Princeton Cuts Pay for Some Students’ Therapists and Psychiatrists
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional details.
Due to financial pressures, Princeton is decreasing pay for the providers of some psychotherapy and psychiatry sessions beginning Aug. 1, in certain cases by nearly half or more, according to a mid-May email from the University’s Office of Finance and Treasury. The changes impact 228 people in Princeton’s Exclusive Provider Network (EPN) of “local and community mental health providers who … are contracted to accept the Student Health Plan,” according to the University Health Services website.
Of the 13 services offered by the EPN, chargeable rates decreased for all but two. The biggest reduction is a 71% cut for group medical psychotherapy, from $105 to $30 per session. For psychiatric diagnostic evaluations with no copay, the rate was cut from $334 per session to $173. The most common visits, according to the University, are follow-ups with a clinician, with rates decreasing from $180 to $167.
Princeton spokesperson Jennifer Morrill said a comprehensive evaluation of the Student Health Plan compared to “the local market and national benchmarks” led to the finding that EPN rates “were above prevailing benchmarks.” She added that the decreases in pay are also in response to University-wide budget cuts.
According to 2023 University data, that fiscal year the EPN saw about 69% of the students who sought outpatient mental health care — more than 1,100 claimants. Providers are paid by submitting claims to the University’s Student Health Plan for reimbursement.
PAW spoke with six EPN practitioners, most of whom requested not to be identified for fear of retaliation. All six expressed frustration at the decision, and two were not sure if they would remain in the EPN.
Upon seeing the notice, one provider told PAW they thought the University was “finally going to pay us a little closer to the going rate around here [in Princeton], but that was the complete opposite of what we got.” Another assumed the new rates were “a mistake … because there wasn’t really an acknowledgement that they were doing something really awful.”
Morrill said in an email that as of June 17 — after this story went to press — “76% of current EPN clinicians have acknowledged that they will remain in the network” — including the 20 highest-volume providers — and about 6% indicated they will not return. “As a result, 92% of students whose current providers are part of the EPN will not see a change in their provider.”
One provider told PAW they will continue working with their current clients, because they feel it would be unfair to abandon them, but they decided “not take any future Princeton students.” Regarding the number of providers who will remain in the EPN, the person said, “The numbers can be deceiving.”
Around 120 EPN providers signed a letter, which was also sent to PAW, saying they were concerned that students’ access to in-network mental health care providers will be limited and could lead to an increase in intense treatment, such as emergency hospitalization.
Calvin Chin, director of Counseling and Psychological Services, responded to the providers that “off-campus clinicians play an essential and valued role,” but recognized the changes “may affect your ability or willingness to continue participating in the EPN or the number of students you are able to see.”
“We are confident that the changes to the fee structure will not compromise the quality or availability of care to our students,” said Morrill.
Tiffanie Cheng Wu ’24, founder of the Princeton Alumni Mental Health Coalition, said because Princeton “has consistently stated that student mental health is a priority,” she hopes the University will be transparent “about how these changes align with that commitment and what steps will be taken to ensure that access to care is not diminished.”



3 Responses
Peter J. Greenhill ’81
3 Days AgoPrioritize and Value Student Health
A country’s government shows what it values by how much money it devotes to this or that area of its citizens’ lives. (Ours, for example, devotes far more money to the military than to education.) These concepts apply just as much to universities. I was astonished to see indicated in a recent article in PAW that Princeton was making cuts to the budget for student mental health services (On the Campus, July/August issue). We live during a time when mental illness among high school and college students is at epidemic levels, the highest rate ever recorded, yet our beloved university is scaling back on mental health support for its students. This is very unwise at best and shameful, foolish, and incomprehensible at worst. It is extremely tone deaf considering how well known this mental illness epidemic is. It strongly implies that the well-being of Princeton students is not a University priority. What could be more important than the health of the students? The University exists mostly for the benefit of its students. Princeton doesn’t seem to value student mental health highly enough. I would like convincing evidence that those in the administration who made this decision exhausted every other possibility for areas in the budget to cut. As it is, I am not convinced and am even appalled. I am open to being persuaded to change my mind, but on the face of it, we as a University community can do much, much better.
Michael Goldstein ’78
3 Months AgoFunding Mental Health Care
Princeton apparently found the money to pay an antisemtic speaker for his words of hatred (Mohammed El-Kurd in 2023), but can’t find the money to pay desperately needed healthcare professionals, especially considering the campus suicides over the past few years.
Julie List ’78, LCSW
3 Months AgoMixed Messages on Mental Health
Given the financial pressures, which are real, what is the University going to do about making up for the shortfall in providers? The disjuncture between what is being offered and what the students need seems to be growing. As a new member of Tiffanie Cheng Wu’s Alumni Mental Health Coalition, I have heard students and new alums speak about both internal and external pressures leading to great distress. So the message about taking mental health very seriously and yet cutting rates for much needed providers is inconsistent. What are the next steps to protect the students in these very difficult times?