The Financial Conundrum for Mental Health Practitioners

This article examines the ethical and legal considerations of pay arrangements between associated (nonmedical) mental health practitioners (MHPs), and concludes that, to avoid an elevated risk of improper fee splitting, caution is necessary when the financial arrangement involves a percentage arrangement. Not withstanding personal preferences, the direction and control within the relationship between associated MHPs may or may not justify the status of independent contractor. If there is a bona fide employment relationship, a percentage of billables (but not collections) for paying an associated MHP might be appropriate. Otherwise, one MHP would be entitled to reimbursement for only actual overhead expenses connected to the fees for services provided by the other MHP, but there should be no compensation for the referral per se. This article is a companion piece to Woody (2008).