| In 2005 the American Psychological Association adopted an Evidence-Based Practices in Psychology (EBPP) policy. The epistemologically controversial EBPP ideals are at the forefront of an industrializing 21 st century psychology, have continued growing professionally, and are increasingly required for reimbursement by third-party payers. The co-optation of psychology's evidence-based practices by third-party payers signals a commoditization of psychology practice toward business interests, and an ethical crisis for which the evidence-based practice movement lacks the ethical framework for redress. The author's objective is to provide three new philosophical evaluative frameworks to demonstrate the nature and extent of the problem. Works by Michel Foucault are employed to argue that political and economic power interests have mainstreamed certain historical forms of psychological evidence, given rise to particular forms of health insurance, and ultimately led to the merging of third-party payer organizations over psychology. Works by Alasdair MacIntyre are engaged to evaluate the ethical limitations of psychology over its own practices, and argue that evidence-based psychology sustained by third-party payer organizations has led to ethical corruption of practice. Finally, works by Emmanuel Levinas are invoked to argue that only out of psychologist's asymmetrical, relational responsibility to patients can evidence-based practices be put in service of ethics, how reimbursement models can be structured to meet the demands of justice, and that third-party payer encroachment and constraint upon the face-to-face, psychotherapeutic relationship is an unwarranted interruption of ethical responsibility and a failure of justice.;Keywords: evidence-based practice, ethics, third-party payers, managed care. |
