August 14, 2026

Yesterday, Laura Groshong, LICSW, CSWA Director of Policy and Practice, met with Jules Sproul, the Education Policy Advisor for Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and David Connolly, the lobbyist for American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. Ms. Sproul reiterated Sen. Murray’s support for the language that would put LCSWs, LMFTs, and LPCs back in the “professional” degree category and keep federal loan limits at the higher level for these groups (see below). As you may remember, the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) rule put LCSWs and other mental health groups in the “graduate” degree category, effectively limiting federal loans for LCSWs by half.

Ms. Sproul said it would be very helpful if constituents for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) would let them know that they want them to support the Manager’s Amendment, which Sen. Murray would include for us:

Manager’s Amendment - None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to administer Title IV federal student aid programs in a manner that does not designate advanced behavioral health programs as professional degree programs. For purposes of this section, the term “advanced behavioral health program” means having completed a Master’s program in social work, marriage and family therapy, or professional counseling; having successfully completed at least two years of supervised experience; and passing a national examination or alternative path to licensure to prepare graduates to provide behavioral health services in independent mental health practice.

Even non-constituents can let them know they support the Manager’s Amendment. Go to http://www.senate.gov/ for contact information. You can also send this message to your own senators, as they talk to each other regularly. Here is the message that needs to be sent to Sens. Murkowski and Collins:

“I am an LCSW constituent and a member of the Clinical Social Work Association, writing to ask you to include a Manager’s Amendment to the RISE Rule which would reinstate social workers as members of the “professional degree” category. Putting MSW students in the “graduate” degree category will cut federal funding in half, significantly impacting the ability of future clinical social workers to get the finances needed to acquire an MSW. As the largest group of behavioral health providers in the country – over 400,000 – it is crucial to maintain the ‘pipeline’ for future clinical social workers. Further, the education of LCSWs meets all the criteria for the professional degree category, i.e., a required degree beyond a Bachelor’s degree; and requires licensure, that are in the RISE Rule. Thank you for your support of this Amendment.”

As always, please let Laura know when you have sent your message(s) by emailing her at lwgroshong@clinicalsocialworkassociation.org.

June 12, 2026

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare (CAQH), a credentialing database within the United States, has been the standardized, electronic service where healthcare providers submitted their professional, personal, and practice information into a centralized online database since 2000. Instead of filling out lengthy applications for every insurance company, providers entered their data one time and authorized specific health plans and networks to access it. It was a non-profit organization used by millions of clinicians.

As of January 6, 2026, CAQH’s name has changed to DataSpring. The mission of DataSpring has changed as well. For more than 25 years CAQH was fundamentally a nonprofit credentialing agency that provided health care credentialing for clinicians treating more than 75% of Americans with health insurance. DataSpring claims that becoming a for-profit company will not affect the way that the credentialing functions; it claims that this change will improve the speed at which claims are processed and result in fewer mistakes. (https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/caqh-rebrands-as-dataspring-to-power-the-next-era-of-healthcare-data-1036231591?op=1)

Another view of the way that DataSpring will change the way CAQH operates is offered by Mental Health Professionals Equity Alliance (MHPEA): “For years, mental health professionals have worked under conditions shaped not by clinical standards but by financial and corporate interests… But instead of being supported, independent providers found themselves navigating shrinking reimbursement, opaque insurance practices, and platform models that extracted value without delivering long-term sustainability.” (https://www.mhpea.org/about)

The likelihood that these common for-profit practices are occurring is not surprising, given the fact that DataSpring is run by United Healthcare along with eleven other shareholder companies representing Cigna, Aetna, Elevance Health, Humana, and a coalition of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. The board chair is a UnitedHealth Group executive.

As you may also know, the companies that have been providing referrals and processing claims from services like Headway and Alma, are also funded by commercial insurers.

CAQH, now DataSpring, is not just a credentialing database; it is a mandatory infrastructure that affects:

✦ Every provider enrollment decision

✦ Every network participation determination

✦ Every directory listing that patients use to find you

✦ Every credentialing process

Many members are asking us, what risks do these changes to a for-profit credentialing system owned by most major insurance companies represent to LCSWs? Here are a few concerns:

Data Use: DataSpring is a for-profit company owned by insurers. LCSWs and other health care clinicians wonder whether the information we provide for credentialing could be used for more than just administrative processes.

