Taube, D. O., Shapiro, D. L., Harster, K., Cruitt, P., & Maddux, J. (2023). Problems with the interjurisdictional regulation of psychological practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 54(6), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000536

It is a pleasure to announce the publication of this new open access article. The paper explores the limitations of PSYPACT. While the compact is not a perfect solution, Dr. Maddux noted it is particularly timely and advantageous, if not necessary, because of our nation’s healthcare, competency, and public safety hiring problems.

Dr. Maddux reminds readers that forensic mental health assessments are often one-time meetings. Therefore, unlike a treating psychologist, a forensic evaluator is unlikely to be caught off guard by a need to provide a psychological service while vacationing outside of the designated home state (i.e., the only place the evaluator is permitted to provide a telehealth service under PSYPACT).

Also, Dr. Maddux takes the position that it is not unethical to abide by PSYPACT rules in certain situations rather than engaging in civil disobedience. He described his struggle to understand psychologists’ exposure to liability for following the law, especially given a host of other issues that could be contributing to (or causing) a fictitious patient’s harmful circumstance. Instead, Dr. Maddux points out that the psychologist in the paper’s case illustration could have quickly leveraged other rules, such as policy to expedite the issuance of a license in Michigan.

In addition to policies in place that complement PSYPACT and its limitations, Dr. Maddux also provides some predictions about how APA’s Telehealth Guidelines, which are currently being revised, can also help to remedy PSYPACT-created difficulties.