The problem

Amendment 159: Towards state-sponsored psychotherapy?

Attacks against the plurality of approaches to mental health care are not new. Just a month ago, nearly fourteen organizations of psychologists and psychiatrists published a joint statement denouncing the remarks of the president of the French National Authority for Health (HAS) suggesting the possibility of making certain clinical recommendations legally binding.

The SNP (National Union of Psychologists) has also stated in numerous press releases that the “My Mental Health Support” program was a first step towards restricting psychologists and that the next step would involve the theoretical and methodological standardization of the profession. This political hypothesis is now unfolding before our eyes. Indeed, the ideology espoused by the Ministry is permeable and is now reflected in the proposals of some members of parliament. 

An amendment of extreme gravity for healthcare:
Amendment No. 159 to the Social Security Financing Bill (PLFSS), tabled in the Senate by Senators GUIDEZ, VERMEILLET, JACQUEMET, and Senator CANÉVET, provides a blatant demonstration of this. Adopted in committee, it will be debated in plenary session sometime in November.

This amendment proposes to prohibit, from January 1, 2026, all public funding of care, procedures and services claiming to be psychoanalytic or based on psychoanalytic theoretical foundations, regardless of the system: CMP, Mon Soutien Psy, medico-social establishments, private practice…

This means that thousands of professionals, psychologists as well as psychiatrists, and thousands, or even millions, of patients could be directly affected.

An ideological decision, not scientifically based.
This amendment, drafted without consultation with professionals or knowledge of clinical practice and fieldwork, establishes an arbitrary selection of methods that can benefit from public funds.

It is not based on robust scientific studies, but rather on a neoliberal ideology that constantly seeks to reduce healthcare to a series of indicators that can be used to cut costs. These savings will therefore be made at the expense of both professionals and patients.

This project demonstrates a persistent confusion between psychologists and medical professionals, invoking a “proven medical benefit” that is completely inconsistent with the status and responsibilities of psychologists. As a reminder, psychologists, not being included in the public health code, are neither medical professionals nor, even less so, paramedical professionals.

A misinterpretation of mental health care.
Reducing the quality of care to theoretical orientation alone goes against the most solid results of research: the therapeutic relationship being considered the major predictive factor of effectiveness, regardless of the approach.

The systematic and incantatory invocation of HAS recommendations demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the realities of mental health care. Psychological treatments cannot be standardized like somatic medical procedures: the complexity of the psyche, the uniqueness of individuals, and the diversity of clinical situations make standardizing methods impossible.

The plurality of approaches is an essential component of mental health care and is precisely part of the work of the psychologist who can, within the framework of their professional autonomy, assess the interest of using one method or another.  

An unacceptable political attack.
While it is up to parliamentarians to make the law, it is up to healthcare professionals to determine the appropriate methods within their field. It is important to respect everyone’s role. Proposing an amendment of such far-reaching consequences without consulting professional organizations is unacceptable and represents an attempt to legislate surreptitiously, which is all the more astonishing.

The union calls on senators to reject amendment 159.
We call on senators not to create state psychotherapy for ideological reasons, far from science, far from the field, far from clinical practice, and therefore to vote against this amendment in public session and not to retain it in the context of a possible joint committee. 

To defend the plurality of practices and reject any drift towards state-run psychotherapy, say NO to amendment 159!

Amendment link:https://www.senat.fr/amendements/2025-2026/122/Amdt_159.html