Confidentiality: The fact that DataSpring is a for-profit company may undermine the confidentiality of all the sensitive financial, legal, and practice details clinicians must submit just to get credentialed and stay in network. Patient confidentiality may not be protected if this information is shared, repackaged and exposed to third parties for commercial profit.

Conflict of Interest: Since insurers own the entity, decisions are likely to serve the profit motives of insurers, not the confidentiality of patients. Policies may slowly start leaning toward what works best for health plans, not necessarily what makes life easier—or fairer—for providers, and policies may be rewritten to take power away from clinicians.

To be clear, the changes made explicit by DataSpring becoming a for-profit organization, being owned by commercial insurers, and having ties to referral sources, are problems that did not occur overnight. This federal administration is supportive of corporate profits over patient confidentiality and LCSWs having the right to make treatment decisions; it has hastened a process that has been happening for the past 20 to 25 years. Changing this destructive culture is a high priority for CSWA, working with other mental health and health care organizations. But this is not a sudden development or one that can be resolved easily.

Please let us know if you have any questions by emailing CSWA Director of Policy and Practice, Laura Groshong, LICSW,  at lwgroshong@clinicalsocialworkassociation.org.  

May 20, 2026

The Association of Social Work Boards, the Clinical Social Work Association, and the National Association of Social Workers have ex officio members on the Executive Committee of the Social Work Compact Commission and are the authors of this document. On April 12, 2024, the Social Work Interstate Compact officially launched after the Compact bill passed in seven state legislatures. State Commissioners were nominated in the Summer of 2024, with the inaugural meeting of the Commission in September 2024 and the Executive Committee began meeting in February of 2025.

1. When will states begin issuing multi-state licenses through the Compact? There is no definite date, but likely within 9 to 12 months.

2. How many states have joined the Compact to date? There are 32 states in the Compact as of May 18, 2026. More states are anticipated to be added by the end of the 2026 legislative session. An up-to-date list of states in the Compact can be found at https://swcompact.org/compact-map/. If states pass the Compact with material language changes - meaning the legislation wasn’t passed exactly as written in the Compact bill - then those states may have to change something in their legislation before they can become part of the Compact. So far, this has been the case in South Carolina and New Mexico.

3. What is the Compact Commission? The Commission is the governing body made up of participating member states. It adopts the rules that administer and govern the Compact. Each state's licensing board appoints a delegate to serve on the Commission once they have passed the Compact. The Compact Executive Committee, which includes seven delegates and four ex officio members, manages Commission operations between meetings supports compliance and administration, and handles interim business not reserved for the full Commission. There is currently a Rulemaking Committee and a Finance Committee, with other committees to be developed.

4. How is the Compact being funded? The Social Work Compact has received generous support through grant funding provided by the Department of Defense and from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). ASWB supports the Compact through grant administration and financial support where funding is not otherwise covered. Eventually the Compact will be self-funded.

5. How will state licensure boards interface with the Compact? Once the data system is operational in states and the commission has finalized all necessary rulemaking, applications will be made available for social workers to apply for a multistate license through their home state. Once eligibility is confirmed by the home state, all fees are paid, and a social worker is granted a multistate license, they will be able to practice in all other member states of the compact without any further steps necessary.

6. How will complaints against Compact members be handled? Complaints will be adjudicated in each Compact state and sent to the Home State Board of the social worker for any other adjudication. Remote states can restrict practice in their state. The Home State can restrict practice in all Compact states. Notifications of actionable complaints will be made to all Compact states via the Compact’s data system.

7. Can a social worker have more than one Home State or access the Compact through a state they do not live in? No. The social worker’s home state must be where their primary residence is located (domicile), regardless of where their office is located or any other social work licenses they hold.

8. What is the estimated range of cost for multi-state license? The license fee will be set by each state which will include an administrative fee paid by the state board to the Commission for operations including the data system. All fees are yet to be determined.

If you have other questions, contact your ex officio representative, listed below.

Karen Goodenough, PhD, MSW, LGSW

Social Work Interstate Compact Rep.

