There is a specific and expensive misunderstanding about PSYPACT®, and it goes like this: the psychologist obtains an APIT®, concludes they are now cleared to practise in forty-odd jurisdictions, starts seeing clients in a new state, and bills as usual.
The claims deny. Or worse, they pay, and two years later the payer audits, decides the provider was not properly enrolled for services rendered in that state, and demands the money back with interest.
The authority to treat and the right to be paid are different questions with different answers.
What the APIT actually settles
It settles licensure. The Authority to Practice Interjurisdictional Telepsychology means you are lawfully permitted to deliver telepsychology to a client located in a participating jurisdiction without holding that state's license. That is a real and valuable thing — before the compact, the same work required a full license in every state a client sat in.
It settles nothing about reimbursement.
Medicare: mostly good news
CMS has indicated that Medicare will approve enrollment for providers who meet their state's licensure requirements and any requirements established under interstate licensure compacts, PSYPACT® included. In practice this means the compact route is recognized for Medicare enrollment purposes rather than treated as a gap.
Recognized is not automatic. You still enroll. The point is that your compact authority counts as a valid basis, which was genuinely uncertain for a period.
Commercial payers: this is where it breaks
Commercial contracts are negotiated per state, and frequently per plan within a state. Being in-network with a Blue Cross plan in Texas does precisely nothing for a patient covered by a Blue Cross plan in Illinois. They are different legal entities with different networks, different fee schedules, and different credentialing files.
So a psychologist with an APIT® who begins seeing a client in a new state is, from the payer's perspective, an out-of-network provider — regardless of how lawful the treatment is.
Three practical failure modes follow:
Silent out-of-network processing. The claim pays at out-of-network rates and the client gets an unexpected bill. You find out when they call, upset, and the therapeutic relationship absorbs the damage.
Outright denial. Cleaner, in that nobody is misled, but you have already done the work.
Retroactive clawback. The worst version. Claims pay for months, an audit reconstructs the enrollment position, and recoupment covers the whole period. Payers can and do reach back years.
The mechanics people miss
Beyond enrollment itself, three details generate a disproportionate share of denials in telepsychology billing:
The CAQH telehealth section. Frequently the first place a payer looks to confirm a provider actually offers remote services. An incomplete section produces friction that looks like a credentialing problem and is really a data-entry problem.
Modifiers. Telehealth modifiers — 95 and GT among them — are not interchangeable across payers, and requirements have shifted repeatedly since 2020. A modifier that was correct for a payer in 2023 may not be correct now.
Place of service codes. POS 02 and POS 10 distinguish where the patient is, and getting this wrong is a common and quietly consequential error, because it can change the reimbursement rate rather than trigger a clean rejection.
What to actually do
Treat enrollment as a parallel track that starts when the compact work starts, not after. The sequence that works:
- Decide which states you intend to serve — not which ones the APIT® reaches, which ones you will genuinely practise into.
- For each, identify the payers your realistic client population carries.
- Begin enrollment applications for those payers in those states. This is slow, and it is slow in a way you cannot compress by wanting it faster.
- Complete the CAQH profile properly, telehealth section included.
- Confirm each payer's current modifier and place-of-service expectations before the first claim, not after the first denial.
- Only then open the caseload.
Psychologists who do this find the compact does what it promised. Psychologists who skip it discover that a legally impeccable practice can still be financially unworkable.
A note on scope
We handle licensure and compact authorization. Multi-state payer enrollment and credentialing is a genuinely different discipline, and it is handled by our sister team at whiteglovecredentialing.com. If you are planning a multi-state telepsychology practice, run both tracks together — the licensure timeline and the enrollment timeline overlap, and treating them as sequential is how a launch date slips by a quarter.
Need Help with Your Application?
We handle the PSYPACT® authorization and psychology licensure process end-to-end — eligibility screening, documents, board follow-ups, and tracking.