The Group Practice Website: Title Use, Unlicensed Practice, and Billing
You are the compliance reviewer for a three-clinician group practice in Fort Wayne. The owner, Dana, is an LMFT and has been the sole supervisor of record for every pre-licensure employee. The website lists three staff: 'Dana, LMFT'; 'Priya, Family Therapist'; and 'Marcus, Counseling Intern.' Priya holds a master's degree in human development and family studies and has logged roughly 1,400 direct client hours, but she has never held an Indiana license or registered with the Board as a pre-licensure trainee. She sees couples and families weekly, writes 'LMFT-track' on invoices, and Dana bills Priya's sessions to insurance under Dana's NPI with the note 'services provided under supervision.' Marcus is a first-semester master's student who runs the practice's Instagram account and has begun seeing two pro bono teen clients alone; no supervision contract exists. Dana leaves for twelve weeks of maternity leave and asks Priya to cover Dana's caseload, including Dana's individual clients with trauma histories.
1. Which of these arrangements violate Indiana's MFT licensure act, and which are only poor practice? Separate title-use problems from unauthorized-practice problems.
Read the worked answer
Indiana's licensure act operates on two fronts: it restricts who may practice marriage and family therapy and who may hold out as a marriage and family therapist. Analyze each person against both.
Priya fails both. Seeing couples and families weekly is the practice of marriage and family therapy, and no license authorizes it. Supervision does not cure this: supervision is the mechanism by which a qualified pre-licensure person accrues experience inside the Board's pathway, and that pathway requires the person to be registered and working under a qualifying supervisor. An unregistered trainee performing the same services is simply unlicensed practice. 'Family Therapist' on the website and 'LMFT-track' on invoices are title problems: the act protects the LMFT designation, and variations that a reasonable consumer would read as licensed status are treated the same way.
Marcus is also unlicensed practice - a first-semester student with no practicum agreement and no supervisor is not lawfully seeing clients, even for free. The Instagram account is a weaker point; marketing alone is not unauthorized practice, but any post containing client information would be a separate confidentiality problem.
Dana's exposure is derivative but real: aiding unlicensed practice, failing to supervise, and misrepresenting credentials are all grounds for discipline. Missing informed-consent paperwork, standing alone, is poor practice rather than a licensure violation - unless it rises to incompetence.
2. Dana asks whether her maternity leave changes anything. Identify the coverage and supervision decisions that must be made before she goes, and who bears responsibility for them.
Read the worked answer
Leave changes nothing about the legal requirements; it only removes the person who was satisfying them. The supervisor of record must actually supervise. A supervisor who is unavailable for twelve weeks cannot sign for hours accrued in her absence, and cannot 'lend' her supervision to an unqualified person by phone.
Before the leave: (1) Priya must stop providing therapy. Dana's caseload must be transferred to another licensed clinician or rescheduled; an unlicensed trainee cannot 'cover' trauma cases. (2) Marcus must stop seeing the two teens; if the university has a practicum structure, he can be reassigned to non-clinical duties, otherwise he stops clinical contact entirely. (3) If the practice employs any registered pre-licensure clinician, a Board-qualified substitute supervisor must be engaged in writing, with the supervisor's credentials verified, and each supervisee notified. (4) Clients must be told who will be responsible for their care, with a plan for records and continuity.
Responsibility sits with Dana as owner and supervisor of record. 'I was on leave' is not a defense to a supervision or unlicensed-practice complaint; the Board looks at whether the licensee put and kept compliant structures in place. Non-abandonment obligations also require a documented handoff rather than silence.
3. Evaluate the billing arrangement. What is the specific violation, and what are the likely consequences if both the Board and a payer review it?
Read the worked answer
Billing a payer for Priya's sessions under Dana's NPI states, implicitly and falsely, that Dana rendered the service. Incident-to-style billing does not rescue this: behavioral health services are billed by the rendering provider, and payers credential the individual who delivered the care. The claim also conceals a material fact - that the service was delivered by an unlicensed person - which is what converts a coding error into a misrepresentation.
The violation is therefore layered: unlicensed practice by Priya, aiding that practice by Dana, and submission of claims containing false information. Before the Board this supports discipline for fraud or deceit and for professional incompetence. Before a payer it produces recoupment of every affected claim, possible fraud referral, network termination, and a report to a national practitioner database in some contracts.
Repair requires stopping the arrangement immediately, self-auditing the date range, refunding or reversing affected claims, and documenting the corrective action. Do not rewrite the invoices to look better after the fact - altered records are a more serious problem than the original error. If a payer or the Board later asks, the licensee's accurate, documented account of what happened and what was fixed is worth far more than a reconstructed paper trail.