National Association of Social Workers

kgoodenough.naswmn@socialworkers.org

Laura Groshong, LICSW

Director of Policy and Practice

Clinical Social Work Association

lwgroshong@clinicalsocialworkassociation.org

Jennifer Henkel, LCSW

Senior Director of Member Engagement & Regulatory Services

Association of Social Work Boards

JHenkel@aswb.org

May 4, 2026

Many thanks to the approximately 300 CSWA members who sent messages to Department of Education (DoE) about the problems with the proposed change to Federal loans for social work education through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Thanks also to this year’s CSWA intern, Jordyn Skahill, who presented at a Congressional briefing on this issue. Though we were part of the over 80,000 comments that were submitted in opposition to this rule, the rule has gone into effect as of May 1, 2026. This means that the limits for Federal loans have been lowered from $50,000 per year to $20,000 per year and from a total of $200,000 to $100,000 over all. The regulatory reason this has occurred is that the status of social work education has been changed from a “professional” degree to a “graduate” degree.

The rule is called the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) which in addition to limits on Federal loans for degrees in social work affects graduate degrees in education, occupational therapy, naturopathic medicine, nursing, physical therapy, physician assistant, pilot training, professional counselors, marriage and family therapists, and public health.

RISE was part of the One Big Beautiful Bill that was passed in July of 2025. Here is a summary that DoE gave for changing graduate social work degrees to “graduate” (https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2025-OPE-0944-0001):

The Department has determined that MSW and DSW would not meet the professional degree definition because neither degree is generally required to obtain an entry-level licensure in the social work field or to begin work in a profession. A person may obtain work as a social worker after earning a bachelor's degree. Most states license BSW holders as certified social workers, making the baccalaureate level degree the one necessary to begin practice in the social work profession. In addition, individuals who are licensed with a BSW may later obtain an MSW with only one year of additional coursework, for a total of five years of education compared to six years as provided for in the professional degree definition.

The Department is aware that individuals who have earned an MSW or DSW may obtain work as a clinical social worker, which allows an individual to perform similar work in a supervisory role or to take on heavier caseloads. In some cases, a clinical social worker may perform work that is different than other social workers, but the Department does not believe the statute permits the classification of clinical social work as a separate and distinct profession, as opposed to a specialization or concentration.

This represents a total misunderstanding of the ways that all states and District of Columbia give LCSWs a scope of practice that allows us to diagnose and provide psychotherapy independently. DoE gives a small recognition of mental health clinicians in this statement in the final rule: “The Department acknowledges that many people who work in counseling, marriage and family therapy, social work, nursing, and other practice-oriented fields are professional and deserve respect and praise for their work.” This lukewarm statement seems to contradict the other reasoning for changing graduate social work education from a “professional” to a “graduate” degree.

CSWA is working with other national mental health associations to seek legal or legislative remedies to this unfair change. We will be giving members the results of these efforts, which will hopefully be successful, after the change goes into effect on July 1, 2026.

Contact: Laura Groshong, LICSW, CSWA Director of Policy and Practice, lwgroshong@clinicalsocialworkassociation.org

April 8, 2026

The Supreme Court decision in the case of Chiles v. Salazar appears to some therapists to be a major blow to LGBTQ rights, mainly to children and adolescents who are gay, lesbian, queer, transgender or a different gender from the one assigned at birth. These minors, specifically transgender minors, have been a major target of the current administration. This decision allows a “talk therapist” in Colorado to practice conversion “therapy” to attempt to change the sexual gender of minor patients, viewing the case as a matter of free speech, not the harmful nature of conversion “therapy”. There have been many concerns about the way this decision will affect the 23 states that prohibit conversion “therapy”. The fact that the therapist involved in this case is a Licensed Professional Counselor, whose Code of Ethics parallels the CSWA Code of Ethics, makes this case even more troubling.

This decision highlights a major conflict that has long concerned CSWA: the way that the legal system and the mental health system do not see data the same way. The right of anyone who claims to be practicing some kind of psychotherapy can be harmful if the person is not ethically-trained and licensed. Additionally, religious beliefs, often the main driver of conversion “therapy”, are not always based on helping people understand and accept themselves as psychotherapy does in an evidence-based way.

This decision has been seen as a step in eliminating the right of minors to identify and accept their sexual orientation or gender identity. Much suffering has occurred as some families, friends, and wider communities have demeaned the experience of queer and trans youth. Understanding the nature of Chiles v. Salazar, and the way it may contribute to the suffering that has occurred because of an individual’s effort to be authentically themselves, including the way they experience their gender and sexual orientation, is crucial.

