Counselor held for court in fraud

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by deanhughson, Jul 11, 2005.

Loading...
  1. deanhughson

    deanhughson New Member

  2. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    So Shal gets the Shaft(esbury). It doesn't sound like he hurt anyone but maybe they'll make him pay back the 150K. More importantly, maybe the people who hired him will learn something from all this (I'm guessing that they hold the liability and they will have to pay back the 150K). Some people simply insist on learning the hard way.
    Jack
     
  3. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Jack: "It doesn't sound like he hurt anyone..."

    John: Wait a minute. The job required a degree in counseling. Presumably one learns stuff while pursuing such a degree legitimately that enables one to perform well as a counselor. This person presumably had no training. Isn't it reasonable to hypothesize that some, perhaps many, of his clients suffered, vis à vis what they might have gotten from a trained counselor?
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    With only a bachelor's degree he should have only been a case manager, not a counselor. I thought PA had stricter regs than this.
     
  5. deanhughson

    deanhughson New Member

    training

    Indeed it appears that some suffered and the 'fake degree' didn't help him provide services. Billing for taking someone bowling shows he missed an ethics class or 2 I would suppose.
     
  6. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Re: training

    It is not surprising to me to find that someone in trouble for academic fraud so often is also guilty of other transgressions.
     
  7. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Yes well I suppose that I said that poorly. I simply meant that he didn't physically hurt anyone. Perhaps that distinction is not worth making in this case.
    Jack
     
  8. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    I think it's important to keep this case in perspective and not blow it out of proportion - it is a Medicaid fraud case, nothing more. It is not, for better or worse, a state crusafe against a wazoo with a bogus degree.

    In Pennsylvania, anyone can counsel - the state's law (at the heaings for which I testified when the law was under consideration) is a voluntary title act, not a mandatory practice act. One need only be licensed to call himself or herself an LPC (Licensed Professional Counselor).

    Therefore, the notion that one needs a bachelor's degree (which, indeed, can be in anything) or that he or she can counsel only individual children (as opposed to groups) is a state Medicaid regulation, not a law. (That is, it is administrative rather than legislative.)

    Moreover, in Pennsylvania, counselors - whether degreed or not - can work with groups. At no point in the article was Shal referred to as a counselor, he was called "a member of the therapeutic support staff." In psychiatric environments, this includes everyone from psychiatric technicians ("psych techs") to activity aides, all of whom work with groups. And yes, campers, bowling is a legitimate counseling-related activity.

    The only question in this case is whether it is a billable activity under Pensylvania's Medicaid standards and, if so, under what category. And that will be determined at trial, not at a preliminary hearing before a district justice (who, in Pennsylvania, does not require a degree either) that did not even qualify as an arraignment (which was set at the hearing.

    It would be an interesting case to follow, but not the startling indictment of a schmuck with a British mail-order degree that it might appear to be on the surface. :D
     

Share This Page