or misrepresentation of the record of supervision shall be considered unprofessional conduct and may result in discipline of the supervisor's license
*Note: The Board will be developing a format for documenting records of supervision.

24.219.509-Inactive Status and Conversion from Inactive to Active Status

24.219.2301 Unprofessional Conduct for Social Workers
•    Clarifies prohibition of sexual conduct with clients and former clients
•    Describes prohibition of an exploitative dual relationship with a client or former client
•    Describes prohibition against bartering with clients or former clients