CSWA strongly supports the rights of trans youth (“At Risk: Trans Children and Adolescents”, 2023, CSWA website) and opposes any efforts to deny youth their right to experience their gender identity and sexual orientation. The high rates of suicidal ideation and self-harm in this group demonstrate the ways that denying their reality has caused serious psychological damage.

This decision was based on the Court’s view of Chiles v. Salazar as a free speech issue, not on helping queer and trans youth accept their emotional reality. CSWA believes that ethical psychotherapists do not direct anyone to change their self-image or personal beliefs; rather LCSWs do their best to help minors and their parents understand the challenges that queer and trans youth face and how to navigate them. The belief that queer and trans youth are making a choice that can be reversed is similar to the long-discredited belief that the same should be done for adults with a gay, lesbian, or queer identity. The Colorado practitioner rejects trans identity, as all conversion “therapy” intends to do, and rejects the trans experience as authentic and valid. This is the opposite of how licensed LCSWs have been trained to help others through psychotherapy. The parents or guardians of minors with a self-image that is not consistent with their assigned sex can help minors find a licensed therapist who can help the minor accept their experience, or find a therapist who attacks their identity, as conversion “therapy” does.

Chiles v. Salazar has been misunderstood by some to be a blanket rejection of the laws that prohibit the use of conversion “therapy”. It simply allows the plaintiff who brought the case to practice conversion “therapy” as an individual. This may certainly lead to a broader expansion of allowing conversion “therapy”, without considering the harm that can be done to youth by denying their gender experience. This damage is why 23 states have prohibited conversion “therapy” and six other states have partial prohibition (https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy) .

In summary, Chiles v. Salazar has the potential to undermine ethical psychotherapy practice and cause emotional harm to queer and trans youth. For this reason, CSWA opposes this decision and will work to have it overturned legislatively in Colorado.

References

Austin, L., Craig, S., D’Souza, S., McInroy, L. (2022) “Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors”, Interpersonal Violence, 2022,DOI: 10.1177/0886260520915554

CNN, 2022. “This record-breaking year for anti-transgender legislation would affect minors the most.” (https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-legislation-2021/index.html)

NIMH (2022). “Understanding the Characteristics of Suicide in Young Children.”

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2021/understanding-the-characteristics-of-suicide-in-young-children

Stern, M. “How in the World Was the Supreme Court’s Awful Conversion Therapy Ruling 8–1?”, Slate, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/03/supreme-court-awful-conversion-therapy-kagan-sotomayor-why.html (Slate)

https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy

Contact: Laura Groshong, LICSW, CSWA Director of Policy and Practice, lwgroshong@clinicalsocialworkassociation.org

March 27, 2026

As you know, LCSWs have been reimbursed by Medicare at a rate that is 75% of what clinical psychologists are paid for psychotherapy codes in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule since 1994. CSWA sees this disparity as based on a misunderstanding of the psychotherapy services that clinical social workers provide, though the fact that we are eligible to use the same psychotherapy codes as the other disciplines should be self-explanatory.

Another effort is being made to partially correct this disparity, requiring LCSWs to be paid at 85% of psychologists and psychiatrists for psychotherapy services, following many brave attempts over the years spearheaded by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), until she retired. LCSWs now have new champions in John Barrasso, MD (R-WY) and Christopher Coons (D-DE), and Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Paul Tonko (D-NY) through the introduction of the Mental Health Access and Provider Support Act (S.4202/H.R. 8081). While CSWA would like to see parity with all mental health disciplines for LCSWs, this bill would be an improvement.

Now is the time to contact your senators and representatives in Congress to support these bills. Here is the message that should be given (using your own words is fine) by going to https://www.congress.gov/contact-us:

“I am a constituent, a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) and a member of the Clinical Social Work Association. Please support Mental Health Access and Provider Support Act (S.4202/H.R. 8081) which will give LCSWs reimbursement for providing important mental health services that is needed. The payment disparity between LCSWs and psychologists for providing the same services and using the same psychotherapy codes is unfair. Let’s correct this disparity and give LCSWs, who provide 20% of all mental health services through Medicare (CMS, 2024), a fair reimbursement rate.”

As always, please let CSWA Director of Policy and Practice, Laura Groshong, know when you have sent your messages by contacting her at lwgroshong@clinicalsocialworkassociation.org.

