Psychology Business Model

[3blake7]

As a patient of the Psychology business model for the last 4 years, I have some serious criticisms for the whole industry. I will first give you an outline of my experiences and then follow up with my criticisms. Psychology seems to be made up of two business models, the in-patient model and the out-patient model.

 

The in-patient model: I have experienced two different locations, one was a not-for-profit hospital and the other was a for-profit mental health facility. Both locations had identical business models with one very subtle difference. I will go into the subtle difference last. At the beginning you filled out some forms and had an interview with a psychologist, which lasted anywhere between 5 to 10 minutes. Once admitted, you were given a room, usually with another patient. You were told when to sleep and when to wake up. You were served breakfast in a room with other patients. After breakfast there was a group meeting where a nurse or social worker would attempt to lead the discussion. However most patients were not enthusiastic and participation was at a minimum. After the group meeting people would watch TV or something for a few hours. A single psychiatrist would see patients individually for only about 5 minutes each in order to prescribe them a medication, about 3 times a week. You would line up at the pharmacy window to take your medication a couple times a day. There was also like an art therapy session, where people would draw or paint for an hour or so. Sometimes there was music. You were pretty much required to spend a week in-patient once you were admitted. They would not let you leave, which I don't even understand how that is legal, especially when you were self-admitted. I personally did not see anything in the contract saying that I had to stay for a minimum of one week. They claimed that I had to have an interview with someone who would decide whether I can leave or not. They were apparently so understaffed that I was held hostage by bureaucracy.

 

I don't understand why my insurance company would pay for this. I was there for auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions must likely the result of social anxiety going haywire from too much stress from my first attempt at an intimate relationship. The entire time I was there, I did not see a psychologist. There was only group therapy sessions hosted by someone not technically qualified, like a nurse or social worker. My issues were too personal to be broadcasted in front of a group of complete strangers and considering the most common ailment was Generalized Anxiety Disorder, I find they whole business model counter-productive. It seems to me they were unwilling to invest the money on one-on-one therapy because that would make their business model less profitable so they came up with a high volume model which just doesn't work. All they did in the end, was medicate everyone based on a 5 minute interview and make them wait a week before they can regret asking for help. The for-profit health facility had one other element that I found distasteful and that was the nurses attempting to manipulate people, like setting up little challenges, like you have to ask for help, you have to ask for a blanket. It's like they were trying this one-size-fits-all mass therapy, like everyone was there for the same reason. I found it very annoying that I was there for one reason and had to jump through hoops for some mass therapy I didn't even need. The not-for-profit did not do this, but was otherwise exactly the same.

 

Out-patient was actually a little better because the patients in the self-group-therapy were actually there voluntarily. You actually got one-on-one appointments with a psychologist. I have had three psychologists. One was good, the other two I don't know if it's just the industry norm or they were particularly lazy. My first psychologist, when I had depression, not for auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions, was INVESTIGATIVE. He asked questions, about my past, when the symptoms first occurred, what their triggers were, how I felt about past experiences, helped me look at those past experiences in new ways, etc. He was pro-active, personally curious, and was like excited to find something and go "ah HA!". Then again he was a university professor practicing on the side. The other two psychologists, just sit there, "how was your day", "what would you like to talk about". It's more like small talk with someone you are paying $200 an hour to. I didn't pay you $200 an hour to have a pleasant conversation! I want answers! I want you to INVESTIGATE! Ugh.

 

I feel like therapy is going down the drain and businesses discovered it's more profitable just to feed everyone pills. Speaking of pills, I've tried all kinds and NOTHING works. If I want to try something new, I just switch psychiatrists. In my personal opinion, Cannabis is still the best anti-depressant and anti-anxiety on the market. Sometimes I think I am just being fed placebos and they want me to believe that it will work so it will work.

 

I personally think the best business model would be a psychologist that does INVESTIGATIVE THERAPY and then works with his personal staff of LIFE COACHES who do GRADUATED EXPOSURE THERAPY in the field.

 

My general criticism of the field of Psychology is that they need to get rid of these stereotypes, these labels with bundled up symptoms and just look at each patient as a unique individual with unique past experiences and unique defense mechanisms. They just need to have a huge list of defense mechanisms, let the patient go down the list, read the descriptions and rate them 1 through 5 then go down the list with the patient and ask them about each one, the experiences they had, identify triggers, etc. Then hand them off to a life coach. Forget the pills, they really don't seem to do anything and at worst should only be used temporarily as a way to facilitate the life coach and graduated exposure therapy.

Edited July 10, 2015 by 3blake7

[Endy0816]

 

© Prior to admitting a person on a voluntary basis, the designated psychiatric treatment facility or hospital must notify the person verbally and in writing of the legal consequences of voluntary admission in language that is understandable to the person, and reasonably believe that the person comprehends such consequences, including but not limited to:

 

(1) The person will not to be allowed to leave the hospital grounds without permission of the treating psychiatrist;

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title16/c050/index.shtml

 

This is what I'm guessing you ran afoul of.

[OptimisticCynic]

For a different experience of psychology, check out "The Focusing Institute" www.focusing.org . Note that psychology and psychiatry are not the same thing. Focusing is different in that they know what works. They learned it from patients who succeeded in getting better. In my opinion, they still do not know how or why it works. If you are like me, you won't care whether their explanations make sense, just so long as you get real results from the practice.

 

Psychological research has shown that investigating origins of dis-ease does not lead to cures for that dis-ease.