March 2, 2026

By Laura Groshong, LICSW, Director of Policy and Practice

I've received many questions about the new Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations that went into effect today. These new rules apply to all LCSWs who receive Federal funding, i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran’s Administration, etc., AND self-identify as treating patients with substance abuse disorders. The rules also apply to an LCSW receiving reports about a patient’s substance use treatment provided elsewhere. If an LCSW does not meet these criteria, they do not need to make the following changes to their Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP).

The reason for the changes to the NPP is that there was a discrepancy between the confidentiality standards for psychotherapy as defined in HIPAA rules and confidentiality standards as defined in federal law under 42 C.F.R. Part 2 (“Part 2”). The language that must be included in an LCSW’s NPP is as follows:

“Use and Disclosure of Substance Use Disorder Records Subject to 42 CFR Part 2: If applicable, your substance use disorder (“SUD”) records are protected by federal law under 42 C.F.R. Part 2 (“Part 2”). This law provides extra confidentiality protections and requires a separate patient consent for the use and disclosure of SUD counseling notes. Each disclosure made with patient consent must include a copy of the consent or a clear explanation of the scope of the consent. It must also be accompanied by a written notice containing the language in 42 CFR Part 2.32(a). Disclosure of these records requires your explicit written consent, except in limited circumstances such as: (a) Medical Emergencies: to the extent necessary to treat you, (b) Reporting Crimes on Program Premises, (c) Child Abuse Reporting: In connection with incidents of suspected child abuse or neglect to appropriate state or local authorities, and (d) Fundraising: We will provide you with an opportunity to decline to receive any fundraising communications prior to making such communications. You may revoke this consent at any time.

Prohibitions on Use and Disclosure of Part 2 Records: SUD records received from programs subject to Part 2, or testimony relaying the content of such records, shall not be used or disclosed in civil, criminal, administrative, or legislative proceedings against you unless based on your written consent, or a court order after notice and an opportunity to be heard is provided to you or the holder of the record, as provided in Part 2. A court order authorizing use or disclosure must be accompanied by a subpoena or other legal requirement compelling disclosure before the requested SUD record is used or disclosed. If SUD records are disclosed to us or our business associates pursuant to your written consent for treatment, payment, and healthcare operations, we or our business associates may further use and disclose such health information without your written consent to the extent that the HIPAA regulations permit such uses and disclosures, consistent with the other provisions in this Notice regarding PHI.” (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-2)

One other change is the creation of “SUD Counseling Notes”, a category like Psychotherapy Notes, which allows LCSWs to now have private notes about substance use disorders. This is not required, just as Psychotherapy Notes are not required, but is a new option for substance use disorders.

Please let me know if you have any questions about this new HIPAA Rule by contacting me at lwgroshong@clinicalsocialworkassociation.org.

February 15, 2026

By Laura Groshong, LICSW, Director of Policy and Practice

There is a lot happening legislatively that affects LCSWs. This edition of The Aware Advocate summarizes four issues that CSWA wants members to be aware of, including one request to contact members of Congress. The issues are 1) the current status of telemental health for LCSWs; 2) the decrease in Psychology Today referrals for some LCSWs;  3) the 7 Cups lawsuit; and *4) the proposed changes to MSW degrees from “Professional” to “Graduate” with a significant limit on federal loans – REQUIRES ACTION.

Update on Medicare Telemental Health Coverage

Here we are again, having survived threats to continued coverage of Medicare telemental health treatment which were resolved in the Continuing Resolution signed on February 3. The good news is that there is a little more breathing room regarding Medicare coverage of virtual mental health treatment. The Continuing Resolution that was signed on February 3, 2026, extends coverage of virtual treatment until the end of 2027. This is an improvement over the three to six month extensions that have typically been put in place over the past two years. This decision luckily means that the in-person requirements have also been put on hold.

Psychology Today Referrals

Some of you may be aware that there has been a significant decrease for many LCSWs and other disciplines in referrals from Psychology Today. Depending on location, many LCSWs who had reliable streams of referrals from PT have seen them dwindle to less than half of what they used to have. An excellent article on this problem can be viewed at https://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2026/01/therapist-forums-buzzing-over-drop-in-psychology-today-referrals/. There are some reports that Psychology Today is giving preference to profiles of therapists who work for third party platforms, such as Octave, Alma, Grow, or Rula. Psychology Today vigorously denies this.

7 Cups Lawsuit

A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7 Cups, the group that has listed LCSWs on their website as connected to them without permission. There are eight plaintiffs from four disciplines, including LCSWs. CSWA and the Psychotherapy Action Network (PSiAN) filed a cease-and-desist letter against them last year, which is how the firm that has filed the suit heard about CSWA. We have been in contact with the lead attorney and may participate in the case as it moves forward. It is gratifying to see CSWA’s efforts to stop 7 Cups being validated by this lawsuit. We will keep you apprised of the progress in this case.

**“Professional” to “Graduate” Rule for LCSWs**

As we have brought to your attention over the past four months, the Department of Education has decided to change the way that MSW degrees, and many other Masters programs, have begun the process of changing the degree designation from Professional to Graduate. This will significantly lower the FAFSA funding available. In spite of the outstanding testimony given by our intern, Jordyn Skahill, at a highly successful Congressional briefing last month, the Department has maintained this decision in their final rule. As an aside, CSWA is very proud of Jordyn as the only student who gave testimony at the briefing.

It is time for us to send comments on this regulation to https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2025-OPE-0944-0001. It is important to use your own language; any cut and paste comment will be bundled and less helpful. The points to make should be around the following issues:

- Overall impact on access to mental health services. Consider the downstream effects of these proposed changes on healthcare access, behavioral health capacity, and the broader social service infrastructure.

- Funding for MSW degrees. Changing the MSW from a Professional to a Graduate degree would significantly limit Federal funding for our degree and lead to crushing financial burden if commercial loans are needed.

- LCSWs as the largest group of mental health providers. There are over 400,000 LCSWs in the country with one of the lowest rates of complaint. Limiting access to MSW education will make it harder for patients to have access to LCSW mental health services.

Comments must be submitted by March 2, 2026. Please let me know when you have submitted your comments by emailing me at lwgroshong@clinicalsocialworkassociation.org.

February 2, 2026

The chaos surrounding telemental health rules since October 1, 2025, has made it difficult for LCSWs to know whether we will continue to have Medicare coverage for patients who receive mental health treatment virtually. The good news was that in November 2025, CMS passed a rule that allowed behavioral health services, and audio-only mental health services, to be in place even as other telehealth services were being cut completely. The bad news was that the in-person requirement for patients that were seen for the first time after October 1 is still in place. Please see CSWA’s alert regarding these rules.

There was a kind of waiver for patients who would be “burdened” by having to see an LCSW in-person. CSWA believes that option is still in place and should be documented in the record. We have prepared an example document, available to members only.

As you have no doubt heard, it appears there is a brief government shutdown, which started this past weekend, until the House can pass the revised Continuing Resolution (CR), which passed the Senate on Friday, January 30. The President has indicated he will sign this CR. The CR may last for two years, which would be quite a relief after the three-month CRs that we have been dealing with for the past six months.

The best summary of the Medicare rules governing telehealth can be found in the CMS Q&A from November 2025. Questions 5 and 6 have the most detail about telemental health.

CSWA will continue to track these changes and confirm them for you as they occur. Please let Laura Groshong, LICSW, CSWA Director of Policy and Practice, know if you have any questions at lwgroshong@clinicalsocialworkassociation.org.

January 30, 2026

The Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA) is outraged by the killings of people by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the detention and deportation of many people who are legally residing in the United States, and by the indiscriminate attempts to violently suppress innocent people from legally protected, peaceful protests.

The language being used by this administration to demean and condemn persons of color has created an environment that threatens community safety, undermines public trust, and inflicts profound harm. This attitude cannot be detached from the brutality of killing our citizens of all backgrounds, as we have seen in Minnesota.

As clinical social workers, we know that secondary trauma hurts those who witness the trauma being inflicted directly on others. All of us who have witnessed the deaths of two Minnesotans and the injuries inflicted on many others are being traumatized, not only by the violence being inflicted, but by attempts to misrepresent the circumstances that have led to these acts.

Part of CSWA's mission is to represent, protect, and amplify the voices of clinical social workers as we strive to create a just, healthy, and inclusive society. One of our core values as social workers is social justice. CSWA encourages everyone to let their members of Congress know how the pain and suffering that ICE agents are causing hurts everyone with a simple message: ICE must follow the laws of this nation, which include not inflicting harm on law-abiding citizens. Find contact information for your US Senators here (https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm). Find your US Representative here (https://www.house.gov/representatives).